US 'doomed' if creationist president elected: scientists

[loco]

How many U.S. presidents didn't believe that God created humans in their present form?  Yet the US wasn't doomed.

[rockyfortune]

rocky fortune, in deciding which, if any, creationism should be taught in the curriculum, which factor do you think should be the deciding factor?

Is it the evidence that supports that particular creationism? The number of publications in peer-reviewed scientific that support it? Or what?

I have searched far and wide for a pro-creationism scientific journal article, and have come up empty. I even put it to my creationist friends on here, and so far they have not answered that challenge.

i can't answer that...but i would not be opposed to having a pow-wow of educators, theologians, philosophers, etc to come up with a particular creationism curriculum..i think all people are entitled to seeing all sides of the box..and not just one particular side...while this might be better achieved in a collegiate setting i think it's possible to appoint members of school boards to come up with some appropriate ''origin of man'' curriculum that could open high school students eyes to the viewpoints of all both secular and religious...it's the point of education to not just teach facts and figures but to teach students to think for themselves---

[loco]

Do you propose teaching them both in science class? And if so, which creationism do you propose be taught?

Young Earth Creationism? Old Earth Creationism? Intelligent Design? These and many more are just the Christian creationisms.

Under the constitution, the US government cannot favor any one religion, so the curriculum would also have to include Hindu creation myths, Islamic creation myths, and the creation myth of every Native American tribe.

Moreover, if some people announce that they believe that the world was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and that they worship Him (they call themselves 'pastafarians'), then the curriculum is also going to have to include Flying Spaghetti Monster creationism.

If you allow one, you have to allow them all.

After all this, when will science teachers get to teach anything else?

The Discovery Institute ( http://www.discovery.org/ ) advocates Intelligent Design without favoring any particular religion, as many of it's scientists are non-religious theists, Muslims, Christians, etc.

I have read and watched some of their material and it has no mention of God, or any particular religion or holy text.  They simply advocate an Intelligent designer of the universe, earth and all living things.  They leave who or what the intelligent designer is up to you.  You could even say the intelligent designer is "The Force", or some advanced civilisation from another planet, if you want to believe that.

[loco]

loco, you have posted these lies before, and I have corrected you. Yours is a lame attempt at guilt by association: taint the central core of biology with Nazi eugenics.

It exposes your ignorance of what "evolution" is. If only you had taken the time to learn what it was about, you'd know that it has nothing to do with "survival of the fittest" people, or the "fittest" nation, or the "fittest" individual. It is merely the non-random differential survival of self-replicating genes.

Natural selection occurs when some genes make it into the bodies of individuals who become ancestors, while other genes do not. How can something so simple be so misunderstood? 

columbusdude82,
About Hitler, how are these lies?  Here it does not matter what you or I say or know about evolution.  This is History.  I did not just make it up.  It's about what Hitler knew, accepted, understood about evolution and about what he did.  Here you are talking about a US president who would doom America only because he doesn't accept evolution, yet you ignore a tyrant who accepted evolution and was motivated by it to doom many people in many nations.

And how have you corrected me?  I do remember you pointing out the difference between Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism".  However...

"I assumed that Darwin's theory of evolution and "Social Darwinism" were substantially distinct, and that "Social Darwinism" was a twisting of Darwin's theory in a way that Darwin would not have approved. Then I read Charles Darwin's Descent of Man and realized that my simplistic dichotomy between Darwin and "Social Darwinism" could not be maintained." - Dr. John G. West
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933859326/ref=s9_asin_image_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0M437Z8APXN5YA2Q1J14&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240701&pf_rd_i=507846
 
"Dr. West claims that " the eugenic movement, which led to the sterilization of tens of thousands of Americans against their will, many of whom would not be considered mentally handicapped today, was promoted by evolutionary biologists in the name of Darwinian natural selection." While this may not be factually incorrect, it obscures and omits some rather important details. For example, while many biologists did support eugenic policies, many important biologists did not." - Mark Borrello
http://www.mnscience.org/index.php?id=138

[Necrosis]

i must say the ignorance in this thread is astounding.


why do you guys reject evolution? there is all kinds of proof for it and one of you guys by the name of francis crick who mapped the genome(a christian) in his book talks about the ridiculousness of creationism. it has no evidence dont you see that?

evolution has more then most theories. you deny evolution but accept gravity?

there is no room for faith in science. evolution has evidence creationism has none, case closed.

