Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[lasthero]

People write against evolution theory all the time. And they are unrightly attacked for it.

University of Iowa Chemist Rebuked by Faculty for Acknowledging "Holes" in Darwinian Theory - Evolution News & Views

The man wrote an opinion piece and some people wrote in to show their disagreement with him. You call this an 'attack'?

Campus Voices is a place for faculty, staff, and students to share ideas, views, and information about issues that matter to them personally and professionally. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent those of the University of Iowa. View more Campus Voices here.
Iowa Now, "the central voice of the university" that aims to “enhance the university’s reputation,” has published an opinion piece—initially not labeled as opinion—asserting, among other things, that there are “holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through.”
We acknowledge the right of any member of the university community to voice their opinions, no matter how ill-informed. But as scientists and members of the UI community we feel a deep obligation to respond. Today the overwhelming majority of scientists in Iowa, the United States, and across the world agree that biological evolution explains the diversity of life on our planet.
Scientists use the term “theory” in a profoundly different way than lay people, who often use it synonymously with “dubious.” For us, theories are not hunches or wild guesses, but collections of statements about the world that make sense of natural observations and experimental findings.
In that regard, it's important to remember that the fact that germs cause disease is still called the germ theory, and the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun is still called the heliocentric theory. No reasonable person today disputes the underlying facts in those two theories.
Such has been the process with evolutionary theory, too, as new observations and experiments accumulate to provide consistent and overwhelming support for the fact that life on Earth has evolved. Evolutionary scientists certainly continue to refine our understanding of evolutionary processes, but we no longer debate the central principles of evolutionary theory as a scientific framework for understanding Earth's diversity.
Iowa Now, by publishing a piece that suggests otherwise, has done a disservice to the university.

If Bowden's allowed to state his opinions against evolution, then surely other people are allowed to disagree with him - it's an open forum. It's no more of an attack than when you post things and I disagree with you, or vice versa. Grow up.

 

[morningstar2651]

Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

Myth would be a much more accurate description than fairy tale. Apart from there being a general lack of fairies, the usage of "fairy tale" in the context of religion is generally intended to be derogatory.

If creationism is a fairy tale, what other fairy tale has generated so much debate and gotten so much attention in the academic world?

Any specific answers?

Mythology is the academic study of myths.

I highly recommend checking out the works of Joseph Campbell. You can probably find some of his books at your local public library.

Here are a couple that I suggest starting with.

• The Power of Myth
• The Hero with a Thousand Faces
  

"Wherever the poetry of myth is interpreted as biography, history, or science, it is killed. The living images become only remote facts of a distant time or sky. Furthermore, it is never difficult to demonstrate that as science and history, mythology is absurd. When a civilization begins to reinterpret its mythology in this way, the life goes out of it, temples become museums, and the link between the two perspectives becomes dissolved" - Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces

 

[Metal Minister]

Myth would be a much more accurate description than fairy tale. Apart from there being a general lack of fairies, the usage of "fairy tale" in the context of religion is generally intended to be derogatory.

Interesting that fairy tales is brought up...
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum//index.php?showforum=19

 

[OllieFranz]

And he's back.

That was quick.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course he will be back, when there is evil to be fought good men continue the fight.

Welcome back!

 

[nuttypiglet]

Notice how you said "best," and not "only"?

And have you taken into account the 99.9% of dinosaur remains which didn't get fossilized?

How do you know that 99.9% of dinosaurs weren't fossilized?

 

[frogman2x]

You are asking one to refute the existence of something unfalsifiable. Can you prove that pink polka dotted unicorns don't exist? Science does not deal with unfalsifiable claims. If you can understand that then you will see that your faith is not threatened by science. On the other hand creationists try to impose their faith onto science and this is unacceptable. Religions are static while science is an ongoing endeavour and subject to change. This alone creates a conflict when the two are mixed.

My question only requires a yes or no. My faith is not threatened by science or by evolution. In fact things like DNA and genetics reinforce my faith and gives me the assurance that evolution is in the same category as pink polka dotted unicorns.

Religon is not static, neither is science but evolution is. Name one thing evolution has come up with lately that advances the theory 1 inch.

You really don't knwo much acout Christianity. It is absurd to say creationists try to impose their faith into science. You try to impose your faith in evolution into real science and that is unacceptable.

