Why Leftists Bash Creationism

by W.F. Price on August 29, 2012

One of our local petty luminaries, Bill Nye the “science guy,” recently lectured parents about teaching their children to believe in Creationism, saying that they are bad for doing so. Here in a West Coast city (Nye got his public career started in Seattle), bashing religious conservatives is about as brave as stomping on baby bunnies, but for some reason people always receive applause for doing so anyway.

As is often the case, Nye is wrong about a number of things, such as the claim that denial of evolution is unique to the US (plenty of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and people of other faiths all over the world have the same or their own Creation beliefs).

Anyway, it got me to thinking about the issue, and while I do accept evolution and don’t believe the world is only a few thousand years old, I don’t see why Creationism is any more damaging to children – or society in general – than the idea that all people are created equal, which is widely accepted despite being untrue (at least in the literal sense).

Additionally, it’s a lot less harmful than the “progressive” idea that gender is a social construct, which continues to be taught in universities across the land, despite being a harmful lie.

Another thing to consider is that if you do accept evolution as scientific fact, Creationism and associated religious faith fits right into the concept of natural selection, as faith is an adaptive trait. People who are believers have larger families, and therefore propagate more of their genes. If natural selection is a good thing, and leftists do tend to attach moral significance to it, then what’s wrong with adopting a strategy that provides an advantage, even if it consciously contradicts scientific wisdom?

I think the reason Creationism bothers leftists is just that: it gives their competitors an edge, while their own popular fallacies and illogical beliefs do the opposite.

{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }

Anonymous age 70 August 29, 2012 at 14:06

I graduated from high school in 1960. We studied evolution, and I believed it because I was told it was true. Our science books had photos of the strange bird, something like archaeopteryx , and the transitional fish coelacanth whose bones in rocks showed the evolutionary changes over millions of years.

Everything that was shown in the Fifties as proof of evolution has been disproved. They discovered the coelacanth is being sold in markets in Asia and eaten by locals. Thus proving no change over millions of years.

Ever since Darwin proposed his defective theory, evolutionists have proposed items as proof of evolution. And, soon enough, they are forced to admit their error. Never do they stop and look at other explanations. Nope, just charge on, insisting even though the proof they presented is false, any day now we will find the real proof and anyone who believes in anything but evolution is an ignorant idiot.

Of course, no scientist who does not agree with them ever gets credentials as a scientist. This is called true science in action.

I don’t like being lied to. And, evolutionists lied to me, and are still lying to me. And, they are lying to you. There is no evidence of evolution. Evolution is only a theory based on the religious belief that the universe made itself out of nothing.

Darwin saw examples in his island travels of birds which LOST genetic material, and he took that as proof that species can add genetic material.

There is not today any evidence of a species which has changed to another species. Anyone who tells you differently is lying.

Don’t misunderstand me. If you want to believe in a wild-eyed theory not based on reality, and with no supporting evidence, that is fine with me. And, I am not going to participate in meaningless arguments with you. Just don’t try to tell others they are ignorant because they do not share your belief. And, don’t try to force your superstitious theories on innocent children.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
AmStrat August 29, 2012 at 14:22

The way I see it, these evolutionary “deacons” stem from two motives:

1. They think they are smart and want to show-boat how smart they are. (innocent, but annoying).

2. (far more insidious) They understand that as long as rights and liberties come from a creator, no state can truly infringe on them; they cannot say that rights, privileges or any sort of freedom is to be granted by the state. If you can destroy any belief in a creator, the state (and their right-hand group of “scientists”) get to decide what everyone is deemed to have.

These are motivations of atheistic DEACONS, however. I have nothing but respect for our allied atheists who, though they believe in no distinct Creator, still fight for individual liberty and rights endowed to people from the universe, not the state. People like Maxwell Paine, for instance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Mojo August 29, 2012 at 14:23

Ferdinand Bardamu used to refer to the left’s insane belief in natural equality as Left Creationism.

At least the Christian form of Creationism is logically consistent, even if it sounds fanciful to the rest of us.

