4
4
0
Since I forgot to wish everyone a happy Darwin Day yesterday...
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Posted from scientificamerican.com
Science
Religion
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
2
2
0
Gregory-Since the article's author chose the descriptor of "nonsense" , I'll have to offer response.
To begin, I'd like to respectfully point out that the article's main themes follow a line of "apologetics" aimed at refuting both the Constitutionality and scientific legitimacy of arguments against Evolution.
Responding to the first theme is relatively "easy" as it does convey a legitimate truth. Yes, as a matter of fact the belief in, support and promulgation of "Evolution" is protected by Constitutional principles...as is the belief in, support and promulgation of "Creationism". The 1st Amendment clearly protects both (and many other beliefs). The fact that Evolution is the standard scientific explanation provided in public classrooms across the U.S. would seem to indicate that any "attack" on this explanation has been largely unsuccessful (Engel v. Vitale). However, the fact that "Creationism" has evolved (pardon the pun) to possess an anathema within the social, as well as academic spheres, would appear to indicate that similar Constitutional protection is indeed frequently under "attack". It could be argued that under a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment, both points of view should enjoy identical and neutral treatment from the Government...yet in numerous cases (Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. for example), the Government's consistent position has been to deem any "religious" theory or doctrine as inappropriate for public representation. In short, educators, scientists and private individuals adhering to a non-divine explanation for the origin of species would appear to have "won" the legal argument...largely invalidating any rhetoric to the contrary.
The second theme is more complex, as it argues that sufficient scientific evidence exists to render Creationist views "nonsense". While the author provides some excellent examples of specific evidence that appears to support Evolution as "fact", Mr. Rennie's comparative efforts to provide argument against Creationism seems focused not on fact, but opinion. If the outline of any debate beings with the presumption that one side is obviously "based on fact" and the other is obviously based on "ignorance", then both the "facts" and the "ignorance" must be established for the challenged to concede. Rennie counters several assertions frequently made by Creationists (Behe for example), but does so by providing alternative evidences, as opposed to definitively "de-bunking" them. To me, the best example of this is how he jumps from the Archaeopteryx to "Lucy" in a few swift turns, suggesting that the proven existence of a creature possessing traits across two divergent classes (reptile and aves) definitively "proves" that an organism similarly possessing combined traits of order and family (primate and hominid) is a transitional form (much less that said "transition" was autonomous). For this argument to be "proof", it must be presumed that no such creature could exist in natural history possessing cross-trait without being the product of selection...as opposed to design. As "design" has yet to be proven or dis-proven (even Rennie admits this by suggesting...of all things...alien intervention), it can hardly be called "nonsense".
Ultimately, Rennie's greatest departure from pure rationality comes in the form of presumption. He presumes that those who subscribe to "Intelligent Design" are universally closed to the suggestion that species do in fact emerge as the result of reaction to their environments. This is hardly the case, as many Creationists (myself included) will readily admit that we can indeed see changes within organisms in response to changes in environment. At the microscopic level, bacteria can become resistant if not immune to antibodies. Animals develop new behaviors to survive, and genetic traits that are less adaptable (mega fauna for example) clearly appear to disappear over time. Cross breeding (in the wild) between different species (Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos) produce new species (the "Pizzly"), often precipitated by shrinking of normal territorial ranges. Even within human beings, we see clear evidence of changes in measurable traits over time created by dispersion across the globe.
In conclusion, Rennie's suggestion that "ignorance" is fueling an "attack" on rational science appears to be less a petition for Constitutionality than a rhetorical argument against anyone daring to suggest alternatives to spontaneous (and more importantly, secular) origins...unless of course one suggests that "E.T." provided the spark.
To begin, I'd like to respectfully point out that the article's main themes follow a line of "apologetics" aimed at refuting both the Constitutionality and scientific legitimacy of arguments against Evolution.
