The Threat of Creationism

[LuisDantas]

What does 'Godwin' mean? Although I'm sure I've been insulted. But is the next step for theists to forfeit their rights too as an undue burden to society.

Theism should not be an excuse to embrace obscurantism.

People who live in modern societies don't really have a choice not to pursue literacy, sanitation and other civic duties. Some effort for attaining at least a modicum of science education is or should be a part of those duties as well.

And ultimately, so-called "Creationism" is in truth just stubborn insistence on denial of that duty.

We should not suffer that.

 

[George-ananda]

Theism should not be an excuse to embrace obscurantism.

People who live in modern societies don't really have a choice not to pursue literacy, sanitation and other civic duties. Some effort for attaining at least a modicum of science education is or should be a part of those duties as well.

And ultimately, so-called "Creationism" is in truth just stubborn insistence on denial of that duty.

We should not suffer that.

What would you propose doing with stubborn and outspoken creationists?

I hope you are at least just referring to young earth creationists (as I am an old earth creationist).

 

[LuisDantas]

What would you propose doing with stubborn and outspoken creationists?

The same I do with racism, homophobia, belief in trickle-down economics, flat-earthers or promotion of recreative drugs (legal or otherwise): spread word of mouth and campaign in any other ways available in order to give them reason to reconsider and warn others against lending them credibility.

Such groups survive out of undeserved social acceptance, which should be denied them outright.

I hope you are at least just referring to young earth creationists (as I am an old earth creationist).

No, there is very little difference in merit (for lack of a better word) between those two movements. It is just a tiny difference of degree of damage.

I rarely even remember of the distinction. It lacks practical significance.

 

[George-ananda]

The same I do with racism, homophobia, belief in trickle-down economics, flat-earthers or promotion of recreative drugs (legal or otherwise): spread word of mouth and campaign in any other ways available in order to give them reason to reconsider and warn others against lending them credibility.

Such groups survive out of undeserved social acceptance, which should be denied them outright.

No, there is very little different in merit (for lack of a better word) between those two movements. It is just a tiny difference of degree of damage.

I rarely even remember of the distinction. It lacks practical significance.

My oh my......Belief in Advaita deserves no social acceptance (as it states the universe is a play/drama of Brahman and therefore created)?? Only atheism and materialism is acceptable?? Is anything beyond YOUR beliefs socially acceptable? Christianity implies a creator even if evolution is accepted.

I hope for your sake I am misunderstanding you.

 

[LuisDantas]

My oh my......Belief in Advaita deserves no social acceptance (as it states the universe is a play/drama of Brahman and therefore created)??

I have no idea why you think so. I certainly don't.

Advaita deserves better than being lumped with Creationism.

Only atheism and materialism is acceptable??

Hardly. I am not even sure what you mean by "materialism", but regardless, that is not even remotely true.

Rather, belief is no excuse for socially irresponsible behavior and ideology. There is a a responsibility of belief, and there is a duty to warn others about the dangers of their beliefs.

Is anything beyond YOUR beliefs socially acceptable?

Come on, you know as well as I do that such a cheap shot deserves no answer. It is in truth beneath you.

Christianity implies a creator even if evolution is accepted.

Yes, it does. "Creationism" is a misnomer. It is a politically acceptable name for a movement that is in reality fearful denial of scientific knowledge.

I hope for your sake I am misunderstanding you.

As do I, for your sake.

 

[`mud]

Just amazing !
~
All those perversions,
all that worshipping,
all those beginnings,
and no visible leader !
~
But we do have life,
for a while.
Why waste it ?
~
'mud

 

[Kartari]

Hi George,

I am not for teaching creationism in a science class. But to mention it as a competing theory is not that terrible and might actually help kids to think about the issue and help science rid unscientific thinking in the end.

Creationism is not a competing scientific theory, though. Calling it a theory comparable to evolution implies a lack of understanding of the large distinction between evidence-based scientific theories and mere imaginings and thoughts about a subject matter.

And you have to look pretty hard to find some state or textbook in which even includes this as a competing theory.

Hard to find? I don't know where you live, but I live in the United States and it's not that hard to find here. Did you see my links in my previous post? According to this article's map, 14 states use public funds in charter schools to teach creationism in science classes. And this does not count public schools more broadly, as in the case of Kansas and several other states which have struggled over teaching creationism as science in public schools.

I think my point is I see that this as a theoretical debate between the two sides with very little practical importance. To call it the "Threat of Creationism' (as in the OP title) is overblown and I think this is more a pet issue of people that don't like religion period. I feel no threat to society.