Left Creationism doesn’t even have logical consistency going for it. They believe in human evolution, but somehow also believe that we are all identical at birth. LOL WUT

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Opus August 29, 2012 at 14:45

As a very small child I used to walk with my parents on a Sunday up to Downe (which I thought very funny – and it really was uphill), though I was then unaware of the significance of the village or its famous inhabitant.

Our Ten Pound Note has a picture of Darwin (on the obverse of the Queen). In Science We Trust – seems to be the implied ripost to your Dollar Bill.

Call us gullible, or godless, if you like, but Creationism is simply a non-existent non-issue over here. No one believes it – not even the Christians – and (I am sorry to tell you) just gives us an opportunity to laugh – in pretended superiority – at American’s Pious Peasants as Bertrand Russell christened them.

Sorry – apart from that I agree with Welmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
keyster August 29, 2012 at 14:47

Religion is Jung’s “Common Dream”; the savior, the sin and the sacrifice and the Fall are recurring themes in all religions. We seek to make sense of, if not justify our own existence. How bold and narcisstic man is!

Whether you’re of The Faithful or not, you’ll soon realize that spirituality is necessary to our existence, and perhaps for good reason. Even strident leftists turn to the latest New Age trend, and Feminists to Goddess Worship or Paganism. Even Atheism is a form of worshipping a God, albeit the Ungod or lack thereof.

There is a guiding force but we’re too feeble to comprehend Him, as much as we try. This is all too perfect to be an accident of the Universe. The building blocks of life didn’t spontaneously manifest without devine intervention. Metophorical folktales charm us and inform us of age old wisdom to live by. Our attempts to explain God means He exists; every day a miracle.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lavazza August 29, 2012 at 14:50

Mojo: Exactly. There’s no differences between the sexes, except the obvious, but evolution explains all other differences.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
RMM August 29, 2012 at 14:53

Everyone knows it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster that created everything, and that’s what should be taught at schools.

In the meantime, I’d suggest you stick to father’s issues and similar topics, Mr. Price.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
Christina August 29, 2012 at 15:10

@Anonymous age 70
“I don’t like being lied to. And, evolutionists lied to me, and are still lying to me. And, they are lying to you. There is no evidence of evolution. Evolution is only a theory based on the religious belief that the universe made itself out of nothing.”

You are the absolute BEST. I’m totally with you. Especially the last line – the unequivocal acceptance on blind faith of a hypothesis with absolutely no proof. Exactly what religion is made of.

I like my religion better. At least if I’m right, it comes with a nice retirement package =/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Thos August 29, 2012 at 15:38

Teaching children creation should be considered child abuse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Thos August 29, 2012 at 15:39

There was an ism missing after “creation” there. That’ll teach me to eat and type.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Anonymous Reader August 29, 2012 at 15:42

The left believes in evolution, except for humans. Pointing out genetic differences in humans, such as the fact that West Africans are the fastest sprinters on the planet due to a higher density of fast-twitch muscle tissue, makes them nervous. And if you suggest that evolution of humans doesn’t stop at the neckline, they angrily will brand you a heretic.

Again, the Left believes in evolution, with some very broad caveats – caveats that show their belief is nothing less than a faith-based version of creationism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Clydesdale August 29, 2012 at 15:43

“I don’t see why Creationism is any more damaging to children…than the idea that all people are created equal, which is widely accepted despite being untrue (at least in the literal sense).”

Funny thing is, those most likely to accept (indeed assert) that “all men are created equal” (in the literal sense) are those who deny the very existence of a “creator” — without whom Jefferson’s Declaration makes little sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo August 29, 2012 at 15:47

One should really look into the Collagen argument found in almost every dino bone they are going with. Collagen is not able to last, as far as we know, for millions of years. Since Dr. Schweitzer discovered it in the mid nneties, because she was doing something different; and not what everyone else was doing, she disovered the loose red cells. Since she published her findings in 2006 I think(?); she has received heavy criticism on all sides, she refuses to discuss it outside of her professional circle anymore. Not sure I can blame her, but if she is right or wrong; people deserve to know!

Lets be clear, many detractors have rightfully questioned her findings; some vehemently so! This is a good thing, science does not move like a race car, but in something akin to a geological time. The reprecussions of lying for decades in science can have too many bad effects that are too numerous to debate here.