Responding to the first theme is relatively "easy" as it does convey a legitimate truth. Yes, as a matter of fact the belief in, support and promulgation of "Evolution" is protected by Constitutional principles...as is the belief in, support and promulgation of "Creationism". The 1st Amendment clearly protects both (and many other beliefs). The fact that Evolution is the standard scientific explanation provided in public classrooms across the U.S. would seem to indicate that any "attack" on this explanation has been largely unsuccessful (Engel v. Vitale). However, the fact that "Creationism" has evolved (pardon the pun) to possess an anathema within the social, as well as academic spheres, would appear to indicate that similar Constitutional protection is indeed frequently under "attack". It could be argued that under a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment, both points of view should enjoy identical and neutral treatment from the Government...yet in numerous cases (Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al. for example), the Government's consistent position has been to deem any "religious" theory or doctrine as inappropriate for public representation. In short, educators, scientists and private individuals adhering to a non-divine explanation for the origin of species would appear to have "won" the legal argument...largely invalidating any rhetoric to the contrary.
The second theme is more complex, as it argues that sufficient scientific evidence exists to render Creationist views "nonsense". While the author provides some excellent examples of specific evidence that appears to support Evolution as "fact", Mr. Rennie's comparative efforts to provide argument against Creationism seems focused not on fact, but opinion. If the outline of any debate beings with the presumption that one side is obviously "based on fact" and the other is obviously based on "ignorance", then both the "facts" and the "ignorance" must be established for the challenged to concede. Rennie counters several assertions frequently made by Creationists (Behe for example), but does so by providing alternative evidences, as opposed to definitively "de-bunking" them. To me, the best example of this is how he jumps from the Archaeopteryx to "Lucy" in a few swift turns, suggesting that the proven existence of a creature possessing traits across two divergent classes (reptile and aves) definitively "proves" that an organism similarly possessing combined traits of order and family (primate and hominid) is a transitional form (much less that said "transition" was autonomous). For this argument to be "proof", it must be presumed that no such creature could exist in natural history possessing cross-trait without being the product of selection...as opposed to design. As "design" has yet to be proven or dis-proven (even Rennie admits this by suggesting...of all things...alien intervention), it can hardly be called "nonsense".
Ultimately, Rennie's greatest departure from pure rationality comes in the form of presumption. He presumes that those who subscribe to "Intelligent Design" are universally closed to the suggestion that species do in fact emerge as the result of reaction to their environments. This is hardly the case, as many Creationists (myself included) will readily admit that we can indeed see changes within organisms in response to changes in environment. At the microscopic level, bacteria can become resistant if not immune to antibodies. Animals develop new behaviors to survive, and genetic traits that are less adaptable (mega fauna for example) clearly appear to disappear over time. Cross breeding (in the wild) between different species (Ursus maritimus and Ursus arctos) produce new species (the "Pizzly"), often precipitated by shrinking of normal territorial ranges. Even within human beings, we see clear evidence of changes in measurable traits over time created by dispersion across the globe.
In conclusion, Rennie's suggestion that "ignorance" is fueling an "attack" on rational science appears to be less a petition for Constitutionality than a rhetorical argument against anyone daring to suggest alternatives to spontaneous (and more importantly, secular) origins...unless of course one suggests that "E.T." provided the spark.
(2)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LCDR (Join to see) - what CPT (Join to see) doesn't like is that I don't pull any punches about what I believe and why, and on why I don't believe in a god or gods, absent evidence. He's asked me numerous times to shut up and go away, and I've always told him that when he can get all of the Christian messages eliminated from Rally Point, I would be more than willing to stop too. He doesn't see the irony in his own position, that it is somehow OK for Christians to post, but not for atheists.
As to your beliefs and the Constitution? You have an absolute right to believe in the creation myth of your particular religion, and to teach it at home and at your religious centers. You do not, however, have a right to teach those myths as science, in public schools, absent evidence to support the hypothesis. You bring up the LaVake case, and it is a perfect example - a teacher refused to teach the curriculum based on his religious objections, and he was removed from teaching that class. And you are right, any religious position is inappropriate for teaching in a public school.
Finally, like most Creationists, you don't get that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues.
As to your beliefs and the Constitution? You have an absolute right to believe in the creation myth of your particular religion, and to teach it at home and at your religious centers. You do not, however, have a right to teach those myths as science, in public schools, absent evidence to support the hypothesis. You bring up the LaVake case, and it is a perfect example - a teacher refused to teach the curriculum based on his religious objections, and he was removed from teaching that class. And you are right, any religious position is inappropriate for teaching in a public school.
Finally, like most Creationists, you don't get that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Gregory-I'll leave any disputes between third parties to those parties. I consider Captain Ferguson a good contact, and an honorable officer. However, I also believe in an open forum for debate, free of insult or dismissal.
Now, on the Constitution and faith; where we'll have to "agree to disagree" (both points being adequately defended) is just what is meant by, "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." To my mind, "respecting", in the 18th Century thematic context, should be translated as, "regarding"...this is supported by the remainder of the Amendment, and academic works on the subject (Smith, 1867). In that sense, Congress (and by extension of the division of powers) should keep well clear of ruling one way or the other regarding religious issues. My understanding of our "rights" dictates that if one can teach (or believe) that the Universe arose from nothing...one should be equally free to teach (or believe) that it rose from Divine inspiration. The fact that is even debated is at the heart of the majority of sociopolitical discord in our society as neither "side" seems able to accept that for their rights to exist...so too must those of their opposition. I accept that we won't see eye to eye on this point, and so rest my case so to speak.
Finally, regarding abiogenesis; I assume you are suggesting that Creationists (myself included) are confusing the spontaneous emergence of life from in-organics with the subsequent evolution of life via natural selection, macro/micro biology, mutation, etc...etc. This is an excellent point, however I offer that since Evolution is being debated within the context of being a counter argument to intelligent design, it is valid. If one admits (as has Mr. Renni) that we don't know the specific mechanisms that initiated the process, then there are two simplified choices...either "random" and spontaneous genesis, or genesis by design. Even suggesting "alien intervention" , a theory supported by no more academic rigor than any prevailing religion, then begs the question of how that "alien" life emerged.
In conclusion; where I take issue with many who subscribe to Evolution is not in the presentation of their evidence; much of it is compelling, though (in my opinion) inconclusive...but in the furtherance of that theory to suggest it "disproves" the existence of the divine. Much more than that, I challenge the suggestion that offering argument in favor of intelligent design is "nonsense", or justly "banned" from public promulgation. What both "sides" seem to desire is suppression of their opposition; at least in the public sphere. In my opinion, this is because many people of both persuasions don't wish to ask (or be asked) difficult questions that force powerful, possibly life-altering conclusions. For my own part, if what I believe has value, it will withstand scrutiny. Therefore, I do not avoid examining evidence to the contrary...and can only suggest the same from those in disagreement.
Now, on the Constitution and faith; where we'll have to "agree to disagree" (both points being adequately defended) is just what is meant by, "...shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." To my mind, "respecting", in the 18th Century thematic context, should be translated as, "regarding"...this is supported by the remainder of the Amendment, and academic works on the subject (Smith, 1867). In that sense, Congress (and by extension of the division of powers) should keep well clear of ruling one way or the other regarding religious issues. My understanding of our "rights" dictates that if one can teach (or believe) that the Universe arose from nothing...one should be equally free to teach (or believe) that it rose from Divine inspiration. The fact that is even debated is at the heart of the majority of sociopolitical discord in our society as neither "side" seems able to accept that for their rights to exist...so too must those of their opposition. I accept that we won't see eye to eye on this point, and so rest my case so to speak.
Finally, regarding abiogenesis; I assume you are suggesting that Creationists (myself included) are confusing the spontaneous emergence of life from in-organics with the subsequent evolution of life via natural selection, macro/micro biology, mutation, etc...etc. This is an excellent point, however I offer that since Evolution is being debated within the context of being a counter argument to intelligent design, it is valid. If one admits (as has Mr. Renni) that we don't know the specific mechanisms that initiated the process, then there are two simplified choices...either "random" and spontaneous genesis, or genesis by design. Even suggesting "alien intervention" , a theory supported by no more academic rigor than any prevailing religion, then begs the question of how that "alien" life emerged.
