Matt Damon and Looney Liberal Paranoia About Creationists

[AirPo]

Can you explain why it should never be considered for an alternative to evolutionary theory? Remember, it is the evolutionary "theory". If you are going to teach one theory, then why shouldn't the alternative theories be taught as well?

There are no alternative scientific theories.

 

[Sojourner1]

that actually isn't how it works
tulc(pouring more coffee, getting ready to drive)

I'm not talking about microevolution, I'm talking about macroevolution (origin of the species). It's a theory, it isn't fact. I believe that intelligent design should be taught along side the theory of macroevolution.

 

[Cabal]

Hasn't this happened to all of us? Haven't all of us exercised this kind of alleged bad judgment in our lifetime? Nobody, but a very young baby or child, would be capable of becoming president or vice president with this standard. Human beings quite simply do not always make decisions consistent with the direction the evidence points, even when it is a proverbial "slam-dunk."

You appear to be comparing making an honest one-off mistake with (perceived) wilful ignorance. Also, one would hope a potential VPOTUS would minimise slipups like this.

Edit: And wilful ignorance too, obviously.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not talking about microevolution, I'm talking about macroevolution (origin of the species). It's a theory, it isn't fact. I believe that intelligent design should be taught along side the theory of macroevolution.

It's a scientific theory, which is based on observed and reproducible empirical facts. It is also falsifiable. ID/YEC are none of these. Also, a theory usually makes predictions and either improves the existing scientific model or assmilates nicely into the exist one. ID/YEC is incapable of doing this, largely due to the fact that they define themselves in terms of what they disagree with (evolution) instead of actually making useful predictions of their own etc.

General questions for all:

- Why is it that people think current debates on science should be relocated to the classroom? I've never understood this. Only established science that is tried and tested makes it into high school textbooks, not religion disguised as science that wants a free pass.

- Also surely if you establish one religious teaching in the classroom, then (let's not go into that whole separation of church and state business) the precedent is there for any other religion that wants its creation stories taught. To not do so would be discriminatory.

 

[AirPo]

I'm not talking about microevolution, I'm talking about macroevolution (origin of the species). It's a theory, it isn't fact. I believe that intelligent design should be taught along side the theory of macroevolution.

The problem is you are using the creationists definitions of micro, macro, and theory. Not the scientific definitions. And intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in disguise.

 

[AirPo]

General questions for all:

- Why is it that people think current debates on science should be relocated to the classroom? I've never understood this. Only established science that is tried and tested makes it into high school textbooks, not religion disguised as science that wants a free pass.

Good point.

 

[Sojourner1]

Good article to read on this whole debate about teaching intelligent design and evolution in public schools: Is Evolution Still a Viable Theory?http://www.christianlaw.org/index.php/articles/evolutio_theory.html

From the article:

Most states and school districts, unfortunately, continue to present evolution as an indisputable scientific fact, even though scientists themselves only consider it to be a theory. We must remember that Charles Darwin thought up this concept while sitting on a small island observing nature in the middle of the 19th century. Science has come a long way since then, and new scientific concepts do always comport with Darwin’s ideas. Even Darwin himself purportedly no longer believed in his own theory when he died.
Why then do educators and courts fight so hard to prevent any legitimate critique of Darwin’s theory? The answer is simple: evolution is the only theory of how we got here on this planet that does not require a belief in God.
The emergence of new scientific evidence refuting evolution has caused great uncertainty among public school science teachers and school boards when planning their science curriculum. Lawsuits and threats of lawsuits cause teachers and school districts to back away from teaching the science of origins in any way that would permit criticism of evolution. Some believe that even teaching about the controversy surrounding the theory of evolution would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In fact, however, there is much that science teachers can present in their classrooms about various scientific theories surrounding the origins of life that in no way crosses the constitutional line.

 

[JoshuaW]

Creationists seem to think a "theory" means just an idea, which anyone could counter by coming up with an alternative. A theory is a "testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empiracal observation." There is no theory that explains the creationist version of history, therefore there is nothing to teach.

 

[Donkeytron]

I disagree with the slippery slope argument but this digression aside in favor of question more germane to our discussion. How and why does this make them unfit for the office of the president?

Disclaimer: I can see how the slippery slope argument may become relevant at a later point and will address it as it does so,. if it does so.

I think its pretty important for a candidate to have some knowledge of how science works and what the prevailing scientific understanding of our world is.

In fact, I wish we knew more about all of our candidates scientific literacy.

 

[keith99]

Yes, yes it is. A church doesn't sell materials for beliefs it doesn't support.
Could I buy a pro-abortion book or a book on the postitive benefits of the Reformation in a Catholic church? No I couldn't.

On this you are right, and it is sad. Years ago I became interested in arguments over how some scripture should be interperted. I went to a local Christian book store and bought a couple of books on the issue, one from each of the major camps. The man working the register was also an instructor at a local Christian College and he made an interesting comment:

I was the first person he had ever seen by those 2 books! In fact his comment seemed far more general, it really meant I was the first to actually listen to both sides.