The fact of the matter is, the collagen keeps showing up where the marrow would be; deep inside the bone and protected from foreign contaminants. This means that it was housed in the innermost part of the creatures; a T-Rex, Duckbill (haeodrasaur?), and several others.

What they mean by foreign contaminant is that during the millions of years the bone was becoming a fossil, and then the millions of years it was a buried fossil; foreign matter containing DNA, like bacteria in water, would have contaminated it. In other words, giving the bones a date of tens of thousands of years rather than the millions they say in text books.

Evolutionary scientists are up in arms, because the findings obviously contradict thier point of view like their POV contradicts the book of Genesis.

I keep track of it, and I am sitting on the fence; the biologists retorts are comical; and of course the creationists are all over it saying “see, see, didn’t we tell you?!

Either way, discovering how the process works over millions of years, or in the tens of thousands of years could produce great technologies; like making food last for millions of years to allow space travel over great distances!

I believe in God, and I believe he is All-Powerful; be it ten thousand years, or billions does not faze me.

How can a statue chisel itself out of its own marble?

If you believe that, as an engineer, I have to accept that you have more “faith” than I do!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
(R)Evoluzione August 29, 2012 at 15:48

Evolution at this point is a very, very well demonstrated theory. Its signal strength, the certainty with which science demonstrates evolution is as strong as the demonstration of the “theory” of gravity. Which is to say that evolution exists just as gravity exists.

Hell, you can prove it to yourself in a few days. Take a culture of bacteria, dose it with antibiotics, and 99.9% of the bacteria will die off. The 0.1% that remains will be resistant to the antibiotic. Grow that group of bacteria some more, try to dose them again with the same antibiotic, and the death rate will be a fraction of what the first dose was. We can demonstrate this concept, selection pressrue, in plants, animals, bacteria, you name it.

Just because we have free will and a conception of God does not exempt us from this hierarchy. Nor should it. There’s no reason to believe that if a supreme being exists, he/she/it wouldn’t have used evolution as a mechanism of creation. The two don’t need to be mutually exclusive.

That evolutionary theory was greatly advanced by Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian (Catholic) monk, providing great irony of the religious right’s backlash against evolution. Evolution has not always created such a schism between science and religion, as Mendel demonstrates. He was not hanged, he was not defenestrated, nor ex-communicated. He was lionized by the Church, lauded for his contribution to science and agriculture. In fact the Vatican has largely ignored the whole evolutionary squabble, and has quietly issued guidelines to Catholic schools about how to teach evolution in a Christian context.

With scant historical antecedent of religious renunciation of evolution, the recent rise in fever pitch of the anti-evolutionary right wing nutjob proclamations must have its source in some other principle.

That principle is simple: divide & conquer. Use cultural warfare principles to divide the electorate into “left” and “right” while the elite bankers continue to rob us blind, to steal with inflation and through taxation. The elite banksters will enjoy dividends & bonuses as large or larger this year and next, no matter who is elected president, and no matter how much unemployment grows (and it will.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself August 29, 2012 at 16:24

“bashing religious conservatives is about as brave as stomping on baby bunnies,”

I’m against all animal rights activism, veganism, and vegetarianism, so I am in favor of killing baby rabbits as long as they do not belong to endangered species. I only favor bringing species back from extinction so that they can be exploited, even for target practice. Nail PeTA.

Incidentally, PeTA has worn out its welcome in its hometown of Norfolk, VA and believes that killing animals is its prerogative and nobody else’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TLM August 29, 2012 at 16:24

Some jaded asshole takes a cruise to the Galapagos Islands, makes some observations, and Christians should suddenly abandon what the Scriptures say about creation in Genesis, Job, etc. What a bunch of nancies. If social pressure from some retarded atheists can force a retreat or pseud0-compromise with the walking dead, how will you ever take a stand for Christ’s death & resurrection. Grow a pair. In school they taught me that babies had gills, medical imaging technology proved what a bunch of nonsense that was. And I’m curious as to why people who believe in Biblical Creation are automatically assumed to be young earth types? That’s ridiculous. We have no way of knowing (Jewish Calender theories aside) and why should we even care? It’s of little to no relevance to our need for Christ’s atonement. The whole Evolution thing is just another excuse, in a long line of them, that people use to justify themselves and their sins. And Bill Nye’s show sucked anyway.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lyn87 August 29, 2012 at 16:27

For something to be considered “science” it must be repeatable, testable and confirmable by other scientists.