In conclusion; where I take issue with many who subscribe to Evolution is not in the presentation of their evidence; much of it is compelling, though (in my opinion) inconclusive...but in the furtherance of that theory to suggest it "disproves" the existence of the divine. Much more than that, I challenge the suggestion that offering argument in favor of intelligent design is "nonsense", or justly "banned" from public promulgation. What both "sides" seem to desire is suppression of their opposition; at least in the public sphere. In my opinion, this is because many people of both persuasions don't wish to ask (or be asked) difficult questions that force powerful, possibly life-altering conclusions. For my own part, if what I believe has value, it will withstand scrutiny. Therefore, I do not avoid examining evidence to the contrary...and can only suggest the same from those in disagreement.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
LCDR (Join to see) - I never said that CPT (Join to see) was not an honorable officer. He says what he thinks, and he doesn't like posts of an atheistic nature. That's not dishonorable.
As to teaching? Science class is for science, and both creationism and intelligent design are not science, they are religion. You are free to teach either, just not in a public school as science. You know, if you want intelligent design to be taught as science, then treat it as science. The problem is that ID cannot stand up to the rigor required by the scientific process.
As to teaching? Science class is for science, and both creationism and intelligent design are not science, they are religion. You are free to teach either, just not in a public school as science. You know, if you want intelligent design to be taught as science, then treat it as science. The problem is that ID cannot stand up to the rigor required by the scientific process.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
Gregory-And I do not doubt that you made no such claim-we are all presumed honorable herein. I am merely making a clear statement that I like to keep debates within the confines of those directly involved.
Your statements regarding teaching are well formed, and I don't question their importance; we simply disagree on the salient point of what is permitted vs. what is by law, forbidden. In my humble opinion, this is the crux of the entire issue...not what either party chooses to "believe" in. "Truth" is not on trial...but what , when, where and how truth may be debated.
You will likely disagree, so the following statements are rhetorical, merely my opinion, and with them, I'll rest my case, and grant you the final word, as I feel I've made every point necessary.
The clearly expressed "line" forbids congress from passing any law that favors, prefers...or interferes with any religious belief. It is not "respecting" or "prohibiting" any faith to allow Evolution, Creation or the belief that a giant turtle carries the earth on its back to be taught or promoted publicly. That line would be crossed however if the government passed laws forcing citizens to embrace one or the other, regardless of personal belief. For my own part, being "taught" Evolution in public school and later, a federal academy, did not "prohibit" my personal beliefs (consequently, they did not change them either). Likewise, I imagine any child brought up to believe Evolution, and later choosing to accept that theory as fact will not be "forced" to renounce their beliefs merely by being exposed to another point of view. There are however numerous instances where free to make their own choices, people have altered their views based on exposure to theory. That is religious freedom....not "freedom from religion".
I thank you for a great discussion, engaging debate, and your well-presented arguments.
Your statements regarding teaching are well formed, and I don't question their importance; we simply disagree on the salient point of what is permitted vs. what is by law, forbidden. In my humble opinion, this is the crux of the entire issue...not what either party chooses to "believe" in. "Truth" is not on trial...but what , when, where and how truth may be debated.
You will likely disagree, so the following statements are rhetorical, merely my opinion, and with them, I'll rest my case, and grant you the final word, as I feel I've made every point necessary.
The clearly expressed "line" forbids congress from passing any law that favors, prefers...or interferes with any religious belief. It is not "respecting" or "prohibiting" any faith to allow Evolution, Creation or the belief that a giant turtle carries the earth on its back to be taught or promoted publicly. That line would be crossed however if the government passed laws forcing citizens to embrace one or the other, regardless of personal belief. For my own part, being "taught" Evolution in public school and later, a federal academy, did not "prohibit" my personal beliefs (consequently, they did not change them either). Likewise, I imagine any child brought up to believe Evolution, and later choosing to accept that theory as fact will not be "forced" to renounce their beliefs merely by being exposed to another point of view. There are however numerous instances where free to make their own choices, people have altered their views based on exposure to theory. That is religious freedom....not "freedom from religion".
I thank you for a great discussion, engaging debate, and your well-presented arguments.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google