Christianity is not about science, so stick to the subject. You are the one dragging it into the discussion, not me.

The Bible is not a science book, but where it touches science, it is accurate. Plant some corn next spring and you can prove "after its kind." Not only will you get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted.

Since I have ask you some question, don't you think your ending tag is a little silly?

Probably not but it also shows your ignornace of Christians.

 

[nuttypiglet]

A-Flood's are just about the most common natural disaster in the world. That many animals have died and been preserved in them is not surprising.

B-The VAST majority of animals on this planet haven't fossilized. It's a rare process, and the only reason we have so many is because what we have is insanely small percent of every animals that's ever died.

C-If there was a global flood, we'd probably see many more fossils than we actually, since so many died in one event. But we don't.

But keep grasping for straws.

So you agree floods TODAY are common, but when we mention Noah, it's a no no. You say that the vast majority of animals on this planet haven't fossilized, but I assume you are again using what is witnessed today. How can you possibly know if ALL dinosaurs were fossilized or not? What evidence do you have for this?
If there was a global flood you would probably see more fossils than you do? Why? Do you know the population of any species back then? What percentage of the Earth has been covered looking for fossils?

 

[KWCrazy]

Of course he will be back, when there is evil to be fought good men continue the fight.

Hey, Phantum. You're an atheist. You DO REALIZE that if there is no God there is no evil, right? Lacking any absolutes all morality is relative.

Not only do atheists seem to spend all their time attacking a God they don't believe exists, they co-op religious terminology they don't believe in. It makes me wonder; do they even understand atheism?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you agree floods TODAY are common, but when we mention Noah, it's a no no. You say that the vast majority of animals on this planet haven't fossilized, but I assume you are again using what is witnessed today. How can you possibly know if ALL dinosaurs were fossilized or not? What evidence do you have for this?
If there was a global flood you would probably see more fossils than you do? Why? Do you know the population of any species back then? What percentage of the Earth has been covered looking for fossils?

That's why I tell these guys to keep looking.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Referring to any specific incident, or just blowing smoke.



The link - that you refuse to read - explains why the change occurred so quickly. What more do you want?



It didn't stay the same. It's different. It had a change. And that's all evolution ever proposed - small changes in organisms over time. But if it can grow a new organ, who's to say what else it could grow? What's to stop it from getting more and more changes as time goes? What's to stop it from acquiring so many changes that you can't even rightly say it's the same thing as the original population it came from?



DNA distraction, reading the genetic distance between individuals.

Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's all there, if you're interested. Which you're not, probably, but just in case.


What 'assumpstions'? That the way the universe works doesn't completely change for inexplicable reasons? The same 'assumpstions' that all scientists have to make to do...anything?



They do.

Radiometric Dating

This is a great link on the subject. Again, I know you probably won't read it because you're clearly not interested in honest discourse, but just in case.



So? Should scientists never change their minds in light of new evidence? How could science ever progress that way?


But the link provided, regarding dogs, does nothing to prove Darwins evolution theory. All it does is show how many changes over a fairly long period of time has produced nothing but dogs. We witness this all the time, yet you insist on clinging to this notion that if there are enough changes, it will become something totally different.
I often wonder why Moses put something that seems trivial at first into the book of Genesis. However, it now seems to have great importance. Perhaps God knew this would be required in our time. The statement I'm referring to is that they must be the same kind when multiplying. A LAW imposed on life by God.
If we take something like bacteria (which I'm not sure if it constitutes as life because there is no real accepted definition of life) and watch it mutate really fast, does it ever become anything except bacteria?
On a last note, does life generally lose something if it isn't used? to conserve energy for the whole?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Hey, Phantum. You're an atheist. You DO REALIZE that if there is no God there is no evil, right? Lacking any absolutes all morality is relative.

So without God there is no evil

Not only do atheists seem to spend all their time attacking a God they don't believe exists, they co-op religious terminology they don't believe in. It makes me wonder; do they even understand atheism?

Clearly you don't, if you need the concept of God to have a concept of evil.

How about you explain what you think evil is, and we'll take it from there?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hey, Phantum. You're an atheist. You DO REALIZE that if there is no God there is no evil, right? Lacking any absolutes all morality is relative.

Non sequitur - a relativistic moral code is still a moral code, and still ascribes the 'evil' label. Also, you're conflating 'objective/subjective' morality with 'absolute/relativistic' morality. The two are axes.