Spontaneous Generation (THE single most vital link between “molecules and man”) does not satisfy any of those requirements, and was about as thoroughly disproved as something can be in 1859. Pasteur destroyed this foundation of macro-evolution so thoroughly that NOBODY believes it anymore, although guys like Bill Nye and nearly every “science” teacher I have ever met ignores this reality and preaches macro-evolution as if the basis upon which it stands had not been conclusively demonstrated to be false.

But the point of bashing creationism is not to advance “science” – they cannot using spontaneous generation and/or macro-evolution. The point is to get people to disbelieve in anything “higher.” If humans were actually the present Earthly pinnacle of a magical process called “evolution,” than what humans think collectively represents the ONLY form of transcendent morality – and even that is ultimately based on force as “Legal / Illegal” replaces “Right / Wrong.” We thus foolishly declare ourselves to be God and deny the existence of rules to live by – then moan about moral anarchy (and it’s bastard children like feminism).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
TLM August 29, 2012 at 16:33

(R)Evoluzione

Biologists are not real scientists. They are the right fielders and catchers of the adult male softball leagues. This means, in plain English, they suck at science.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel August 29, 2012 at 16:38

The truth is that we know nothing compared to all there is to know.
Wait a few more millenia and perhaps we will have the beginning of the start of an answer.

Meanwhile, all we can do is investigate and try to understand.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
joeb August 29, 2012 at 16:40

The Government want nothing more then to Have a Civil religion like in England . It makes Slavery , deters prison and a Monopoly on the workplace possible . A civil religion gives the government rule over the Family , A reverse Shi’ite Muslim rule that focuses on holding head of the family ,The Male In slavery . Modals in China seem to work well for the ruling class . As always a god of your own would throw a big wrench in the works . Same old same old .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Eincrou August 29, 2012 at 16:48

Anonymous Age 70: “They discovered the coelacanth is being sold in markets in Asia and eaten by locals. Thus proving no change over millions of years.”

You say “the coelacanth” as if it’s a specific fish. Coelacanth describes an entire order of fish; one with scores of species described. The fossilized examples of this order of fish were not the same species that have been discovered living.

The order continues to survive. The fossilized species are still believed extinct and they were different from the two species discovered to be living. There were changes over millions of years, as evolution predicts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
El Bastardo August 29, 2012 at 16:49

@(R)Evolutionize

That principle is simple: divide & conquer. Use cultural warfare principles to divide the electorate into “left” and “right” while the elite bankers continue to rob us blind, to steal with inflation and through taxation. The elite banksters will enjoy dividends & bonuses as large or larger this year and next, no matter who is elected president, and no matter how much unemployment grows (and it will.)

I agree with this. I would add the racial tension in the increase in white on black crime thse past few years, feminist controlled family court, the media, and a few others.

The rest I am neither here nor there on what you say. There are arguments against the fundamentals of Evolution, and yes the intelligent design theorists are largely the biggest proponents of this, is that adaptation is just adaptation; not proof positive that we change from one thing to another.

The bacteria did not change into a whole different bacteria, just a more adapted bacteria defensively resistant to that strain of anti-biotics.

My point is, and the main thrust of my argument against evolutionists themselves, not the theory; is that proving that creatures adapt, does not prove they can promote the immense diversity we see on our planet. It is merely assumed, not proven! I am familiar with the mRNA examples; I get it, I just don’t agree because I don’t see how their examples prove anything they are claiming. Other than proving how the universe could chisel itself together out of spare parts and chaos. Lovely poetry in my eyes right now, but indoctrination has crept in, and stagnated real intellectual observation in numerous cases. At least I feel, because they refuse to let anything challenge their prized thoroughbred. Especially if it threatens their funding for evolutionary reserach, and their deathgrip on the science education of our kids.