[loco]

i must say the ignorance in this thread is astounding.


why do you guys reject evolution? there is all kinds of proof for it and one of you guys by the name of francis crick who mapped the genome(a christian) in his book talks about the ridiculousness of creationism. it has no evidence dont you see that?

evolution has more then most theories. you deny evolution but accept gravity?

there is no room for faith in science. evolution has evidence creationism has none, case closed.

We accept micro-evolution.

It is not like gravity because we personally test and observe gravity everyday.  Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been observed.

[Straw Man]

only creationists make the micro/macro distinction and that's most likely because on a micro scale it's literally IMPOSSIBLE to deny the evolutionary process.  It's nothing more than an intellectual defense mechanism.

These discussions are a waste of time for all sides.

Who cares

Science will continue moving foward (one might even say evolving) and Creationists will continue to live in past and continue to offer up ever more ridiculous excuses in order to reconcile reality with their peculiar folktale.

[loco]

The splitting of a species into two new species, or the change of a species over time into another, any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, have never been observed and there is no proof of such.

[columbusdude82]

loco, once again you display your ignorance concerning evolution. If only you'd spend one third of the time reading real science that you spend getting these quotes from creationist sites, you'd be a much better informed person.

Your conflation of evolution by natural selection and Hitler/eugenics/"social Darwinism" is getting old. It's a load of crap and you know it. Or if you don't, then you owe it to yourself to at least make an effort at informing yourself.

rocky, about your idea of working creationism into the science curriculum, tell me if you disagree with this strategy:
For an idea/theory/discovery to be included in school science curricula and textbooks,
1. Scientists at respectable research universities and institutes make the discovery, verify it, spend months rigorously testing it, etc
2. They write up their paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Harsh scrutiny from many reviewers leads to much refinement of the paper, verifying the authenticity of its claims, or maybe even rejecting altogether.
3. The paper is published in the journal, and scientists discuss it in conferences, symposia, journal discussions, etc
4. The idea becomes accepted in the scientific community.
5. Only then do we consider teaching the idea in science class in schools.

Do you agree that this is how new ideas make into the science curriculum?

If so, the onus is on you to find any creationist publications in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. OR you must reach the conclusion that creationism does not belong in science class.

[loco]

loco, once again you display your ignorance concerning evolution. If only you'd spend one third of the time reading real science that you spend getting these quotes from creationist sites, you'd be a much better informed person.

Your conflation of evolution by natural selection and Hitler/eugenics/"social Darwinism" is getting old. It's a load of crap and you know it. Or if you don't, then you owe it to yourself to at least make an effort at informing yourself.

columbusdude82,
The above are not quotes from creationist sites.  Instead of addressing my points, discussing this with me or "educating" me, you simply dismiss my posts and instead resort to insulting my intelligence and education.  You tend to do that to anyone who does not accept Darwin's theory of evolution.  Individuals who are smarter and better educated than you and I have both accepted or rejected evolution.  So don't just assume that anybody who rejects evolution is uneducated and ignorant.

"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution

[columbusdude82]

But trained biologists know their stuff, and they don't reject evolution. Fred Hoyle's argument against evolution was completely dismantled by Richard Dawkins. fred should stick to his physics because he doesn't know biology.

Spetner is a creationist, and he is not a trained biologist.

I listen to the experts.

[Necrosis]

We accept micro-evolution.

It is not like gravity because we personally test and observe gravity everyday.  Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been observed.

either has anything in quantum physics as we cannot see atoms and electrons are not things per se but possibilities. yet, without observing it we use quantum physics for such simple things as cellular phones.


there are many ways to defer truth, direct observation of something that by nature cannot be observed due to the timeline is no possible. your asking of evidence of observation is dishonest as we cannot observe millions of years of micro evolutions which result in what you call macro evolution.

we simply infer its reality from the evidence, namely the merits of the model, fossils, interpretation and dedection based on micro evolution etc.....

your asking for us to show you how a frog became a bird or something, something that if occured would take millions of years, so your rejection of it because it doesnt it hasnt been observed is premature.

also, before you say that i reject christ or god because i cant see him, evolution has other observable phenomenon, and tangible evidences like fossils, cell lines, genetics , medicine etc which all point to it. it has mountains of proof, from all different fields, something that strengthens its position further.

