demiurgent: (Malachite Face)
[personal profile] demiurgent
Creationism -- now "intelligent design" -- is based on a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis. In other words, as you all know, it's Religion. Theology. A Myth of Creation. The current debate is whether or not it should be included alongside evolutionary (and one assumes planetary) science in science courses.

I've heard a number of points (mostly sophistry) about it. "There's no way to prove God didn't create the Earth in seven days." "We just want people to know all the theories." And so forth. And I've heard any number of good arguments against it, like "if we include one creation myth -- the Christian one -- we also need to include the Native American myths, the Buddist myths, the Greek myths, the Norse myths, et al," and "there's nothing scientific about it. Teach it in Theology where it belongs, but save things that can be verified with observation and math for science class."

That misses an essential point about strict Biblical Creationism, when applied to the real world. A point that to me damns it from a key theological position.

Let us say, for the record, that God created the Earth in six days approximately five thousand years ago. Let us also say that he is all powerful, that he put everything in place as it is.

If God did all of this... then he also put an absolute preponderance of verifiable, measurable and reproducible evidence that suggests A) the Earth is millions of years older than it really is, and B) that evolution works exactly the way it seems to be.

If we're going to accept Creationism literally and at face value, then God stacked the deck with evidence that it's wrong and punishes people for believing in planetary science and evolutionary theory based on the conditions He created.

I submit that a benevolent God wouldn't be that much of a bastard. I further submit that if he is that much of a bastard, all the bits of the Bible about how much He loves us are wrong. And if those bits are wrong, we can hardly take the Creation myth at face value. If He isn't a heartless bastard who enjoys damning people, then either the Creation didn't happen as it's put forth in the Bible or he doesn't care if we figure out the mechanisms of evolution, treat those as science (and the Bible as Religion), and doesn't use science as a litmus test.

In either scenario, evolution and planetary science should be taught in Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and creationism shouldn't be. And failure to follow that questions the beneficence of the Lord. And that seems like a much bigger sin than talking about Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-11 01:10 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elvedril.livejournal.com
Now I don't consider myself to be an authority on intelligent design, but aren't they the group that thought creation happened about the same time that evolutionists think it did? I thought that the only major issue of disagreement was whether it happened by chance or if an intelligent designer did it... If so isn't your whole fossil argument only work with a certain group of creationists and not "intelligent design" people, like you claim in the first sentence?

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-11 01:32 am (UTC)
archangelbeth: An egyptian-inspired eye, centered between feathered wings. (Default)
From: [personal profile] archangelbeth
It's my understanding (I could be wrong!) that the Creationists have hijacked Intelligent Design and been busily redefining it. Which annoys me vastly, because I have my own theories about nudging those amino acids, and I don't mind the idea that sometimes they got a tweak.

But it really shouldn't be in science class. "Here's what happened, and here's how it could have been all coincidence" is more science. Faith or suspicions of meddling... is for a different study group.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-11 01:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elvedril.livejournal.com
"Here's what happened, and here's how it could have been all coincidence" is more science.

I dunno. I have an issue with a science teacher standing up front saying "this happened by sheer coincidence, no other possible explanation for amino acids could possibly ever in a million years be possible, to claim otherwise is to be a moron". I think if we get the biology teacher to explain how amino acids work and how survival of the fittest can explain change in creatures over millions of years. The teacher's personal theory on exactly why that is, whether it involves Thor making amino acids on a space anvil or sheer coincidence, seems rather tangential to the big question which is: "now that the amino acids exist, how do they work?"

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-11 11:50 am (UTC)
archangelbeth: An egyptian-inspired eye, centered between feathered wings. (Default)
From: [personal profile] archangelbeth
Note that I said "how it could have been" -- statistics are mighty tools. Besides, the whole viewpoint thing is recursive. We can think about intelligent design questions because we have these mighty brains to think about it.

Then you go over to your companion religion/statistics class and get to talk about miracles vs. low probability happenstance, and everyone's head can hurt appropriately.

(I just got up. Don't expect sense.)

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-11 02:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] elvedril.livejournal.com
Look I basically agree with you. I'm just saying that to encourage teachers to dismiss ID (as a philosophical possibility of somebody nudging the process not as a scientific theory that replaces the process) is doing the science classroom a disservice. They're isolating a small sub-group of their students and making the whole science thing seem aggressive and anti-religious to them. It doesn't give them anything for it, the statistical probability is not the most important part of the concept especially at the high school level.

I believe that school should engage students, regardless of background and beliefs, rather than attack some of them for holding beliefs some others might find irrational. Evolution can be taught in a way that is convincing but not confrontational, and that is the goal I think we should strive for. I'm not suggesting teaching ID, I'm just saying we shouldn't attack it in the classroom either.

(no subject)

Date: 2005-08-12 04:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kazriko.livejournal.com
Nod, They shouldn't attack it. But it's not a scientific theory either. Neither is the idea that there is no god. It's untestable. Basically, teach science as science, and bring up ID only in response to questions about it. Just say "That could be correct, but there's no way to test it" or something to that effect.

Profile

demiurgent: (Default)
demiurgent

June 2013

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags