Creationism vs. Evolution

Prompt

Topic originated by Kyle Hartman

There are so many views on this topic, it is hard to recognize all of them. I think most people, due to controversy over this issue have a basic understanding of each sides of the argument. I think that just the topic title should be enough to start a discussion, I'll present my own ideas later on. So then, how do people feel about Creationism vs. Evolution?

Discussion

Kyle Hartman: Well, as stupid as I think the people who would follow creationism are (blind devotion is no devotion at all), they can learn whatever the hell fits their fancy little heads. Just so long as I don't have to pay for it out of my own pocket (i.e., Creationism taught in public schools would annoy, since I'm paying for it, albeit a couple of cents). Obviously, I myself follow more closely the tenets of that scientist Darwin. I guess I can see why some would shun evolution (We evolved from primates? My, how uncouth/other such bullshit). But seriously, these guys gotta start to think outside of something that's just convenient to accept cause it's nice, trim, and neat.

Alex Mele: There's really not any science supporting creationism at all. The only thing Christians do to scientifically justify creationism is point out some flaws/gaps in the theory of evolution. Basically, it just comes down to whether you trust science or you're a Christian who takes the Bible literally.

Sean Tou: This shouldn't be a thread. Creationism and Evolution aren't even part of the same field. Evolution=Science. Creationism=Theology. It's like comparing how good an apple tastes to how well an axe can cut down a tree.

Kyle Hartman: They both fight against each other in the public schools however. This is creationism VS. Evolution, not Creationism or Evolution. If someone wants to state how they both can work at the same time then by all means. Conversely if someone wants to state how they are mutually exclusive then go right ahead.

I would also like to hear Aric's views on macro vs. micro evolution, but I fear he might not want to post on a controversial issue, so if you read this Aric, than do it anyway or at least give us a link to discuss. Orser will eat anyone that might try to disagree in a less than civil fashion.

Mike Baney:  The following will sound condescending.

It's kind of inherent that creationists will sound foolish, because in order to hold anyone's attention, they have to first disprove lots of evidence that didn't simply present itself. They run into the problem of trying to say that 2+2=5. No matter how you argue it, you're still wrong, and will sound silly in doing so. In order to disprove evolution you have to disprove:

Heredity (and the existance of DNA and how it functions)

The age of the Earth

Mutation

Natural Selection

The problem is, 3 out of the 4 have been observed, so they have to attack the proposed age of the Earth. The problem there is that there number didn't just spring out of nowhere. In fact, the older age was not the first--it arose with the different evidence that came up supporting it. So basically no matter how educated they try to make themselves seem, any arguement against creationism is kind of silly.

Sean Tou: This is why I said that Creationism and Evolution do not share the same realm of critical thinking. I think the two can be reconciled within a single person, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. However, Creationism should not be taught in place of evolution or as an "alternative" to it. Creationism lies within the kingdom of theology, and its up to the individual to think it through on their own. Sort of like transcendentalism I suppose.

Unknown Contributor: As for creationists that believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis...

My view on it is that it's absolutely ridiculous to say that god created man in a science classroom without offering any scientific evidence. It's simply not science. Science is proven fact. Creationism is not. As such, it has no place in a science class. Evolution, since it is not absolutely proven, should be presented as a theory. It should also be noted that a scientific theory doesn't have the same connotations as the word "theory" as used in the everyday sense: it is the same term used with gravity.

That being said, creationism definitely has a place in a social studies class that deals with Christianity or a religion/theology class. People should not feel compelled to believe everything they learn about. They should understand all of the facts and then decide what they consider to be more valid: the literal interpretation of Genesis or almost-but-not-quite-conclusive scientific evidence.

By trying to ban evolution from classrooms, parents are trying to censor their children from being exposed to information that they do not believe. I think that instead of trying to prevent the school from telling their kids the facts (that evolution is a widely accepted theory in the scientific community), creationist parents should explain to their kids why they (the parents) don't believe in evolution.

As for people who believe in both...

I personally see evolution and creationism as possible answers to two completely different questions. To me, evolution is the how and creationism is the why. I accept the scientific evidence that suggests we evolved into our current state. This is how I believe we came to be as we are today.

Why did we come to be in this state? That has nothing to do with evolution. We could have evolved according to God's plan (if you don't interpret Genesis literally). No one really has any definite answer to whether or not a supreme being designed us. However, until there is scientific evidence, creationism has no place in a science classroom because it is not science.