Not only do atheists seem to spend all their time attacking a God they don't believe exists, they co-op religious terminology they don't believe in. It makes me wonder; do they even understand atheism?

Given you think evil can't exist without an absolute morality, it's clear you don't.

 

[mzungu]

My question only requires a yes or no. My faith is not threatened by science or by evolution. In fact things like DNA and genetics reinforce my faith and gives me the assurance that evolution is in the same category as pink polka dotted unicorns.

You may as well say that you accept Jesus but not the Bible.

Religon is not static, neither is science but evolution is. Name one thing evolution has come up with lately that advances the theory 1 inch.

Religions are static. Are you implying that the Bible or qura'an or Torah change on a constant basis? I will not name one thing as it would be like naming a mathematical formula to a 1 year old. You have no idea about ToE and have extremely limited knowledge about science. Why bother?

{quote]You really don't knwo much acout Christianity. It is absurd to say creationists try to impose their faith into science. You try to impose your faith in evolution into real science and that is unacceptable.[/quote] I do not remember scientists taking to court any faith in order to impose ToE in Sunday class. On the other hand we all know how much creationists have tried to use the law to impose creationism in science class. As for me not knowing much about Christianity? Try me.

Christianity is not about science, so stick to the subject. You are the one dragging it into the discussion, not me.

Indeed it is not. May I suggest you go to the Christians only forum as this one deals exactly such things as the creationist's insistence on supplanting science with the Bible's claims.

The Bible is not a science book, but where it touches science, it is accurate. Plant some corn next spring and you can prove "after its kind." Not only will you get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted.

Make up your mind. If it is not a science book then how on earth can it be accurate compared to science? Your example pales compared to the Genesis story compared to the scientific theories on the birth of the universe. The Bible claims Bats are birds and whales are fish. That the earth is flat and that a worldwide flood occurred that covered all land masses. Of Talking snakes and what not. Really now!

Since I have ask you some question, don't you think your ending tag is a little silly?

Absolutely not. Unless you can show me how any religion will allow for one to question God or the official dogma.

Probably not but it also shows your ignornace of Christians.

Ignorance of Christians? You need only read all the posts by creationists!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you agree floods TODAY are common, but when we mention Noah, it's a no no.

Because today's floods are always local, while Noah's flood was global.

You say that the vast majority of animals on this planet haven't fossilized, but I assume you are again using what is witnessed today. How can you possibly know if ALL dinosaurs were fossilized or not? What evidence do you have for this?

1) Predation. An animal eaten is an animal that never* gets fossilised.

2) The mechanism of fossilisation requires highly specialised conditions (such as anaerobic burial) which not all carcasses would enjoy.

*Barring rare cases when a predator is fossilised with a meal still in its stomach. But even then, this would only include its last meal, not all the meals prior.

If there was a global flood you would probably see more fossils than you do? Why?

Catastrophic events, such as floods, leave tell-tale signs, including mass burials and, thus, mass fossilisations. A global flood would fossilise on a singular and unprecedented scale, meaning one geological stratum should be chock-a-block with fossils (those that died at the hand of God).

Do you know the population of any species back then?

Population dynamics is more robust than you might suspect. The dynamics of a species - size, metabolism, diet, predation, reproduction, etc - dictate the minimal size for a sustainable population.

What percentage of the Earth has been covered looking for fossils?

Are we talking land surface, surface, volume...?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My question only requires a yes or no. My faith is not threatened by science or by evolution. In fact things like DNA and genetics reinforce my faith and gives me the assurance that evolution is in the same category as pink polka dotted unicorns.

Religon is not static, neither is science but evolution is. Name one thing evolution has come up with lately that advances the theory 1 inch.

That depends on what you mean by 'lately'. The evolutionary mechanism of trial-and-error is routinely used in computer simulations to optimise behaviour; this is often used in biomechanics to optimise algorithms for walking, and in robotics to 'learn' about the environment. Within biology, this paper explores the phylogenetic challenge of hybridisation.

But if you think evolution doesn't work, stop taking yearly 'flu vaccines. After all, they're developed using evolutionary techniques and knowledge.

You really don't knwo much acout Christianity. It is absurd to say creationists try to impose their faith into science.

Actually, a cabal of Creationists devised a stratagem to do exactly that - it was called the Wedge strategy.