[loco]

But trained biologists know their stuff, and they don't reject evolution. Fred Hoyle's argument against evolution was completely dismantled by Richard Dawkins. fred should stick to his physics because he doesn't know biology.

Spetner is a creationist, and he is not a trained biologist.

I listen to the experts.

So educated individuals around the world are not allowed to reject Darwin's theory of evolution unless they have a PhD in Biology? Otherwise they are automatically ignorant and uneducated?  And then, even if they do get a PhD in Biology, they are labeled a creationist if they reject evolution?

I did not know that Spetner was considered a creationist by main-stream scientists.  Otherwise he wouldn't be taken seriously and TalkOrigins.com would not even bother to debate him.

You did not mention Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, a highly respected mathemetician:

"Biology is, of course, not my specialty. The participation of mathemeticians in the overall assessment of evolutionary thought has been encouraged by the biologists themselves, if only because they presented such an irresistible target. Richard Dawkins, for example, has been fatally attracted to arguments that would appear to hinge on concepts drawn from mathematics and from the computer sciences, the technical stuff imposed on innocent readers with all of his comic authority. Mathematicians are, in any case, epistemological zealots. It is normal for them to bring their critical scruples to the foundations of other disciplines. And finally, it is worth observing that the great turbid wave of cybernetics has carried mathematicians from their normal mid-ocean haunts to the far shores of evolutionary biology. There up ahead, Rene Thom and Ilya Prigogine may be observed paddling sedately toward dry land, members of the Santa Fe Institute thrashing in their wake. Stuart Kauffman is among them. An interesting case, a physician half in love with mathematical logic, burdened now and forever by having received a Papal Kiss from Murray Gell-Mann. This ecumenical movement has endeavored to apply the concepts of mathematics to the fundamental problems of evolution -- the interpretation of functional complexity, for example." - Marcel-Paul Schützenberger

As for Sir Fred Hoyle, he was a respected scientist who rejected evolution.  I'd hardly consider him ignorant and uneducated.

[columbusdude82]

How funny that you read what someone else has written about Dawkins, but can't be bothered to read his writing for yourself...

[haider]

Last night on Colbert's show he straight up said evolution is a farce.

What a nutcase 

[rockyfortune]

loco, once again you display your ignorance concerning evolution. If only you'd spend one third of the time reading real science that you spend getting these quotes from creationist sites, you'd be a much better informed person.

Your conflation of evolution by natural selection and Hitler/eugenics/"social Darwinism" is getting old. It's a load of crap and you know it. Or if you don't, then you owe it to yourself to at least make an effort at informing yourself.

rocky, about your idea of working creationism into the science curriculum, tell me if you disagree with this strategy:
For an idea/theory/discovery to be included in school science curricula and textbooks,
1. Scientists at respectable research universities and institutes make the discovery, verify it, spend months rigorously testing it, etc
2. They write up their paper and submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Harsh scrutiny from many reviewers leads to much refinement of the paper, verifying the authenticity of its claims, or maybe even rejecting altogether.
3. The paper is published in the journal, and scientists discuss it in conferences, symposia, journal discussions, etc
4. The idea becomes accepted in the scientific community.
5. Only then do we consider teaching the idea in science class in schools.

Do you agree that this is how new ideas make into the science curriculum?

If so, the onus is on you to find any creationist publications in any peer-reviewed scientific journals. OR you must reach the conclusion that creationism does not belong in science class.

how the hell should i know how new science ideas make it into school science classes..i have a degree in history. 

All I am saying is that you should present all sides to a story and let the student decide what he or she wants to accept.  Why is that idea/belief so hard for people to accept?  If, as you believe, evolution trumps creationism and there's more evidence that evolution IS what really happened then you shouldn't have a problem with  both being taught, because obviously more people will accept evolution over creationism.

[columbusdude82]

how the hell should i know how new science ideas make it into school science classes..i have a degree in history. 

All I am saying is that you should present all sides to a story and let the student decide what he or she wants to accept.  Why is that idea/belief so hard for people to accept?  If, as you believe, evolution trumps creationism and there's more evidence that evolution IS what really happened then you shouldn't have a problem with  both being taught, because obviously more people will accept evolution over creationism.