The problem is not creationism itself, which when understood in its proper context as mythology is one thing. It is a threat though when people fail to understand the distinction between scientific theory and mythology. Sadly, I think it's not an uncommon failure to conflate the two concepts. This is a basic understanding that schools should be instilling in our youth. Indeed, I think this is at least symptomatic, if not a contributing cause, of the wider problem of lagging educational quality in the United States.

Why? How often does the creationist/evolutionist debate come into play in everyday life? They can live just fine in mainstream society.

Knowledge is power, and misinformation is more dangerous than the lack of knowledge. Especially when that misinformation is presented to children as truth. I think that failing to educate kids well in science will have grave consequences when they grow up to make life decisions and vote. It might not seem to have specific practical problems at a glance, but it does fester a fundamental inability to understand science and therefore life itself.

If someone fails to understand that evolution is not "just a theory," they will fail to understand biology more broadly. Medicine will be more of a mystery to them, for instance. They will fail to understand genetics, mutations, how the body's immune system works - these might all be regarded as "just a theory" to them. Someone like this might be prone to think that God alone heals through faith and grace and refuses to take proper medical care of themselves or their own children, likely resulting in killing themselves or their kids. Likewise, someone who thinks that global warming is "just a theory" because earth science more broadly is "just a theory" will fail to apprehend and appreciate the problem and vote for measures which contribute to the problem.

The broader issue here is a failure to teach science well: to conflate myth with science is to confuse people into living in a fantasy world which, in reality, ends up causing more harm than good.

 

[Unification]

My point was that I see it as a gnat sized problem that the anti-religionists like to exploit as some great sized problem.

While I would choose more wise words rather than "anti-religionists," I agree that it isn't even an issue. That it is a great sized problem is fear doctrine as well. The gnat I see is in public schools. Render to science what is science's.

 

[George-ananda]

I have no idea why you think so. I certainly don't.

Advaita deserves better than being lumped with Creationism.


Hardly. I am not even sure what you mean by "materialism", but regardless, that is not even remotely true.

Rather, belief is no excuse for socially irresponsible behavior and ideology. There is a a responsibility of belief, and there is a duty to warn others about the dangers of their beliefs.

Come on, you know as well as I do that such a cheap shot deserves no answer. It is in truth beneath you.


Yes, it does. "Creationism" is a misnomer. It is a politically acceptable name for a movement that is in reality fearful denial of scientific knowledge.

As do I, for your sake.

Wait a minute. I was responding to your statement that you saw no difference between young earth creationism and old earth creationism (which exists in Advaita).

Re-read the last part of your post #43. Maybe you didn't explain yourself well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Wait a minute. I was responding to your statement that you saw no difference between young earth creationism and old earth creationism (which exists in Advaita).

Are you sure about that? Belief in a creator God is only very rarely equated with Creationism, which is a far more specific idea far as I know.

Re-read the last part of your post #43. Maybe you didn't explain yourself well.

No, I stand by what I said and I am disappointed that it is still so necessary to say it.

 

[Unification]

Wait a minute. I was responding to your statement that you saw no difference between young earth creationism and old earth creationism (which exists in Advaita).

Re-read the last part of your post #43. Maybe you didn't explain yourself well.

That you believe in science, evolution, it's timeframes, and driven by mind?

 

[George-ananda]

Are you sure about that? Belief in a creator God is only very rarely equated with Creationism, which is a far more specific idea far as I know.


No, I stand by what I said and I am disappointed that it is still so necessary to say it.

Apparently we are thinking with different definitions of 'creationism' so not understanding each other. You are using the a far more Creationism idea than I.

I see the universe as a creation of Brahman. Physical life was not a chance occurrence; it was a creation. You said you didn't see a difference between YEC and old earth creationism. That miffed me.

What I was trying to point out was that what I think you are really condemning is denial of scientific discoveries (YEC). Science has not fully discovered how/why abiogenesis and evolution occur and I believe it involves forces beyond current science's reach.

In science class though, they should stick to what mainstream science currently believes and perhaps mention the complete story is not yet known to science.

 

[George-ananda]

That you believe in science, evolution, it's timeframes, and driven by mind?

The universe is a thought-form, a play/drama of Brahman. Science, evolution, timeframes are just part of the drama. It's all a thought and not real in the ultimate. ultimate reality. But this is all metaphysical abstraction beyond the Creation vs. Evolution debate the OP was addressing and beyond science class textbooks..

 

[LuisDantas]

Apparently we are thinking with different definitions of 'creationism' so not understanding each other.

I agree.

I see the universe as a creation of Brahman. Physical life was not a chance occurrence; it was a creation.