Kyle Hartman: Creationism has no place in a history or social studies class either except possibly as a sidenote to when you discuss the scientific developments of Darwin, which in itself is barely noted in most classes. Theological discussion belong, if anywhere, in English. I think the discussion of different literary periods and discussions on philosophy in the time period could lend itself to discussions on theology. But even then it only makes sense to discuss the ideas of creationism not neccessarily studying it's arguments. Thats what I think at least.

Chris Orser: The idea that religion and science can coexist, as they answer different questions, has always appealed to me because it naturally implies that more religious and more scientific people can live together (gotta love Gould). It's not always true, though, because some people's idea of what religion is just doesn't allow for science to have any meaning (to them), and some people's idea of science doesn't allow religion to have any meaning (to them). So while compromise can be possible, and preferred (by me), I don't think that the two are always compatible. That's why I like this idea: god created the universe and men, either knowing just what evolutions would happen to eventually create men, or intervening at key moments to cause evolution. I hope it catches on, esp among fundamentalists.

I think we should study creationism, not because I think it's a valid scientific viewpoint, but because such a large number of people in our country believe in it. I think it would make creationists happy, and might appease them enough to get less defensive in the culture wars (stuff like calling evolution "only a theory", ten commandments, stuff like that). We could study it's roots in U.S. history, talk about it's impact in contemporary issues, and talk about creationism's ideas and experiences in English. It would certainly help us better understand America.

Kyle Hartman: Chris Orser wrote:

some people's idea of what religion is just doesn't allow for science to have any meaning (to them), and some people's idea of science doesn't allow religion to have any meaning (to them)

I think we should deal with those kinds of people who refuse to see compromise. I agree that finding a middle balance is usually good, but logic should win out in the end against people. How exactly would we even teach creationism? God created the world.... we're done. Creationism just teaches against evolution. If it's important to people they can learn it in church. I've talked to people about it before, and their proof against evolution isn't even religious it's just pseudo-science inspired by frustrated fundamentalists.

Chris Orser: I think compromise is the key to our state's continued existence. Creationism has a history to study, particularly in the United States. They've made contributions to our nation, and have added political and other ideas. I think creationism is more than just the idea that "evolution sucks", it represents a literal interpretation of the Bible. As wrong and illogical I think they are, I think all people deserve respect and some listening to. If the people with power in this country took poor Southerners seriously (I wonder if most creationists really are poor Southerners? That's always been my conception), they might not be so concerned with things like teaching creationism in schools.

Brian Robinson: Yes, I think public schools (private schools can teach whatever the hell they choose) should not delve into religious / philosophical concepts until children are old enough to have their own opinions. Otherwise, they will swallow whatever is poured into their mouths. In this sense, evolutionary theory is not a philosophical concept as much as it is a concept approached by logic and science. Much of school curriculum focuses on expanding a child's ability to approach problems through logic and reasoning, so doesn't evolutionary theory follow suit? Additionally, as mentioned previously, evolutionary theory does not necessarily rule out the existance of a creation figure, just that the manner in which the life of man itself began is not as the bible and varying historical scriptures have portrayed.

Perhaps the entire topic of the origin of life and man is best left for high-school and up. Maybe a high school philosophy course along with Eng, Math, Sci, etc, for four years or even just Junior and Senior year would allow students to develop their own opinions as so much of the meaning of life pertains to anyway, the individual.

Sean Tou: I think religion and science can co-exist perfectly well together. There's a long line of famous scientists and mathematicians that were religious (Newton and Einstein for starters). There's nothing wrong with teaching Creationism, but it shouldn't be taught in a science class - it should be taught in a theology course and should be clearly designated as non-science.

As a side note, I really really hate people that try and discredit evolution by saying it's "just" a theory.

Kyle Hartman: Sean Tou wrote:

As a side note, I really really hate people that try and discredit evolution by saying it's "just" a theory.

To be fair, they aren't usually scientific people, so they don't know what is meant by scientific theory. It can be fun to ask those people how God made existence though, not in a spiteful way, but they won't be able to come up with a good answer, and then you can suggest the feasibility that God used evolution as means to create. They usually won't like that, but if you aren't mean about it they shouldn't get mad if they call themselves Christians. It could prolong a bad discussion though, or if you really do hate those people it may not be pleasant to continue interaction with them.