The Bible is not a science book, but where it touches science, it is accurate. Plant some corn next spring and you can prove "after its kind." Not only will you get corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted.

Actually, you won't. It's so easy to observe intragenerational variation that even Creationists have had to admit it. Children don't look exactly like their parents, but variations thereupon.

Evolution by natural selection is the generational adaptation that necessarily follows from imperfect reproduction in environmental attrition.

 

[KWCrazy]

So without God there is no evil?

Correct. There is no evil.

If you take the purely naturalistic approach and say that humans are evolved animals, and if you understand that there is no evil in the animal kingdom, only the drive to eat well and reproduce, then you can't ascribe a purely human construct such as good and evil and expect it to have any relevance. If you have food then I kill you and take it, it's natural selection.

Humans were created special by God. They acquired the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. However, if you deny that this happened, then there is no knowledge of good and evil, and there is in fact neither good nor evil. Social evolution cannot account for the concept of good and evil. Hitler a very efficient society in which Aryans; the race he believed to be the most evolved; were the dominant race over all others. How does this differ in any way from Darwinism? Do not the strong survive while the weak perish?

You claim to exist in a world without absolutes, and yet you cling to an absolute that can be maladaptive and deleterious to continued existence. If we're both hungry, is it not more natural for me to kill and eat you than for me to deprive myself to try and keep you alive? For what reason? If there is no God then there is no consequence to any action beyond what society artificially imposes. Society imposes rules based on its value structure which pre-supposes a moral code. If there is no God then there is no moral code, and anything that benefits us is completely acceptable.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Correct. There is no evil.

If you take the purely naturalistic approach and say that humans are evolved animals, and if you understand that there is no evil in the animal kingdom, only the drive to eat well and reproduce, then you can't ascribe a purely human construct such as good and evil and expect it to have any relevance. If you have food then I kill you and take it, it's natural selection.

So we can't apply a human construct to humans? I thought you just said God created evil?

You claim to exist in a world without absolutes,

Actually, I claim no such thing. Any reason you choose to misrepresent me?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Correct. There is no evil.

If you take the purely naturalistic approach and say that humans are evolved animals, and if you understand that there is no evil in the animal kingdom, only the drive to eat well and reproduce, then you can't ascribe a purely human construct such as good and evil and expect it to have any relevance. If you have food then I kill you and take it, it's natural selection.

Humans were created special by God. They acquired the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden. However, if you deny that this happened, then there is no knowledge of good and evil, and there is in fact neither good nor evil. Social evolution cannot account for the concept of good and evil. Hitler a very efficient society in which Aryans; the race he believed to be the most evolved; were the dominant race over all others. How does this differ in any way from Darwinism? Do not the strong survive while the weak perish?

No.

I'll say it again:

No.

Evolution describes how genes proliferate, with those genes that help their own reproduction becoming more populous. In humans, we have evolved to cooperate for our mutual benefit, and this has created a sense of morality - it is good to help others, bad to murder and steal.

And notice the keyword 'describe' - not proscribe, but describe. Even if evolution worked by survival of the strongest (which it doesn't), that hardly means we have to do that.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Non sequitur - a relativistic moral code is still a moral code, and still ascribes the 'evil' label. Also, you're conflating 'objective/subjective' morality with 'absolute/relativistic' morality. The two are axes.


Given you think evil can't exist without an absolute morality, it's clear you don't.

Well evil originated from religion and it basically means someone or an action against Gods will. Man cannot decide what is right or wrong to an absolute, we need someone outside this system to determine that, with greater knowledge. It would take us millions of years if not longer to try to get a society which contains no evil and suit everyone. So how do you decide what is right or wrong? Do you decide by majority vote? which could be 51% one way and 49% the other, not pleasing nearly everyone. Do you vote in a leader to decide who may not feel the same as anyone else? Do you build a computer and let it decide? With so many cultures across the world, one thing seen as evil in one land would likely be seen as perfectly acceptable to others. What about killing animals for food? Sure we can say it's what they were raised for, but scientifically and morally speaking, doesn't ALL life deserve better? Who are we to decide a chicken should be killed to satisfy our stomachs? According to science, dinosaurs evolved into birds over millions of years, but was that just to give us eggs and chicken meat?
So who decides what is right or wrong? We could all say rape is definitely evil and wrong, yet in evolutionary terms this is a great way to spread genes.