I disagree, but that is a reasonable enough belief.

You said you didn't see a difference between YEC and old earth creationism. That miffed me.

What I was trying to point out was that what I think you are really condemning is denial of scientific discoveries (YEC).

You are correct, but I don't think YEC is the only form of creacionism that does such denial.

Science has not fully discovered how/why abiogenesis and evolution occur and I believe it involves forces beyond current science's reach.

Fair enough.

In science class though, they should stick to what mainstream science currently believes and perhaps mention the complete story is not yet known to science.

Science will never know everything.

 

[Vorkosigan]

This puts the creationist vs evolution debate in its proper context, and holds much truth even though the essay was written 30 years ago. I must confess that while I have never considered myself a militant follower of science, I could not suppress the idea that we are fighting against an inexhaustive army of ignorance which threaten to dim the bright future ahead. I found myself more unnerved by creationism while listening to this than I can remember previously.

The Threat of Creationism is that it promotes a non-scientific thinking as valid way to determine truth, and that’s just contra productive to human development.

 

[gnostic]

Science has not fully discovered how/why abiogenesis and evolution occur and I believe it involves forces beyond current science's reach.

You don't understand that science (I am talking about science in general, and not just evolution or abiogenesis) will always discover something new, so everything will always be not "fully discovered”.

But each discovery will increase our knowledge to each branch, field and subfields in science.

If you look at the Big Bang cosmology for example. There are number of earlier epochs that BB scientists have predicted, that are still hypothetical and theoretical, because our current technology cannot observe, verify or refute anything older than the Recombination epoch (such as the Planck epoch, the Great Unification epoch, Inflationary epoch, Quark epoch, etc.)

The Recombination epoch (RE) marks the beginning of when electrons finally bonded with atomic neclei of ionised hydrogen and ionised helium elements, producing electrically neutral hydrogen and helium atoms. This bonding caused the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the earliest observable event that we can observe, research, collect data from.

However, all these earlier epochs, are pretty much solid, as far theoretical physics can be, as it follow each epoch backward, it is logical that they follow things that should happen with quantum physics and general relativity before everything break down as one near the singularity.

For example, before a single electron bond with nucleus of ionised hydrogen atom, it more than just logic that nucleus must form around a proton particle, first (for ionised helium to form, the nucleus must enclosed 2 protons and 2 neutrons; there are no neutron in hydrogen nucleus). This epoch is known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), first predicted by George Gamow, in 1948. According to the current theory, BBN started 10 seconds after the Big Bang, and ended 20 minutes after the Big Bang.

Before BB Nucleosynthesis can happen, another earlier epoch would explain how protons and neutrons were formed from the subatomic particles - quarks. Each proton and each neutron are made of two quarks, and producing these new protons and neutrons from smaller particles are known as hadrons. This epoch is called Hadron epoch.

And there many more epochs before BBN and the Hadron epoch, like when quarks, electrons, leptons, etc, first formed.

The predictions of each earlier epoch, are based on our understanding of the Standard Modern of particle physics.

My point in all this with the Big Bang, is to show that there are lot more that we can still learn, and even more to be discovered.

But with evolution, we have a lot of evidences that actually supported what we know already. And there are still more we can learn and discover in evolution. More evidences than we have on gravity, more than we have on general relativity and quantum physics.

One thing we don't need, is your superstition of this creation or Brahman. The concept of Brahman don't explain anything of how nature works, and it is no better than the creation myths of the Abrahamic religions that say "God did it".

 

[George-ananda]

You don't understand that science (I am talking about science in general, and not just evolution or abiogenesis) will always discover something new, so everything will always be not "fully discovered”.

But each discovery will increase our knowledge to each branch, field and subfields in science.

If you look at the Big Bang cosmology for example. There are number of earlier epochs that BB scientists have predicted, that are still hypothetical and theoretical, because our current technology cannot observe, verify or refute anything older than the Recombination epoch (such as the Planck epoch, the Great Unification epoch, Inflationary epoch, Quark epoch, etc.)

The Recombination epoch (RE) marks the beginning of when electrons finally bonded with atomic neclei of ionised hydrogen and ionised helium elements, producing electrically neutral hydrogen and helium atoms. This bonding caused the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the earliest observable event that we can observe, research, collect data from.

However, all these earlier epochs, are pretty much solid, as far theoretical physics can be, as it follow each epoch backward, it is logical that they follow things that should happen with quantum physics and general relativity before everything break down as one near the singularity.