That is why I bring up my view of collagen earlier. For years, meteorites for example; evolutionists said they were not possible inside the theory of evolutionary theory that they had before the fifties. Then an evolutionary scientist “proved” for lack of a better term, for the better part of X number of decdes (I forgot the time frme, and his name) the crater by the Yucatan peninisula. Now, everyone is a believer. They act like they have always known this? That is npt good, we teach history for a reason! Just accepting the theory as it is today as fact, leaves most people to never question it, and this I feel really stagnates it from what it could be!

Most evolutionary biologists for example will never conduct experiments against the theory, only try and fit the evidence into the theory. Hence the collagen debate (I know Schweitzer is not a biologist per se, but an paleontologist if I remember correctly); rather then test for flaws in the theory, they play the “dreaded creationist” and try to make everything fit what they already believe.

If the theory is all that and a bag of chips, than testing it for collagens actual age only furthers our collective knowledge of our world, even if it shakes up everything you hold dear is the right thing to do. I sense that most of the scientists are petrified what it could do to their careers if they have been proclaiming a flase narrative. I know this is not all of it, but it is most definitely a part of it. I think the collageen argument is goign to be around for a long, long, long time. LOL

Otherwise our educators are merely indoctrinators; something akin to a Nazi summer camp. Not the steadfast leaders in the face of ignorance, fearlessly defending our children’s future intellectual capacity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ron August 29, 2012 at 17:23

I don’t agree with everything you said, but I can hear it. However, there is one thing I definitely disagree with, and that is your last statement.

I don’t think it’s because creationism gives their opponents an edge, but because leftists need a morally relativistic society in order to enact their agenda (whatever that may be).

Belief in an absolute, such as G-d, can slow that process down. (although we see plenty of religious leftists)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunn August 29, 2012 at 17:25

@Revolutionize

What you stated above (bacteria vs antibiotics) is selection pressure, which serves to emphasise a particular set of traits within a population over time. This on its own is not evolution; rather it is the assumed mechanism by which evolution is supposed to happen.

The theory of evolution goes further: specifically, speciation must occur (a population which was at one time a single species over time becomes two or more distinct species). When the resultant new species encounter selection pressure, the one(s) most able to propogate within a given environment at a given point in time are the ones that come to dominate (“natural selection”).

There are even definitional problems with this however, as the term species can mean different things, and whether or not you have speciation is dependent on the meaning you ascribe to the term.

Speciation has been said to be observed in a couple of experiments (which I have not read about in depth), however its actually very difficult to point to any demonstration of speciation in the natural world. The examples commonly cited (e.g. moths changing colour from white to black due to industrial pollution) are not examples of speciation because they are in fact the same species at the start / end but with different superficial characteristics that were driven by selection pressure.

There is no way that evolution can be compared to any theory in any of the hard sciences (i.e. physics, chemistry) such as the theory of gravity. True theories are usefully predictive in nature, whereas evolution is a backwards looking post-hoc rationalisation of why something happened. In other words, its a “Just So” story dressed up in pseudo-scientific clothing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jungle August 29, 2012 at 17:34

Yeah I think I’ve had it with this site.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabberwocky August 29, 2012 at 17:34

There is no light between God and evolution. They are practically one and the same. One is the object, and the other the action. They are a cosmic experience of kinetic will. God is not separate from man or monkey, or chair, or stars, or energy, or movement, or abstraction, or nothingness. God is everything, always, everywhere, at all times. Evolution is his catalytic reaction, his movement, his operating system, the gears and cogs of this omni-contraption we call reality. It is what propagates the universe, the galaxies, the decay and birth cycle of stars, the matrix of unfolding space-time, all life, all thought, all cultures and all technologies; everything evolves in mutual relationship with everything else, and all of this, including us, is a part of him.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The I-Barb August 29, 2012 at 17:57

Speaking as somebody who considers himself slightly to the right of Ayn Rand, I really do feel a need for my blood pressure meds when I hear commentary like this. I’m not sure why this needs to be spelled out, but science is not a political ideology, left, right or otherwise. Yes, I can see how religious conservatives think science is just leftist propaganda since most of them think Forrest Gump is too smart for their comfort.

The reason why you see scientists from all over speaking up lately is because the level of religious lunacy has spiked up steadily and creationism is now being treated by Republicans like a valid idea. What’s next? Declare Galileo wrong and put the Earth back in the center of the solar system?

