WORLD Magazine Library powered by Amazon
Term Life Insurance at Savings up to 75%!
Logos Bible Software for Bible Study
Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Creationism = anti-science, anti-human rights
Does an attack on evolution mean “a serious attack on human rights”? That is what the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly will decide this week when it votes on a resolution that urges its 47 member states to oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline.
Creationism is anti-science, anti-progress and anti-democracy, the resolution declares. It is rooted in “forms of religious extremism.” Its proponents are “supporters of a radical return to the past,” and some of them are “out to replace democracy by theocracy.” Muslim creationism is taking hold, the resolution cautions, and countries should “resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion.”
Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute and former UN ambassador to Vienna, said he can’t see the urgency. He said there is no European push to teach either creationism or intelligent design, and he thinks the Council of Europe is “responding to Darwinist organizations and their pressure tactics.”
Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days, while intelligent design theory merely states there is evidence of an intelligent designer. The resolution called intelligent design “the latest, most refined version of creationism … [but] no less dangerous.” That statement indicates to Mr. Chapman that the council does not understand the issue: “They are trying to broad brush anyone who is critical of Darwin’s theory as a creationist.”
Chapman adds that even setting aside the difference between intelligent design and creationism, “What they say about both of them is untrue about either of them.” The council is taking a political shot, he said, but “they don’t know what they’re shooting at.”
back to top918 Comments to “Creationism = anti-science, anti-human rights”
Well it is straight forward to show that creationsim as apparently defined in the start to this discussion is not science: there is no scientific evidence for the world being created in six days. And it follows relatively quickly then that creationsim as apparently defined in this discussion is religion.
Now intelligent design is a more refined question. As presented in both this discussion, the Disccovery Institute materials, and by Behe, intelligent design assumes:
1) an old earth
2) descent of all complex organisms form a common ancestor
Further the descent is by genetic modification. The only question is whether an intelligent designer is required.
Intelligent design in this form, however, is not science, since it has provided no testable hypotheses. By the nature of how the question is formulated there is no objectvie way to distinguish between mutations driven by random mutations under slective pressure and the intelligent designer.
So again Intelligent Design should also not be in a science class.
Now I suggest that it is not Creationism or Intelligent Design which is anti-democratic. It is the insistence that, in a society in which religious intervention in government is prohibited, Creationsim or Intelligent Design should be taught in scinece class. Since they are not science, it seem clear they should not be.
Report comment as offensive
Intelligent design in this form, however, is not science, since it has provided no testable hypotheses.
The same is accurately said of evolution, which is why it may rightly be called a “theory.” Instead, it is treated as dogma.
Every evolutionary “testable hypothesis” I’ve ever seen has involved circular reasoning, as in “primordial soup.”
BUT, as to the issue of human rights, it is ridiculous to allege that a philosophy in which men, goats, and bacteria are cosmic chemical coincidences holds human rights in higher esteem than one which posits that man is uniquely created in the image of a loving creator.
Report comment as offensive
Musing: there is no scientific evidence for the world being created in six days.
That’s about the same as saying that “there’s no scientific evidence for the world arising from bacteria over millions of years.”
The dating methods used by Evolutionist scientists are intended to back up their theories.
How do they determine that something is 6 million years old? Because they’ve placed it on their evolutionary scale as being older than something they’ve decreed to be 5 million years old!
Ask them what the original “base” date is, and they cannot give a scientific basis.
What a load.
Report comment as offensive
The Catholic Church demonstrated in Galileo’s day that legislating science was a bad idea.
Report comment as offensive
Musing: there is no scientific evidence for the world being created in six days.
A much stronger statement can be made. Abundant and overwhelming evidence from many independent lines of observation confirms that the world was NOT created in only six days and is MUCH OLDER than the 6,000 year figure given by creationists.
As for intelligent design as currently configured, it is religion or philosophy, but not science. The Discovery Institute ploy is to overthrow the conclusions of legitimate scientific institutions in favor of the beliedf of religio-political organizations. This is nothing less than an effort at the political establishment of religion. If ID is so scientific, let them argue it in the scientific arena. It isn’t, so they can’t. Their efforts are plain old anti-science and constitute a full-out assault on truth inferred from the natural world.