For example, before a single electron bond with nucleus of ionised hydrogen atom, it more than just logic that nucleus must form around a proton particle, first (for ionised helium to form, the nucleus must enclosed 2 protons and 2 neutrons; there are no neutron in hydrogen nucleus). This epoch is known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), first predicted by George Gamow, in 1948. According to the current theory, BBN started 10 seconds after the Big Bang, and ended 20 minutes after the Big Bang.

Before BB Nucleosynthesis can happen, another earlier epoch would explain how protons and neutrons were formed from the subatomic particles - quarks. Each proton and each neutron are made of two quarks, and producing these new protons and neutrons from smaller particles are known as hadrons. This epoch is called Hadron epoch.

And there many more epochs before BBN and the Hadron epoch, like when quarks, electrons, leptons, etc, first formed.

The predictions of each earlier epoch, are based on our understanding of the Standard Modern of particle physics.

My point in all this with the Big Bang, is to show that there are lot more that we can still learn, and even more to be discovered.

But with evolution, we have a lot of evidences that actually supported what we know already. And there are still more we can learn and discover in evolution. More evidences than we have on gravity, more than we have on general relativity and quantum physics.

Ok. Fine. Nothing I really disagree with so far.

One thing we don't need, is your superstition of this creation or Brahman.

What is wrong with metaphysics? It is a valid field of philosophical inquiry.

The concept of Brahman don't explain anything of how nature works, and it is no better than the creation myths of the Abrahamic religions that say "God did it".

A metaphysical concept like Brahman is not intended to explain the details of how nature works. That is what another valid field does; Science.

 

[gnostic]

What is wrong with metaphysics? It is a valid field of philosophical inquiry.

While metaphysics have some merits, it often descends into circular reasoning as many philosophies do, as self-justification for why they believe in, especially when metaphysics philosophers venture into the areas of spiritualism and religions, with beliefs like that of the Creator, Intelligent Designer or in your case, of Brahman.

Almost every religions rely on some sorts of magical or supernatural beings to something like creation; they are simply using personification or abstract personification, to explain their existence, which is essentially what I would call "superstition".

That when any progress to inquiry, either go sideways, or come to a screeching stop.

Everyone are entitled to believe whatever he or she desire...but, of course (there's always a "but" somewhere)...but, when you tell me, science cannot know all the answer, and that I should seek answers from religions, then I will tell you that religions don't have much knowledge.

I am not concerned that science that don't have all the answers, because it challenge people to seek or investigate what they don't know without using some half-cocked supernatural answers.

 

[George-ananda]

While metaphysics have some merits, it often descends into circular reasoning as many philosophies do, as self-justification for why they believe in, especially when metaphysics philosophers venture into the areas of spiritualism and religions, with beliefs like that of the Creator, Intelligent Designer or in your case, of Brahman.

Almost every religions rely on some sorts of magical or supernatural beings to something like creation; they are simply using personification or abstract personification, to explain their existence, which is essentially what I would call "superstition".

What is wrong with creating theories. My beliefs come from IMO the insight of many adepts that have perceived the nature of the universe beyond science's reach. If you want to believe only the data from scientific instruments that is your choice too.

That when any progress to inquiry, either go sideways, or come to a screeching stop.

No reasonable religious person like myself would ever want to stop inquiry by science. That is a false tale still claimed by many atheists

Everyone are entitled to believe whatever he or she desire...but, of course (there's always a "but" somewhere)...but, when you tell me, science cannot know all the answer, and that I should seek answers from religions, then I will tell you that religions don't have much knowledge.

Well, then it is a good thing that the above is not what I said. I said current science does not know all the answers and that I believe some answers are beyond its current reach but someday perhaps its reach will expand..

I am not concerned that science that don't have all the answers, because it challenge people to seek or investigate what they don't know without using some half-cocked supernatural answers.

Again, it is an untrue claim that modern reasonable religious people want to thwart continued investigation. In fact there are top physicists of all religions including non-dual Hinduism (Advaita).

 

[Vorkosigan]

What is wrong with creating theories. My beliefs come from IMO the insight of many adepts that have perceived the nature of the universe beyond science's reach. If you want to believe only the data from scientific instruments that is your choice too.

No reasonable religious person like myself would ever want to stop inquiry by science. That is a false tale still claimed by many atheists

Well, then it is a good thing that the above is not what I said. I said current science does not know all the answers and that I believe some answers are beyond its current reach but someday perhaps its reach will expand..

Again, it is an untrue claim that modern reasonable religious people want to thwart continued investigation. In fact there are top physicists of all religions including non-dual Hinduism (Advaita).

I am curious, are you interested in finding the truth, or in validating your myth of choice?