Fighting one lunatic fringe is hard enough, let’s not invite others to the party.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
El Bastardo August 29, 2012 at 18:06

I think there needs to be a definition of what a thoery is, compared to a law!

In science, Theory>Law

A theory is a compositional explanation to encompass everything we can observe; it used to explain what we observe, and to predict what we expect to observe.

For example, Relativity (E=MC2) by Eintstein predicted that if light appeared to bend we could predict numerous things in the cosmos through the math behind Relativity. In other words, space, like a sheet of elastic will bend around objects, and hence gravity. Something to that effect? Anyways………..they observed that the stars around an eclipse moved as Einstein’s theory predicted. Therefore, we can better understand the laws which govern inside the theory.

Evolution is claimed to be the same, yet we actually know very little; albeit we still know quite a lot. Same thing with Relativity, we know a lot more then we did a century ago; but we only learn that we almost know nothing, as far as we know? LOL

A lot of Evolutionists use string theory (M theory) to explain how in black holes (theoretical object in space), we may be able to move either great distances over light years instaneously; be in different places at the same time, or both. Yet, there are still gaps (for lack of a better term) and nature consistently shows a need for a creator; and hence we keep coming back to God! Much to the chagrin of people like Dawkins.

For all we know, when we do break through a black hole, we may find God on His Throne; and He will look at us like gee, FINALLY, you made it!………..He reaches over his Throne, and asks: Want a beer? LOL ( just my wish I guess?)

*For those who don’t know, it is very likely that string theory can never be proven! We would need the ability to travel distances in the millions of light years in some cases for veriication; if you know what a light year is, that is higlhy unlikely to happen in our lifetime. So to learn that black holes can do the stuff we watch in Star Trek, is going to take a lot of time! At least hundreds of years even with our projected rate of technological acceleration!*

In relation to the defintion of a Law:

Gravity is a law, it governs bodies based on its predicted strength between attracted bodies (stars, magnets, you get the idea).

In Evolution, speciation is supposedly a “law” but like the other commenter said, we have not seen any real life example of it; yet anyways. But Evolutionists use the “theory of Evolution to say the law of speciation will occur.

Of all the laws they brag about, the macro version of speciation is something I have yet to hear about. In the “real” sciences, we can observe the laws everyday in action. Until then, Evolution from one creatre into another is just like feminist poetry; it might drip off your tongue, but it is still most likely fantasmic BS. For eample, the Cambrian Explosion is a good one to read up on, even though some Evolutionists ahve great arguments, it does not fele to me like they are answering everything. That is why I am inclinded to view a lot of biology as I do phrenology-Pseudo science, until I see their complete predictions become even remotely verified! They are not chemists, physicists, or engineers in my book.

You want to prove something, you have to prove it; I just don’t see it yet. I think we as a species have a lot to learn yet,we are most likely in our infacy (relatively speaking) !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 29, 2012 at 18:23

The reason why you see scientists from all over speaking up lately is because the level of religious lunacy has spiked up steadily and creationism is now being treated by Republicans like a valid idea. What’s next? Declare Galileo wrong and put the Earth back in the center of the solar system?

Fighting one lunatic fringe is hard enough, let’s not invite others to the party.

-The I-Barb

It might be that from my vantage point (the left coast), creationism just doesn’t seem like much of a threat. In fact, I have never in my life heard it openly espoused in any school (or church for that matter), and I always wondered why people got so worked up about it.

Let’s be frank here: the average person, creationist or not, hasn’t the foggiest idea about science anyway. As for those who are interested, they generally have critical faculties that allow them to weigh the facts themselves. Bill Nye’s complaint about kids not understanding “deep time” or radiation is irrelevant, because not many people do anyway, and that has very little to do with creationism.

For example, if you asked the average non-creationist simple questions about geology, such as how volcanoes are formed, they’d be stumped, and they’d have only the most primitive concept of evolution. As for radiation, I bet nine out of ten people would be unaware that it occurs naturally in common rocks such as granite.

Ignorance of science can be found in equal measure in both religious conservative and liberal communities (try quizzing kids in East LA about science), so it’s hard for me to accept that creationism is really such a dire threat, and I tend to suspect that opposition to it is motivated more by ideological rather than scientific concerns.

