Why does evolution vs creation matter to you?

[TagliatelliMonster]

My interest in this topic might be because one of my spiritual teachers might have said that that the ancestors of humans have always been human, and I was trying to see how that might be true. I know that on one side some people are concerned about evolution theory being used in public schools to discredit their beliefs, and on the other side some people are concerned about people trying to use public education to promote or defend religious beliefs.

Some people might be trying to defend science against attacks from religious factions, but science is being attacked on many fronts including by people who think they’re defending it. If you’re defending science, why have you chosen this particular battle ground?

Some people might be trying to defend faith in God against attacks from anti-faith factions, but faith in God is being attacked on many fronts, including by people who think they’re defending it. If you’re defending faith in God, why have you chosen this particular battle ground?

Because science denial in general is, imo, the biggest threat to human existance.

In this day and age, it is downright dangerous and detrimental for human society, and the world at large, to deny solid science.

Sorry, but if your religion says that humans didn't evolve, then your religion is just incorrect.
And it is high time to let go of that asanine idea that somehow religious beliefs like that should be "respected". They most certaintly should not.

This is how you raise people who believe in nonsense like homeopathy, astrology, crystal healings, etc... or who deny things like evolution, climate change, etc.

It's a far bigger threat to human society then whatever terrorist organization, or even country, you can think off.

Allowing such asanines mentalities unchallenged, is what will make billions die 200 years from now, when climate change goes completely out of control.


Superstition, is a societal cancerous tumor. When it gets to big, it becomes terminal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are from Germany...you can confirm in Europe there has never been such a debate...or at least I have never heard of YEC or any Creationism...

YECs / evolution deniers exist over here. But they are nothing but a laughing stock.
Nobody in his right mind here, would give them a platform for their nonsense.

You won't see such idiots on national TV for example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? Aside from the obvious challenges these present in your chosen career, how do the beliefs of other impact you personally?

Their beliefs inform their decisions and actions.
Decisions and actions have impact that go beyond the personal space.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think we're missing the point here.

Do we really think that if there is a subset of creationists in society (as there has been for millennia), will ultimately override those that accept the science of evolution.

The trend is actually heading in the other direction:

Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design

If those asanines superstitious ideas remain unchallenged, if we are told that we must "respect" such superstitious beliefs, then what we are really doing is giving credence to the idea that science isn't something that needs to be taken seriously.

And that is very very bad.

That's how you end up with people in power like Trump, Farage and Boris the Animal.

 

[exchemist]

Why? Aside from the obvious challenges these present in your chosen career, how do the beliefs of other impact you personally?

I find this a slightly demeaning comment, actually, though I'm sure you did not mean in that way. God knows, teachers and university dons are not in it for the money! Most of them have a love of knowledge that they want to impart to others, do they not? Educators I have known find it a source of personal pain when things are misunderstood and want to inform people better.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I find this a slightly demeaning comment, actually, though I'm sure you did not mean in that way. God knows, teachers and university dons are not in it for the money! Most of them have a love of knowledge that they want to impart to others, do they not? Educators I have known find it a source of personal pain when things are misunderstood and want to inform people better.

If you found it demeaning, it's because you're taking it out of context and because you're taking a question and inferring intent that simply isn't there.

This thread is about personal beliefs of others and one's desire to change them, not about educating students.

I would hope you would know me better than to think I would demean anyone here for their personal views and choices, especially those that are inconsequential to me.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Their beliefs inform their decisions and actions.
Decisions and actions have impact that go beyond the personal space.

How do they encroach on yours?

 

[SalixIncendium]

If those asanines superstitious ideas remain unchallenged, if we are told that we must "respect" such superstitious beliefs, then what we are really doing is giving credence to the idea that science isn't something that needs to be taken seriously.

So how has not respecting them worked for us so far? I'm certain disrespecting another's beliefs would never lead to violence or war.

And that is very very bad.

Please provide some evidence as to why this is "very very bad." It would appear to me that shoving one's views down another's throat has led to more violence and war than allowing some to believe in creation.

That's how you end up with people in power like Trump, Farage and Boris the Animal.

Because creationists?

 

[Estro Felino]

Boris the Animal.

I love Boris

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how has not respecting them worked for us so far? I'm certain disrespecting another's beliefs would never lead to violence or war.

Beliefs aren't worthy of respect, just because someone holds them.
If those who can't handle their beliefs being challenged and shown false feel a need to resort to violence, that's on them.

Please provide some evidence as to why this is "very very bad."

If climate change deniers are in power and do nothing about carbon emissions etc, then global warming will get worse, mass extinction will ensue and billions of humans will die.

If medial science deniers refuse treatment for their children, they die.

If anti-vaxxers refuse to have their kids vaccinated, they are putting their children at risk.

Need I go on?

If you ignore scientific knowledge, you'll eventually end up making bad decidions. Decisions have consequences.