Report comment as offensive
The dating methods used by Evolutionist scientists are intended to back up their theories.
How do they determine that something is 6 million years old? Because they’ve placed it on their evolutionary scale as being older than something they’ve decreed to be 5 million years old!
Ask them what the original “base” date is, and they cannot give a scientific basis.
This is a lie that is frequently told by YE creationists. Repeating it doesn’t make it true. Please learn some real geology before you go spouting it off!
Report comment as offensive
Stubob post 2,
no actually evolutionary theory has presetned a number of hypothese and tested them. the simplest of course is the test for anti-biotic resistance of e-coli. The hypothesis is that when challenged with anti-biotics, evolutionary thoery would suggest that the colony would develop resistance. It does.
We can go further, but I need only one example to disprove your categorical here.
Do note that I have given a categorical regarding Intelligent Design, so you have the same opportunity to challenge my observations on Intelligent Design.
Report comment as offensive
“Does an attack on evolution mean “a serious attack on human rights”?”
No, but the promotion of evolution is a serious attack on human rights. What does a lion care for the rights of a gazelle? What does a strong man care for the rights of a weak man? Why not “cull the herd” of vagrants, homeless, crippled, old, and anyone else deemed worthless?
Report comment as offensive
outkast post 3m
well I like Sponza’s response but I will add one item. None of the dating methods used to date the earth were developed with the intent of backing up evolution.
I typically provide four:
1) heat transfer from the earth
2) plate tectonics
3) radiological dating
4) nuclear physics models of the sun
None of these have anything to do with evolution. Each of them uses different physics. All of them yield ages of the earth which are at least 100 million years which is 10,000 times the typical 10,000 years old numbers used by most Young Earth Creationists.
Now outkast, you and I have had this conversation before, and in the end you said your evidence was Genesis. If you stay with your earlier position that Genesis is your source and it is a religious, not a scinetific position, then I have no quarrel with you on this point.
You seem to be reverting however, in which case it would seem that we need to walk through the syllogism again.
To reiterate, YEC is a religious not a scientific position.
Report comment as offensive
John Denney post 8,
evolutionary theory is a scientific theory, it is not a moral theory. And all the available scientific evidence to date has not been able to falsify the basic tenants of evolutionary theory.
You appear to be raising moral questions, and morality does not appear to be the rightful domain of science. Science deals only with the objective world as it can be validated through observation (and yes we can observe the past).
Report comment as offensive
musing - anti-biotic esistance is an example of micro-evolution, which no one seriously disputes.
The only fight is over macro-evolution (the quadropedal predeccessor mammal becomes, over time, dogs, cats and bears as separate non-interbreedable species with different numbers of chromosomes and such).
Report comment as offensive
KRM post 1,
ah but in saying that it is micro-evolution, you admit that there is evolution. By the way there are people who challenge even micro-evolution.
Now I believe your second paragraph defines what you mean as macro-evolution. If this is true, then how does this defintion apply to single celled organisms (e.g. bacteria) and plants?
Neither of these have breeding in the sense of animals. Both of these entities appear to share DNA rather willi-nilli.
So how does your definition work with the sharing of plasmids in bacteria and in hybridization of plants?
When we get this clear we can then explore animals.
Report comment as offensive
Think back to Medieval Europe, when the church “decreed” rules which all were required to follow, with severe penalties for heresy. I suppose that’s what the parliament is afraid of: a return to a powerful church ruling by decree - theocracy. But was religion the real problem in that Medieval scenario, or was it simply that a small group of people had power to issue decrees for all the rest? And here is the European parliament, a small group attempting to decree what can and cannot be taught for all of Europe! Sounds like history repeating itself to me.
Report comment as offensive
This is another question that will be answered when we die. Until then, you say tomato and I’ll say tomato.
I need to go to my apartments and give an old lady a Lead Paint Hazard notice and put in some doorknobs and deadbolts. Life goes on.