Matt August 29, 2012 at 18:35

Welmer, I am not a creationist but I have read some serious books on the subject. The left wants us to believe that they have a monopoly on science, truth and compassion. Other than ridicule and dismissing them as ( Please insert favorite slur here):.They (lefties) do not counter with a rational argument rather they emote their positions then present them rationally. So, who is being irrational?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Matt August 29, 2012 at 18:45

They (lefties) do not counter with a rational argument; they emote their positions; rather then to present them rationally. So, who is being irrational?

(hope this reads better)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
imnobody August 29, 2012 at 18:57

I was convinced about evolution. Now, I’m not that sure: it seems to me that the theory’s evidence has some big holes, but I still tend to believe it is the most likely explanation. But I am open-minded.

What I don’t like it is the ideological aspect of all that. When scientists lie to advance a theory (and they have lied and exaggerate their claims), you know that they are not being scientists but they are using science to advance an ideological position. This is a treason to science.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Paul Murray August 29, 2012 at 19:00

Creationists are trying to roll back the enlightenment.

The theory of evolution is part of science. If a part of science can simply be dismissed or rolled back for nonscientific reasons, then where’s the end of it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Gunn August 29, 2012 at 19:27

The I-Barb stated: “I’m not sure why this needs to be spelled out, but science is not a political ideology, left, right or otherwise.”

The thing is, apart from your genuine desire to be want to believe this, what actual proof do we have that science is really above political ideology?

Consider that most disciplines that are called ‘science’ today include greater or lesser degrees of subjectivity. Apart from the hard sciences, i.e. physics and chemistry (and related offshoots), the subjectivity is apparent. Even with physics and chemistry, there are hidden effects that are not understood by the general public.

Science today is conducted largely by academic organisations that are reliant on huge amounts of public funding. The areas under investigation are subject to funding approval (which is a fairly obvious source of potential bias) and peer approval (which is a more hidden form of bias).

If your ideas don’t fit the political landscape, and if you need relatively large amounts of funding, then you’re likely to find yourself out of luck. In times past, when scientists were largely amateurs who were either self-funded or funded through private means (e.g. rich patrons), there was a degree of independence from the political mainstream. That was when the bulk of innovative science really happened. What we’ve had over the last 50 years or so however is a stagnation in theoretical science. Physics as an example hasn’t really moved on much from the 1930s. Theres all sorts of talk about string theory as the foundation of a grand unified theory, but there is a very strong chance that the entire field is a dead-end. Unfortunately, if you’re a theoretical physicist today, either you accept and work on furthering string theory, or you get work in a different profession.

We have had however technological advances in science – by which I mean that in some fields, there has been advancement driven by doing things quicker, cheaper, or with better quality. In some cases this leads to new ideas (biotech being a prime example), but these ideas don’t tend to be ‘theoretical’ in nature but rather more pragmatic. In a sense, its as if science has become an engineering problem.

I don’t have a problem with this, engineering has done more to make civilisation comfortable than any other discipline known to man. However, the limits of engineering are that it functions within a narrow world-view. Science based on engineering will never give us the next paradigm shift in our understanding.

Meanwhile, the more theoretical aspects of science, which in the past did give rise to qualitative changes in our thinking, have become subverted and ossified by political ideology.

So I think its perfectly valid to deny the premise that science is independent of political ideology, whether left or right. It used to be, but today science has become just another tool used by the elite to influence the wider public.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Lord Simon August 29, 2012 at 19:43

Christ, Welmer. You’re one of those guys? This is the worst thing I have ever seen you post. Anyway, creationism isn’t a theory, it’s part of a religious belief which is trying to masquerade itself as science. Don’t be facetious, you know that’s the case. It’s a direct American christian response to the theory of evolution. And evolution is not a “fact” it’s a theory. Which means that judging from all of the data we have, this is the best hypothesis that fits the facts, which explains how things came to be. Saying an imaginary man in the sky did it, still doesn’t explain how it was done. Science explains the how, religion explains the why. One is based in fact, the other in emotional, historical, cultural, and geographical stories.