Good decisions have good consequences.
Bad decisions have bad consequences.
Beliefs inform decisions.

It would appear to me that shoving one's views down another's throat has led to more violence and war than allowing some to believe in creation.

I'm not advocating "showing beliefs down people's throats". The exact opposite. I'm opposing those who do that.

What I'm advocating is education, not indoctrination.

Because creationists?

Because of this mentality that one should respect people's beliefs, just because they hold them.

BS should never remain unchallenged.
That goes for all BS.

By putting religious beliefs on this priviliged position and that we should apparantly cater / accomodate / respect such fantastical beliefs, we created a culture where it's seen as "impolite" or "disrespectfull" to call people out on their nonsense.

"it's just what I believe and I have that right!" has somehow become some kind of catch-all phrase that serves as a cop-out for people to actually defend their claims, as if they are exempt from it.

People even speak of science that way as well. "it's just what scientists believe". As if you get to chose how reality actually works.

We need to move on from this cultural cancer.

No, we should not just respect beliefs "just because".
Beliefs should be respected (or not) on their merrits / contents. It doesn't matter if people hold them or not.

As the famous saying goes: You have a right to your beliefs / opinions, but you do not have a right to your own "facts".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do they encroach on yours?

Through their votes, would be an obvious one.

 

[exchemist]

If you found it demeaning, it's because you're taking it out of context and because you're taking a question and inferring intent that simply isn't there.

This thread is about personal beliefs of others and one's desire to change them, not about educating students.

I would hope you would know me better than to think I would demean anyone here for their personal views and choices, especially those that are inconsequential to me.

Indeed I do, which is why I wrote it the way I did.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I feel religion to be a danger to progress - plain and simple. If a person thinks they (or their pastor/guru/etc.) know all the answers, are they going to look into issues more in-depth and actually discover what is real and cogent?

Many religions think they know the answers, and as has been seen throughout time, those religions' adherents will often attempt to block investigations and muddy results being uncovered by their fellow humans in order to preserve their meager hope that they already hold copyright to "the truth" in their religious circles. May as well be a bunch of scared little sheep pretending there is a wolf outside.

 

[Jainarayan]

I doesn't matter to me personally, because I do not believe in Creationism. It matters to me on a larger scale if it is forced on the school system because it is clearly religious in nature. Even when I was Christian I did not believe in Creationism literally; it was just a metaphor or allegory.

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case, the ruling by Judge John E. Jones was that Intelligent Design is veiled Creationism, a religious belief. Moreover, it is a religious belief of the Abrahamic religions, which certainly do not represent all religious beliefs; they should not take precedence over any other belief system in a secular country.

 

[Jose Fly]

My interest in this topic might be because one of my spiritual teachers might have said that that the ancestors of humans have always been human, and I was trying to see how that might be true. I know that on one side some people are concerned about evolution theory being used in public schools to discredit their beliefs, and on the other side some people are concerned about people trying to use public education to promote or defend religious beliefs.

Some people might be trying to defend science against attacks from religious factions, but science is being attacked on many fronts including by people who think they’re defending it. If you’re defending science, why have you chosen this particular battle ground?

Some people might be trying to defend faith in God against attacks from anti-faith factions, but faith in God is being attacked on many fronts, including by people who think they’re defending it. If you’re defending faith in God, why have you chosen this particular battle ground?

There are multiple reasons for me.

1) The obvious public policy issue and the implications it has for society;

2) I'm fascinated by the psychology behind denialism;

3) Participating in the debates motivates me to learn about areas of science that I wouldn't otherwise pay much attention to;

4) It's downright hilarious, and extremely entertaining at times.

 

[Quintessence]

Generally speaking, I don't have a horse in the race that is "evolution vs creationism" because of how the debate is typically framed. I find the framing of "evolution vs creationism" fundamentally problematic; challenging that framing is the main reason why the discussion matters to me at all. If it were up to me, this subforum wouldn't exist. I tolerate its existence because I recognize that if we were to remove it, the trash would spew itself all over the place instead of being contained in this nice, convenient garbage can that is the "Evolution vs Creation" subforum. That's not to say there aren't occasionally good discussions/debates that happen in this subforum. But they're few and far between... in no small part because of framing.

The name of this subforum is inherently polarizing. The staff team did have a discussion a long while back about renaming it and it might not be a bad idea for us to revisit that. Did you know that the "Science and Religion" subforum used to be named "Science Vs. Religion?" We changed the name of that subforum because it erroneously conveyed that science and religion were necessarily in competition or in opposition with each other. They are not. The title of the "Evolution Vs. Creation" subforum has the same problem. It implies the two are necessarily in competition or opposition with each other. They are not. I have no horse in the race of "evolution vs creationism" because I recognize this and reject the notion of some necessary conflict or opposition. Furthermore, I understand that "creationism" doesn't just refer to Biblical literalism, or even Biblical creation mythos just in general.