Again, which creationism? You conceded a few posts up that there are so many of them, that if they were to be included in the science curriculum, no actual science would be taught.

And, if you allow any version of Christian creationism into the science class, then you are admitting that the book of Genesis is an accurate scientific account. That would mean the whole Bible would have to be accepted as a source of scientific information in schools.

Then, for instance, we would have to teach in astronomy class that the sun can stand still, as it did for Joshua, and that it is possible that the sun and the stars may "fall from the sky" as Jesus said... and in geology class, we would have to teach that below the earth's crust lies the molten fiery underworld where some souls go (i.e. we would have to throw out almost all of geology), and on and on.

If such crap were to be allowed, then the US would be a laughing stock among all nations for all time.

[rockyfortune]

Again, which creationism? You conceded a few posts up that there are so many of them, that if they were to be included in the science curriculum, no actual science would be taught.

And, if you allow any version of Christian creationism into the science class, then you are admitting that the book of Genesis is an accurate scientific account. That would mean the whole Bible would have to be accepted as a source of scientific information in schools.

Then, for instance, we would have to teach in astronomy class that the sun can stand still, as it did for Joshua, and that it is possible that the sun and the stars may "fall from the sky" as Jesus said... and in geology class, we would have to teach that below the earth's crust lies the molten fiery underworld where some souls go (i.e. we would have to throw out almost all of geology), and on and on.

If such crap were to be allowed, then the US would be a laughing stock among all nations for all time.

i don't know which post you are talking about..think it was loco who said all that...i don't know how many creationisms there are or theories of evolution...what i said was that I'm not opposed to having educators getting together and working out a curriculum that could make all sides of the argument happy.  I think educated people can put their differences aside and figure out what's best to EDUCATE children---as I said..present all sides and let them choose.

I also think a lot of the bible stuff that you mention is not ment to be taken literally....like there's no hell under the earth's crust, etc...although i do understand that many christian sects take it literally.  I think common sense sometimes needs to be used. 

[columbusdude82]

i don't know which post you are talking about..think it was loco who said all that...i don't know how many creationisms there are or theories of evolution...what i said was that I'm not opposed to having educators getting together and working out a curriculum that could make all sides of the argument happy.  I think educated people can put their differences aside and figure out what's best to EDUCATE children---as I said..present all sides and let them choose.

I also think a lot of the bible stuff that you mention is not ment to be taken literally....like there's no hell under the earth's crust, etc...although i do understand that many christian sects take it literally.  I think common sense sometimes needs to be used. 

You either want common sense to be used or you don't. Make up your mind. Either we teach science based on overwhelming evidence, or we teach the Bible in science class.

If you allow teaching any form of creationism to "make people happy" as you say, then you have to allow those who want to teach that there is a fiery hell under the earth's crust, or that the earth rests on the back of a giant tortoise. You can't allow some people's views into science class, but deny others.

It seems you have contradictory views on the matter. BTW I was referring to this post of yours in particular:

i'd include as part of science curriculum...but i think i'd leave it up to school boards to decide which creationism/darwinism/spaghetti monster/etc...i'd also be for leaving it out completely--only because as you said if you allow one, you allow them all--so i think the inverse should be debated. 

[rockyfortune]

You either want common sense to be used or you don't. Make up your mind. Either we teach science based on overwhelming evidence, or we teach the Bible in science class.

If you allow teaching any form of creationism to "make people happy" as you say, then you have to allow those who want to teach that there is a fiery hell under the earth's crust, or that the earth rests on the back of a giant tortoise. You can't allow some people's views into science class, but deny others.

It seems you have contradictory views on the matter. BTW I was referring to this post of yours in particular:

and you seem to want only what you believe is true to be the law of the land...

that's right...i want to give students the option to believe what they want or find acceptable to them..i actually want them to think for themselves---yeah, i know, not a very novel idea...it seems as though you want them to believe/accept one thing and one thing only--that's not education.  It seems like you have a hard time accepting other points of view..so what if someone wants to believe that humans came from apes, or from god..or there really is a fiery, molten lava filled hell under the earth's crust.  i don't have a problem hearing all different forms of beliefs and making up my mind on my own...i think that is what school systems should be doing.  i went to 12 years of catholic school and heard one side of the argument--and it was not until i got to college did i hear the other side...I wish that during those early years in school i was given ALL SIDES--I'd rather be able to choose than leave it up to someone else to choose for me.  THAT'S BEEN MY POINT DURING THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION...

