Does creationism have any social value?

[Allandavid]

Interesting, seeing that the biggest predators (killers) of deer are bullets and vehicles, they sure have got some mutating to do. Also deer rarely use their full speed to evade predators.

Flippant response noted...but your example still carries the point I make. Those deer who are less likely to come into the vicinity of human activity will have a survival advantage...

 

[gaara4158]

It's hard to say what effects a top-down adoption of either belief would have on people's worldviews, let alone the well-being of society. For society, I think it's much less important what people believe in terms of the origin of biological diversity than how they came to believe it. Now, if evolution were accepted from the bottom-up (meaning everyone understood and accepted the science behind it) then we might be better off as a society. Accepting the rational, evidence-based approach to knowledge used in science (and which leads to the acceptance of evolution) might leave us less prone to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and political manipulation. This would make us better-equipped to collectively make better decisions as a society.

Creationism, on the other hand, requires a rejection of some very basic principles of biology, archaeology, paleontology, and even astrophysics. If we buy that scientists across multiple disciplines are seriously mistaken -- or worse, conspiring to deceive the public -- we are apt to believe all manner of wacky conspiracy theories and old wives' tales, which at best would be a waste of our time and at worst could get our species completely wiped out(looking at you, climate deniers and anti-vaxxers).

Now, there is the tangential possibility that some people are only clinging to sanity by their fingernails, and if they were to accept evolution as true it would unravel their worldview so dramatically that the existential implications would drive them insane. There are some in this thread who seem to believe that materialism and moral nihilism directly follow from evolution. I will say that it's better for these people to keep on believing in creationism. But generally, a society that as a whole accepts evolution has at least one fewer conspiracy theory than one that doesn't. And that's a good thing.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Flippant response noted...but your example still carries the point I make. Those deer who are less likely to come into the vicinity of human activity will have a survival advantage...

And, the fact that the species survives is reason enough that deer are evolved enough.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Flippant response noted...but your example still carries the point I make. Those deer who are less likely to come into the vicinity of human activity will have a survival advantage...

Facts are 'flippant'?

Deer are attracted to human activity, from farm crops to backyard gardens. I have killed many deer that have approached my stand out of curiosity. In fact I've made a study of the approximate distance a deer will approach before leaving or fleeing.

You are also assuming that predators won't evolve to compensate for the deer's new abilities. In fact I recently read about this regarding cheetahs and gazelles in an evolution article.

Animals are more likely to learn from experience and teach it to their offspring than to gain new skills through mutation and pass it on genetically.

 

[Allandavid]

You are also assuming that predators won't evolve to compensate for the deer's new abilities. In fact I recently read about this regarding cheetahs and gazelles in an evolution article.

Indeed they do...I understand that Dawkins describes it as an “arms race” between predator and prey. I make no such assumption that you describe...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And, the fact that the species survives is reason enough that deer are evolved enough.

They survive because they are managed by man. Recall that before hunting was regulated they were wiped out in many regions.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed they do...I understand that Dawkins describes it as an “arms race” between predator and prey. I make no such assumption that you describe...

You left the door wide open for that assumption.

 

[Tinker Grey]

They survive because they are managed by man. Recall that before hunting was regulated they were wiped out in many regions.

And therefore, they need not evolve more. Man is part of the environment.

If environmental changes are too rapid, then species go extinct. What of it. The current state of deer is sufficient; if not, evolve or die out.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sadly criticism has become racism if leveled at minorities.

"Cursed be Canaaan" (not Ham). Grandsons were often called sons.

No it hasnt, but racism is called out a lot more now and thats a good thing.

 

[Sketcher]

Evolutionary theory could be argued to have a similar effect. If we are all originally ‘out of Africa’, then race becomes insignificant...

But racists will counter that some races are more evolved than others. Various ethnicities have been portrayed as half-apes in cartoons by such people. Blacks, Asians, Irish . . .

 

[Sketcher]

Racists will come up with ways to justify their racism no matter what other beliefs they have. Look up the Curse of Ham for example.

Oh, yes. And that's of course ridiculous since Ham wasn't cursed, his son Canaan was. Cush was not. But they don't care, they choose to believe it means that Ham was cursed. It is simply because they are dishonest in their Bible interpretation, assuming they care to even read it.

 

[variant]

The bible story doesn't end there. It continues with the development of "different manner" of peoples, and diversity of language and location, which led to ethic and cultural differences (race) which led to racism.

Race, and thus racism are artificial concepts. Biology, and thus reality has little respect for the petty bigotry often displayed by humanity.

 

[variant]

Oh, yes. And that's of course ridiculous since Ham wasn't cursed, his son Canaan was. Cush was not. But they don't care, they choose to believe it means that Ham was cursed. It is simply because they are dishonest in their Bible interpretation, assuming they care to even read it.

The Bible was largely written by people that lived in close knit communities and tribes.

Using their differences to perpetuate our own seems like a dark misuse of the source material.

 

[Sketcher]

The bible story doesn't end there. It continues with the development of "different manner" of peoples, and diversity of language and location, which led to ethic and cultural differences (race) which led to racism.

And the racism is a perversion of the variety that came from the spreading of the peoples. Teaching that one people is inherently better than the other. No, Adam and Eve are the ancestors of all of us, we all inherited both the image of God from their creation and the original sin from their folly.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Race, and thus racism are artificial concepts.

Tell that to those who accuse others of "racism".

 

[variant]

Tell that to those who accuse others of "racism".

The shallow artificiality of the concept doesn't mean people can't be racists. It just makes racists really stupid.

Racism, defined as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. " clearly happens whether or not race is an important objective biological distinction.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The shallow artificiality of the concept doesn't mean people can't be racists. It just makes racists really stupid.

Racism, defined as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. " clearly happens whether or not race is an important objective biological distinction.

I believe the definitions of racism has gone way beyond those you mention. Criticism is considered to be racism in liberal thought.

Do you think that some of those attitudes can be justified?

 

[variant]

Do you think that at least some of those motives are justified?

No. What divides people is culture, ideas and social factors, not really genetics.

Society can be made better for your values by convincing others to also share in them with common cause with you no matter what they look like.

The cruel instinctive part of your brain that wants to put people into categories so it can decide how much to care and fear was built for an entirely different lifestyle where you had less control over your environment.

It's best to let it go.

There's never a good reason not to care and there are much better, more well thought out reasons to fear.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. What divides people is culture, ideas and social factors, not really genetics.

Society can be made better for your values by convincing others to also share in them with common cause with you no matter what they look like.

The cruel instinctive part of your brain that wants to put people into categories so it can decide how much to care and fear was built for an entirely different lifestyle where you had less control over your environment.

It's best to let it go.

There's never a good reason not to care and there are much better, more well thought out reasons to fear.

That all sounds good on paper, meanwhile back in the real world...

What if culture, ideas, and social factors expressed by a different ethnic group are so disturbing to you that you want to avoid having any relations with them?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Tell that to those who accuse others of "racism".

Just because race is a social concept and not a strict biological reality does not mean that racism needs scare quotes.