I mostly ignore that this subforum exists. When I do come in here, it's to remind people that there are more than two poles to this discussion. I doubt this mediating between two poles of stupid does much, but if nobody does it, well... silence is worse.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My interest in this topic might be because one of my spiritual teachers might have said

I don't post that much in the creation evolution controversies, because it is endless and tiring. My interest is very personal, however. Scientists are reviled as buffoons manipulated by Satan. Their personal intelligence (and hence the Logos within them) is derided. This affects us all and attacks us all. In order to perform hard Scientific research a person much exercise discipline and sink a lot of time into perfection of skills that most people ignore. They combine the accuracy of accounting with the creativity of a craftsman, and they practice in both areas. It is admirable to pursue this knowledge and skill. It is devilry to decry it as the enemy of truth. The work of a Scientist is often an expression of love.

I think truth is the cart which follows after love, not the other way around, so I need not defend beliefs in God, nor worry that Science is going to permanently go astray. Indeed truths cannot be defended, because that is not how truth operates. Its not a matter of argument. Its a matter of the heart and safeguarded there. Truths will present themselves like plants do when there is rain. They may not be what we are expecting, but that might be a good thing, too. What good are our plans for the beliefs of other people?

Defend scientists. Science defends itself.

 

[exchemist]

I feel religion to be a danger to progress - plain and simple. If a person thinks they (or their pastor/guru/etc.) know all the answers, are they going to look into issues more in-depth and actually discover what is real and cogent?

Many religions think they know the answers, and as has been seen throughout time, those religions' adherents will often attempt to block investigations and muddy results being uncovered by their fellow humans in order to preserve their meager hope that they already hold copyright to "the truth" in their religious circles. May as well be a bunch of scared little sheep pretending there is a wolf outside.

Come off it! Most religion makes no such claims, nor does it impede knowledge-seeking activities of humanity. It's true that fundies may try, from time to time, but most religion is not fundie.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

I think in a proper understanding of science and religion, the two might be 100% compatible.Though, I don't think anyone has ever really achieved that proper, 100% understanding. We can just aim for it.

Well said! Until very recently the scientific establishment was hostile to any attempt to incorporate metaphysical claims* with scientific theory etc. In fact the 'science establishment' has enjoyed dominance since the 1920's when Logical positivism and logical empiricism finally expelled the last metaphysical elements that imbedded science .** Fast forward past the God is dead movement of the 60's to the current decade where science E must admit that they can't prove Gods demise (read with tongue in cheek). Finally scientific Philosophy is having to acknowledge religious i.e. metaphysical claims, including debates where well known scientist's and science philosophers against PhD enabled Christian and other apologists like William Craig and Behe. Its a start, Gödel*** would be happy!

* Metaphysical as relates to religious spiritual.

** Logical Positivism (some material from the web); About 1907 to 1920 A doctrine that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method, refusing every form of metaphysics.

*** Kurt Godel …. Godel was an eminent Logician that worked with Einstein in the USA. He was considered by some peers as possessing genius equal to Einstein. Gödel however was a Metaphysical holdout even while a member of the famous who whos of science i.e. the Vienna Circle. It was a think tank that held a positivistic rejection of all metaphysics.

 

[exchemist]

Well said! Until very recently the scientific establishment was hostile to any attempt to incorporate metaphysical claims* with scientific theory etc. In fact the 'science establishment' has enjoyed dominance since the 1920's when Logical positivism and logical empiricism finally expelled the last metaphysical elements that imbedded science .** Fast forward past the God is dead movement of the 60's to the current decade where science E must admit that they can't prove Gods demise (read with tongue in cheek). Finally scientific Philosophy is having to acknowledge religious i.e. metaphysical claims, including debates where well known scientist's and science philosophers against PhD enabled Christian and other apologists like William Craig and Behe. Its a start, Gödel*** would be happy!

* Metaphysical as relates to religious spiritual.

** Logical Positivism (some material from the web); About 1907 to 1920 A doctrine that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method, refusing every form of metaphysics.

*** Kurt Godel …. Godel was an eminent Logician that worked with Einstein in the USA. He was considered by some peers as possessing genius equal to Einstein. Gödel however was a Metaphysical holdout even while a member of the famous who whos of science i.e. the Vienna Circle. It was a think tank that held a positivistic rejection of all metaphysics.

This does not sound right to me. As far as I am aware, science has never been, and is not now, interested in metaphysics. The closest it gets is in some speculative areas of cosmology, for which we are nowhere close to making observations to test the speculations, for instance what may have "caused" the big bang. If you claim there was metaphysics in science before the 1920s, can you provide examples?

Science has never sought to "prove God's demise". What are you thinking of when you make this statement?