Report comment as offensive
Eaton post 13,
Now as I read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament
it sounds to me like the Parliament is directly elected by the populous. As such it does not sound to me like it is comparable to the clerical aristocracy of medieval Europe.
Report comment as offensive
If I want to believe that God created the Earth in six days that’s my own affair. If I’m in the majority and want to make it a part of the school curriculum so be it.
To claim it is that my beliefs are not scientific and discredit them based upon another set of beliefs is inherently dangerous. Who judges? What set of beliefs or ideas will be next?
Report comment as offensive
Musing (7):The hypothesis is that when challenged with anti-biotics, evolutionary thoery would suggest that the colony would develop resistance. It does.
When you say “evolutionary theory” do you mean Darwin? Lamarck? Both would predict bacterial resistance. Are both then proved valid? For that matter, Learning Theory could predict colony resistance. It that valid? Do colonies of E. coli learn not to metabolize antibiotics?
But the real issue here is that the Parliamentary Assembly is establishing “evolution” as unassailable dogma. I don’t think, and neither do you, that such a position encourages scientific enquiry.
Report comment as offensive
But the real issue here is that the Parliamentary Assembly is establishing “evolution” as unassailable dogma. I don’t think, and neither do you, that such a position encourages scientific enquiry.
No. They are correctly teaching the role of evolution in science as follows:
“From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.”
This statement is absolutely true. They are also correctly identifying “creationism” as NOT part of science and its teaching as science is imposition of religious belief. E.g.,
“Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.
However, some people call for creationist theories to be taught in European schools alongside or even in place of the theory of evolution. From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.
The Assembly calls on education authorities in member states to promote scientific knowledge and the teaching of evolution and to oppose firmly any attempts at teaching creationism as a scientific discipline.”
(from the draft summary)
Report comment as offensive
a return to a powerful church ruling by decree - theocracy
In Europe? Gimme a break! I think your post is right on.
ah but in saying that it is micro-evolution, you admit that there is evolution. By the way there are people who challenge even micro-evolution.
As you’ve demonstrated, it’s important to define tems. If “microevolution” is natural selection, causing changes within species via the filtering out of non-useful DNA, then I believe in microevolution. If microevolution is evolution (as the term would indicate), then I believe in evolution.
However, YE Creationists like me and several others here obviously do not except “macroevolution”, which we would define as significant generation of new information over time, causing species to separate and become irreconcilably distinct in obvious ways.
Therefore, I do believe in limited evolution. However, I trust the Bible’s record that evolution was not the origin of life, nor of the human race, nor of the various “kinds” of animals. (”Kind” is defined as a category of animals normally capable of breeding with each other, but distinct from and incompatible with all other “kinds”.)
As has been stated many times before, the past can not be proven. It must be inferred from the present.
YE Creationists base their view of the past primarily on the Bible and secondarily on human inference.
Non-YE Creationists (e.g. theistic evolutionists) tend to base their view primarily on human inference and secondarily on the Bible.
Strict evolutionists base their view only on human inference, coming to a conclusion that excludes a designer.
Strict ID backers base their view only on human inference as well, coming to a conclusion that includes a designer.
Please correct me if my analyses are wrong.
Report comment as offensive
Stubob post 17,
good questions. And of course as stated it arguably supports both. Of course I can continue to elaborate. The simplest approach would be to track the genetic material in the bacteria and determine how the antibiotic resistance continues. The studies so far suggest that it is the genetic material of the offspring which is different, not the genetic material of the parent, providing support for the Darwinian model, but of course we then have to ask what we mean by offspring in bacteria. There is also that annoying behavior of plasmids etc. This is why the subject is interesting and not nearly as simple as most people would suggest.
And we can of course continue down this path item by item should you so choose.
Now I am not suggesting that the Parliamentary Assembly action is per se good. If you look at my post 1, I am preemptively establishing that Creationism and Intelligent Design are not science. As such it should not be taught in a science class. I specifically note that neither of these concepts is in and of itself undemocratic as the European Parliament seems to suggest.