When I went to college the Physics department pushed us to buy a small pamphlet. I think it's title was 'The Little Book' (Unfortunatly other have used it since, before and a lot so net searches proved fruitless). It claimed to debunk Relativity. We were encouraged to read and analyse it. Science seems to do this. I do not recall any other group that has in my expience since.

 

[Godzman]

I knew before that Matt Damon was a really good writer from Good Will Hunting
I knew before he was a tolerable action actor from the Bourne series
I now know he is a complete ignoramous when it comes to Christians, creationism, and executive power.

Let's start with Matt's completely ignorant (and false) assumptions about Christians and creationism. Apparently, Matt believes:

All evangelical Christians are creationists
All creationists are young-earth creationists
All creationists completely reject evolution
All creationists desire to impose their view on society

These are all completely false assumptions in general. But let's see how they stack up against the actual documented record of Sarah Palin.

It is clear from the churches she has attended and from her very unabashed statements regarding God that she is Christian. It is also clear, at least to me, that she would fall into the evangelical camp. Moreover, she has stated a positive position regarding creation. So, assumption one, while not universally true, is mostly true about Sarah Palin.

As far as being a young-earth creationist, there is absolutely no evidence to support that assumption. In fact, she has only made the very general comment "I believe we have a creator", a view supported by both Barack Obama and John McCain (not to mention the Pope), even though they also believe in evolution. Moreover, she has staked a neutral position regarding timelines and creative methodologies, stating "I'm not going to pretend I know how all this came to be". So the second assumption is at least very premature regarding Sarah Palin, and probably not true at all.

Now is Sarah Palin a creationist revolutionary, believing that evolution should be completely excised from science curriculum and replaced with intelligent design? Here, the record is crystal clear. When campaigning for Governor she stated a personal preference for teaching both theories: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both". She later clarified that position by stating that she was not advocating a curriculum change per se, but instead was expressing the belief that debate over competing ideas fosters critical thinking in young adults as well as being healthy for science in general: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum". Most scientists, I would think, would agree, as both peer review and rebuttal are integral components in scientific progress. So, Matt’s third assumption is demonstrably false.

But maybe this was just a Trojan horse. Maybe these were just bromides to pacify those dupes up in Alaska so they would elect her and then she could unleash her evil plot to destroy the hearts and minds of poor unsuspecting public school children. After all, actions speak louder than words, right? So what is her record as Governor? Again, the truth is there for every one to see. She has steadfastly stuck to her pre-election promise to not push for creationist teaching in schools. In fact, her refusal to get embroiled in social issue politics on the job and her ability to separate personal convictions from constitutional dictates has endeared her to Alaskans of all political stripes. Not only is Matt utterly wrong about Christians in general in his last assumption, he apparently has not done any research on Sarah Palin before jumping to those erroneous conclusions.

I will leave his last statement alone because it is so immature and lacking in logical thought that it requires no more piling on from me. Apparently Matt lives in some kind of Dr. Strangelove-esque fantasy world where one’s belief in the age of the universe is directly related to one’s nuclear trigger happiness.

We are stereoptyped by many, and when we have views that are divergent from the mainstream evangelicals we are considered unchristian, either way we can't win

 

[Cabal]

Good article to read on this whole debate about teaching intelligent design and evolution in public schools: Is Evolution Still a Viable Theory?http://www.christianlaw.org/index.php/articles/evolutio_theory.html

From the article:

Eeeh. Really not too wild about this article. I'll try and summarise the main arguments against it:

- 80% of Americans believing in God creating us does not validate ID or invalidate evolution. Apart from anything else, some of those Americans could believe in God-guided evolution. Evolution is not an exclusively atheistic theory.

- The "only a theory argument, not a fact" line is incorrect. Scientific theories are based on observed empirical facts.

- The "Darwin recanted" argument is flat out wrong.

- Scientific concepts don't always chime with Darwin's ideas, because that's the point of science. Some of Darwin's ideas remain, some were incorrect and were corrected. It's not dogma, and calling evolution "Darwinism" is equivalent to calling gravitation "Newtonism." It belittles the scientific process and the work done since the original theory was postulated. However, dissent from the common consensus does not automatically validate your theory, you have to back it up with irrefutable and conclusive observations of your own.

- Macroevolution is mentioned a lot, here's the thing. There is absolutely no difference between micro- and macroevolution apart from one thing: timescale. Given variation in genes among a large enough population, with enough time there were will be enough different subsections with different enough genomes that they can't interbreed anymore. If this were the only issue, I could kind of understand it, it would simply then be a matter of disagreement of the age of the earth. However, to then go and argue that speciation doesn't exist, is flat out wrong. It is repeatedly observed.

-Irreducible complexity is wrong, so is the argument from improbability. The former can't provide an example that evolution can't explain (and Behe eventually admitted it wouldn't take down evolution) and the latter implies a woeful ignorance of chemistry on the part of Thaxton. If a reaction can happen, it will happen. Small probabilities really don't count for much in thermodynamics, if something seems incredibly unlikely it will still happen if every other outcome is even more unlikely.