[columbusdude82]

No, I want science class to teach science, namely, the facts, theories and ideas that have stood constant scrutiny and skepticism and are backed up by mountains of solid evidence.

Either something is true or it isn't. If a new religion arises that says it believes that the water molecule is made up of nitrogen and carbon, instead of hydrogen and oxygen, do we allow their belief to be taught in science class and let the kids make up their minds which theory they like best?

Or do we ask the nitrogen-carbon crowd for evidence for their theory first, before teaching it in science class?

[rockyfortune]

No, I want science class to teach science, namely, the facts, theories and ideas that have stood constant scrutiny and skepticism and are backed up by mountains of solid evidence.

Either something is true or it isn't. If a new religion arises that says it believes that the water molecule is made up of nitrogen and carbon, instead of hydrogen and oxygen, do we allow their belief to be taught in science class and let the kids make up their minds which theory they like best?

Or do we ask the nitrogen-carbon crowd for evidence for their theory first, before teaching it in science class?

This is how i'd include it in science...i'd include as part of science curriculum...but i think i'd leave it up to school boards to decide which creationism/darwinism/spaghetti monster/etc  (from a previous post)....

hey bub..we all want things our own way...but that's not living in reality...i took bio, physics, chem, environmental science..physical science...i would not have minded a portion of my science to include theories of creationism, darwinism etc...to completely exclude something because you don't believe in it seems myopic, no?

[columbusdude82]

rocky, do you even read my posts before replying?

Answer yes or no: Your school board (where your kids go) gets a letter from a local cult saying they believe the water molecule is made up of carbon and nitrogen, and they want that taught in science class alongside the hydrogen-oxygen "theory." That way, both ideas are taught to the kids. You, a parent, want to go vote on the initiative to teach both ideas in science class, namely that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that water is made up of carbon and nitrogen. Do you vote yes or no?

[rockyfortune]

rocky, do you even read my posts before replying?

Answer yes or no: Your school board (where your kids go) gets a letter from a local cult saying they believe the water molecule is made up of carbon and nitrogen, and they want that taught in science class alongside the hydrogen-oxygen "theory." That way, both ideas are taught to the kids. You, a parent, want to go vote on the initiative to teach both ideas in science class, namely that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, and that water is made up of carbon and nitrogen. Do you vote yes or no?

I did...but you don't seem to want to accept anyone else's point of view...which is a pity because if you did..it could be  good debate...all you want to do create hypothetical situations to back up your point..and they fail particularly with the one you just cited.

i vote no because it's universally agreed upon that water is H2O.  it's not universally agreed upon that darwinism is what put us here...you can asked 100 people and 50 will say darwinism and 50 will say God...to me that's not like some crackpot group saying water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen.

[rockyfortune]

Check the poll..it's not as cut and dry as you believe...




Pew poll shows majority favor teaching creationism
Nearly two-thirds of respondents in a recent Pew Research Center poll say that they are "open" to teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools.

"Support for teaching creationism along with evolution is quite broad-based, with majority support even among seculars, liberal Democrats and those who accept natural selection theory," according to the survey. The poll involved a survey of 2,000 adults nationwide in July 2005.

According to the poll, nearly half of Americans think humans evolved over time, either through natural selection or guidance by a supreme being, while 42 percent feel that life has existed in its present form only. Evolution finds more supporters among those who are young, those who are college-educated, those who vote as Democrats, and those who hail from the northeastern or western states. Further, the poll reports that "70% of white evangelical Protestants say that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time; fewer than half as many white mainline Protestants (32%) and white Catholics (31%) agree."

Despite this, 64 percent of respondents support teaching creationism along with evolution, while just 26 percent oppose it. Thirty-eight percent believe that creationism should supplant evolution in the curriculum.

Furthermore, creationists tend to be much more "certain" about their views, and not surprisingly, the majority of those peg their religious beliefs as the most important influence on their opinions about the development of life. By contrast, respondents who accept evolution more frequently tend to view it as the scientific consensus and cite education as the greatest influence on their opinions.

The complete survey can be found at

http://pewforum.org/surveys/origins/.