Report comment as offensive
Me: But the real issue here is that the Parliamentary Assembly is establishing “evolution” as unassailable dogma. I don’t think, and neither do you, that such a position encourages scientific enquiry.
Spinoza: No. They are correctly teaching the role of evolution in science as follows:
“From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.”
In what way is “unassailable dogma” different from “absolutely no doubt”? What other scientific theory has ever been declared beyond doubt?
Only when discussing evolution is it considered unscientifically doubtful to ask questions. In any other field, doubt leads to discovery.
Report comment as offensive
Musing–We are not very far apart. I agree completely that creationism is not science.
When it comes to education, it’s entirely possible to teach that which is demonstrable (bacterial antibiotic resitance and its transmission) without pretending that the unprovable (primordial soup) is factual.
Report comment as offensive
cuthalion post 19,
I suggest that instead of your form:
“YE Creationists base their view of the past primarily on the Bible and secondarily on human inference.
Non-YE Creationists (e.g. theistic evolutionists) tend to base their view primarily on human inference and secondarily on the Bible.
Strict evolutionists base their view only on human inference, coming to a conclusion that excludes a designer.
Strict ID backers base their view only on human inference as well, coming to a conclusion that includes a designer.”
with the following:
“YE Creationists base their view of the past primarily on human inference regarding the Bible typically using a strict interpretational model. this is a strict version of authority.
Non-YE Creationists (e.g. theistic evolutionists) tend to base their view primarily on human inference regarding the Bible and objective data.
[but we must be careful here with respect to what kind of theistic evolutionist we are talking about]
Scientific evolutionists base their view only on human inference regarding the objective data, coming to a conclusion that a designer is not required.
Strict ID backers base their view only on human inference regarding the objective data as well, coming to a conclusion that a designer is required.”
We must also add, however, the the human inference process between the groups is also different: most theistic evolutionists and scientific evolutionists are attempting to utilize the scientific method to guide their human inference.
YE Creationists and Intelligent Design supporters are demonstrably not trying to use the scientific method to guide their human inference.
And in the discussion of whether it is science, the nature of the process used makes all the difference.
Report comment as offensive
stubob post 22,
ah but I never postulate on the primordial soup. I continue to state that origins of life is not yet a scietific endeavor.
My personal speculation here is that Venter in his experiments with “dead” bacteria shells and man made DNS strands will be the first breakthrough of real interest, but that is speculation.
And it is important to remember that origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Evolution posits that there was a life form and all organisms, complex and otrherwise, are descended from it.
And even here we undoubtedly will see further elaboration as we learn more.
Report comment as offensive
Musing: Yes, we have been over this many times before, but I have NEVER stated that Genesis is the ONLY evidence of YE creation.
A literal reading of the Bible reveals that God created the earth with an “appearance of age.” In other words, Adam and Eve were not created as fetuses, and the full-grown trees and plants in the Garden of Eden were not just seeds, and the animals in the garden were not newborns.
It therefore logically follows that, just as the first humans and animals and plants had an appearance of age, so did the rest of the earth.
Hence, the Evolutionists’ ’scientific dating methods’ do not have a base of “O.”
Report comment as offensive
Science is not democratic. It is simply one way of knowing, not to be confused with the content of the knowledge. It is as limited as other human endeavors in knowing but more practical than most because it is systematic and based on observation and logic. Opinions not based on observations and logic hold little value in science.
In one sense creationism is anti-human and anti-democratic in that it doesn’t begin with humans but with God. But which explanation for the beginning of things is more degrading to humans? Certainly not the explanation that God made people special and in His image. By comparison the evolutionary explanation is a sad tale indeed.
Report comment as offensive
It therefore logically follows that, just as the first humans and animals and plants had an appearance of age, so did the rest of the earth.
While I agree that God made the earth mature, I would disagree with any implication that He altered things to give the appearance of decay. Why would He do that? What would be the point? Why would He insert fossils or remove carbon isotopes? Just to confuse us? I doubt it.