-Frankly, I find the whole aspect of ID not mentioning God rather distasteful. These people are obviously Christians and yet to not claim it as religiously motivated (purely for the purposes of circumventing the First Amendment, it would seem) seems hugely dishonest. I've even heard it argued (from other Christians) that the beauty of ID is that any believer of any religion can accept it. Given how vehemently most Christians disagree with other religions the rest of the time, I find this incredibly disingenuous and desperate. Whatever else can be said about Christian YECs, at least they have the moral fortitude to take ownership of their ideas.

- The rest of the article outlines that students are perfectly allowed to voice their views and that teachers aren't allowed condemn them. That seems like plenty to be getting on with to me and I advise ID supporters not to push their luck.....

 

[Ryal Kane]

Mercifully the creationism phenomenon isn't nearly as prevalent here as it is in the U.S.

But I would be highly unlikely to ever vote for a politician who believed in magic, which essentially is what creationist arguments always boil down to.

 

[seeker777]

Mercifully the creationism phenomenon isn't nearly as prevalent here as it is in the U.S.

But I would be highly unlikely to ever vote for a politician who believed in magic, which essentially is what creationist arguments always boil down to.

I have to correct you.

It's not just any kind of magic. It's Holy magic. Regular magic is pretend, but Holy magic is real.

 

[Suomipoika]

Could I buy..... a book on the postitive benefits of the Reformation in a Catholic church? No I couldn't.

So you don't believe that the Catholic Reformation (also known as the "counter-reformation -> resulting, for example, in the end of the selling of indulgencies and the foundation of the Jesuit movement) within the Catholic Church a was necessary step?

Ok, I realize this is a politics forum and not a theological one..

 

[Btodd]

For those who think it's paranoia for me (or any other person) to assume that Palin is a YEC, she was a member of Assemblies of God (Pentecostals) for almost 30 years. From their website:

"Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally."

You can read the entire explanation here:

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm


Btodd

 

[variant]

Can you explain why it should never be considered for an alternative to evolutionary theory? Remember, it is the evolutionary "theory". If you are going to teach one theory, then why shouldn't the alternative theories be taught as well?

Yes.

"Theory" in your reply is an equivocation of terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

When someone says theory in a scientific sense the term means something different than when you use it in regular speaking.

Scientific theories require testable hypothesis and falsifiable predictions. Creationism has none of this. For a theory to be taught in a school text book it should also have a lot of evidentiary support.

So, simply put, creationism is not a scientific theory.

My position is that it should not be taught as science, in a science class room, or as a scientific alternative to evolutionary theory.

The reason is because it's not a scientific theory. You can't very well teach it as a scientific theory if it is not one.

Sadly this misunderstanding of the way science and education work would mean I could not support you for president of the United States.

Presidential candidates should be expected to know these things because this is the day one lesson in a high school introductory science class. Supposedly in day two we are to put up creationism as a scientific theory when it fails the criterion we spoke of on day one.

So, a candidate that believes creationism should be taught as an alternative to evolutionary theory in a science class room is either trying to decide how science should be taught when they don't have the level of understanding of one of it's most basic introductory lessons, or is so corrupt as to pander to people who just don't know any better.

Either way it's a fairly bad strike against them in my book.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Mercifully the creationism phenomenon isn't nearly as prevalent here as it is in the U.S.

Terrifyingly, it is growing here too. Robyn Williams of the ABC's Science Show wrote a book on the phenomena, called "Uninteligent Design". Well worth the read if you can find a copy.

 

[Sphere]

Can you explain why it should never be considered for an alternative to evolutionary theory? Remember, it is the evolutionary "theory". If you are going to teach one theory, then why shouldn't the alternative theories be taught as well?

Several misunderstandings on your part.

A "Theory" in science, does not imply uncertainty or a guess. Quite the opposite. A theory in science is to explain real observable phenomena. Biological evolution is simply defined as a change in allele frequency in given populations.

Creationism can never be an alternative to biological evolution, because creationism is not a scientific theory, it is not science. It does not adhere to the scientific method, it is not observable, predictable, testable, measurable, or verifiable. That is the bottom line.

Creationists who incorrectly use the word "theory" when referring to science, are generally quiet about other scientific theories. They bash the theory of biological evolution, yet say nothing about other valid scientific theories such as the germ theory of the disease, the atomic theory, the theory of plate tectonics, and the theory of gravity.

To those who still chose to incorrectly use the word theory in a scientific concept incorrectly, and want creationism taught as the "alternative" for biological classroom, how far will you stretch that logic?

Can we also teach alchemy as the alternative to chemistry?
How about flat earth geology as the alternative to earth science?
How about astrology a the alternative to astronomy?
Faith healing as the alternative to medicine?

I suspect for those things, creationists would generally oppose them being taught in the science classroom. Yet when it comes to creationism as the "alternative" for biological evolution, they become massive hypocrites.

 

[Godzman]

For those who think it's paranoia for me (or any other person) to assume that Palin is a YEC, she was a member of Assemblies of God (Pentecostals) for almost 30 years. From their website:

"Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally."

You can read the entire explanation here:

http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/gendoct_15_creationism.cfm


Btodd

I am AG, a certified minister and I am not a YEC. Palin is but I am in no way one, I am a OEC somewhat, science doesn't disturb my faith at all.