Report comment as offensive
If “microevolution” is natural selection, causing changes within species via the filtering out of non-useful DNA, then I believe in microevolution. If microevolution is evolution (as the term would indicate), then I believe in evolution.
However, YE Creationists like me and several others here obviously do not except “macroevolution”, which we would define as significant generation of new information over time, causing species to separate and become irreconcilably distinct in obvious ways.
This is Ham/Hovind nonsense. Micro-evolution is regular old evolution within species. Macro-evolution is the same thing at a higher taxonomic level. The mechanisms are the same. All this pseudo-science babble about loss or creation of “information” from people that don’t know the first thing about the biochemistry of evolution or the mathematics of information theory is complete hooey. Natural selection works because organisms adapt to the properties of a changing environment which functions as all the “designer” one would ever need.
Report comment as offensive
“From a scientific view point, there is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of life on Earth.”
In what way is “unassailable dogma” different from “absolutely no doubt”? What other scientific theory has ever been declared beyond doubt?
If you read carefully, you see that there is “no doubt” that “evolution is a central theory …” ID, on the other hand, is not even couched in a scientifically acceptable theoretic form, and YE Creationism is a falsified theory. Science is full of questions, testing, and probing of the mechanisms of evolution. Consequently, the theory has changed quite a bit, unlike a “dogma,” which never changes.
Report comment as offensive
A literal reading of the Bible reveals that God created the earth with an “appearance of age.” In other words, Adam and Eve were not created as fetuses, and the full-grown trees and plants in the Garden of Eden were not just seeds, and the animals in the garden were not newborns.
God apparently also gave the cosmos an appearance of having evolved in direct contradiction to a literal reading of the events in Genesis. Empirical evidence argues strongly against human origin from one set of parents 6,000 years ago, or of any of the “appearances” of life or celestial objects happening in the Genesis order (much less the Genesis timescale). Your God is essentially a liar.
Report comment as offensive
16. by dlloyd90: If I want to believe that God created the Earth in six days that’s my own affair. If I’m in the majority and want to make it a part of the school curriculum so be it.
This is why creationists are causing more harm to this country than the 9/11 terrorists ever could.
Dlloyd90 wants to force science teachers to teach religion. This is a violation of the First Amendment, a violation of common sense, and I can’t imagine anything more immoral than lying to students.
From Spinoza: Natural selection works because organisms adapt to the properties of a changing environment which functions as all the “designer” one would ever need.
Right, the designer is natural selection. Evolution is guided by natural selection, not by some magic man.
Creationism is just another word for magic. Magic certainly doesn’t belong in any science class, despite the wishes of some creationists who don’t understand science and never will understand science. Their idea of them deciding what should be taught in a science class would be like letting somebody who couldn’t add 2 numbers together deciding what should be taught in a math class.
Report comment as offensive
This comment is a test only.
Report comment as offensive
Musing (24):I continue to state that origins of life is not yet a scietific endeavor.
Then we agree with one another, but we disagree with the PA.
Spinoza–What about this “absolutely no doubt” thing? Sounds pretty dogmatic to me, and discouraging to enquiry.
Report comment as offensive
Stubob, There is absolutely no doubt the earth circles the Sun.
Is that dogmatic to you?
Here’s another science fact: There is absolutely no doubt Stubob is related to all life, and his closest, but still very distant, non-human relatives are chimpanzees.
This fact we developed from the same ape-like ancestors chimpanzees evolved from, has as much, if not more, evidence than the fact our planet orbits a star.
Don’t believe that? Then you are willfully ignorant and you should consider educating yourself. Just watch out for the liars who spread anti-science nonsense to gullible creationists. You can never hope to learn anything if you believe liars. Hint - the liars are Christians and the fake scientists who work for the Discovery Institute, Bible websites, & Christian colleges. The liars have to lie to justify the fairy tales in Genesis. They have no evidence but they never stop lying about the hard work of real scientists who have made the important discoveries that have established evolution as a proven fact.
Report comment as offensive
16. by dlloyd90: “If I want to believe that God created the Earth in six days that’s my own affair. If I’m in the majority and want to make it a part of the school curriculum so be it.”
This is why creationists are causing more harm to this country than the 9/11 terrorists ever could.
Dlloyd90 wants to force science teachers to teach religion. This is a violation of the First Amendment, a violation of common sense, and I can’t imagine anything more immoral than lying to students.
From Spinoza: “Natural selection works because organisms adapt to the properties of a changing environment which functions as all the “designer” one would ever need.”
Right, the designer is natural selection. Evolution is guided by natural selection, not by some magic man.
Creationism is just another word for magic. Magic certainly doesn’t belong in any science class, despite the wishes of some creationists who don’t understand science and never will understand science. Their idea of them deciding what should be taught in a science class would be like letting somebody who couldn’t add 2 numbers together deciding what should be taught in a math class.
Report comment as offensive
Qwerts - Where’s your chimp-face avatar?
“The fool hath said, There is no God….Let God be true and every man a liar.”
Who are the liars?
Report comment as offensive
Response to post #2;
“Intelligent design in this form, however, is not science, since it has provided no testable hypotheses.
The same is accurately said of evolution, which is why it may rightly be called a “theory.” Instead, it is treated as dogma.”
You have no idea what “theory” means in science, then. It does NOT mean a guess or belief. It means an explanation of how something works.
A hypothesis is a supposition that is then tested. When it bears out over several tests, being refined as needed, it becomes a theory. Then further tests may continue to strengthen it, or someone may refute it.
The idea that the planets revolve around the sun is a theory, just one that is so well proven by now that it is accepted as fact. Evolution is quite well supported by all available evidence, and is contradicted by none of it — no matter what the Creationists tell you.
It is not dogma, it is fact.
Young Earth creationism has no place in any school except possibly in a mythology course.
As someone else noted, intelligent design is a different matter. We know the Earth and all life on it was not created in six days 6,000 years ago. Science cannot say one way or another whether an intelligence design the physical laws of the universe in such a way so that planets supporting life would form, life would emerge and evolve.
That is a matter of philosophy, and as such might have a place in an advanced “Philosophies of Science” course. That might be a good thing. But it is not science itself; it is a philosophical view for interpreting science.
Report comment as offensive
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment as offensive
Any post using the word “liar” more than four times in one paragraph may safely be ignored, for the thinking has stopped.
Now, in light of the fact that the PA says “there is absolutely no doubt” about evolution, how is it that evolution is not “unassailable dogma”? And while we’re at it, how does such thinking promote human rights?
Report comment as offensive
“Creationism is the belief that God created the world in six days, while intelligent design theory merely states there is evidence of an intelligent designer.”
Intelligent Design (ID) is most definitely God Did It creationism and ID was invented for only one reason - to disguise a proven wrong religious belief to look like science in a failed attempt to force science teachers to teach religion.
The Discovery Institute which spreads the God Did It lies, keeps saying invoking Intelligent Design is not the same as invoking God.
This is just more evidence the fake scientists at the Discovery Institute are liars. Even creationists, if they are honest, will admit ID is invoking God.
Mr. Chapman said: “They are trying to broad brush anyone who is critical of Darwin’s theory as a creationist.”
Bruce Chapman is the president of Discovery Institute. Everyone knows the only people who deny evolution are the same people who invoke God (the creationists). Chapman is a liar.
Are there any honest creationists here? I doubt it. If there are any honest creationists here, I suggest it would be nice if you admitted right now that the Designer the Discovery Institute talks about is God. A little honesty won’t kill you creationists. Why don’t you give it a try? Tell the truth about ID. The Designer is God, it’s a religious belief, and it’s not science.
Report comment as offensive
outkast post 25,
well in fact you did say that Genesis was your only source.
Your statement that the earth was created with the appearance of age is, however, an interesting assertion.
First, what passages in Genesis leads to this statement? I am not aware of verses which state this.
But more importantly, I am assuming that your implication is that it was created with the perfect appearance of age. That is to say all tests will show that it is old. Have I captured the essence of your statement?
Report comment as offensive
testing
Report comment as offensive