My arguement is this. If you are gonna teach creationism, you have to do it for every religion, not just the christian one. And if you do that, that’s not science and shouldn’t be taught in schools. Now if you want to teach alternate theories and debates about scientific evolution (macro vs. micro, mutation, exo-spores seeding earth etc) then that falls in the realm of science and testing. And then you can have kids think of ways to test it and prove or disprove it. That’s what you should teach in school. But leave the religion at the door.

Lord Simon. Black Libertarian MRA and Atheist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Highwasp August 29, 2012 at 19:44

This Baptist Choir Boy Survivor quotes Richard Dawkins:

(RNA, DNA and Enzymes)

“We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started. Before that first step, the sorts of improvement that only natural selection can achieve were impossible. And that means the key step was the arising, by some process as yet unknown, of a self-replicating entity. Self-replication spawns a population of entities, which compete with each other to be replicated. Since no copying process is perfect, the population will inevitably come to contain variety, and if variants exist in a population of replicators those that have what it takes to succeed will come to predominate. This is natural selection, and it could not start until the first self-replicating entity came into existence.

Darwin, in his ‘warm little pond’ paragraph, speculated that the key event in the origin of life might have been the spontaneous arising of a protein, but this turns out to be less promising than most of Darwin’s ideas. This isn’t to deny that proteins are vitally important for life. We saw in Chapter 8 that they have the very special property of coiling themselves up to form three-dimensional objects, whose exact shape is specified by the one-dimensional sequence of their constituents, the amino acids. We also saw that the same exact shape confers on them the ability to catalyse chemical reactions with great specificity, speeding particular reactions up perhaps a trillionfold. The specificity of enzymes makes biological chemistry possible, and proteins seem almost indefinitely flexible in the range of shapes that they can assume. That, then, is what proteins are good at. They are very, very good at it indeed, and Darwin was quite right to mention them. But there is something that proteins are outstandingly bad at, and this Darwin overlooked. They are completely hopeless at replication. They can’t make copies of themselves. This means that the key step in the origin of life cannot have been the spontaneous arising of a protein. What, then, was it?

The best-replicating molecule that we know is DNA. In the advanced forms of life with which we are familiar, DNA and proteins are elegantly complementary. Protein molecules are brilliant enzymes but lousy replicators. DNA is exactly the reverse. It doesn’t coil up into three-dimensional shapes, and therefore doesn’t work as an enzyme. Instead of coiling up it retains its open, linear form, and this is what makes it ideal both as a replicator and as a specifier of amino-acid sequences. Protein molecules, precisely because they coil up into ‘closed’ shapes, do not ‘expose’ their sequence information in a way that might be copied or ‘read’. The sequence information is buried inaccessibly inside the coiled-up protein. But in the long chain of DNA the sequence information is exposed and available to act as a template.

The ‘Catch-22’ of the origin of life is this. DNA can replicate, but it needs enzymes in order to catalyse the process. Proteins can catalyse DNA formation, but they need DNA to specify the correct sequence of amino acids. How could the molecules of the early Earth break out of this bind and allow natural selection to get started? Enter RNA.

RNA belongs to the same family of chain molecules as DNA, the polynucleotides. It is capable of carrying what amount to the same four code ‘letters’ as DNA, and it indeed does so in living cells, carrying genetic information from DNA to where it can be used. DNA acts as the template for RNA code sequences to build up. And then protein sequences build up using RNA, not DNA, as their template. Some viruses have no DNA at all. RNA is their genetic molecule, solely responsible for carrying genetic information from generation to generation.

Now for the key point of the ‘RNA World theory’ of the origin of life. In addition to stretching out in a form suitable for passing on sequence information, RNA is also capable of self assembling, like our magnetic necklace of Chapter 8, into three-dimensional shapes, which have enzymatic activity. RNA enzymes do exist. They are not as efficient as protein enzymes, but they do work. The RNA World theory suggests that RNA was a good enough enzyme to hold the fort until proteins evolved to take over the enzyme role, and that RNA was also a good enough replicator to muddle along in that role until DNA evolved.

I find the RNA World theory plausible, and I think it quite likely that chemists will, within the next few decades, simulate in the laboratory a full reconstruction of the events that launched natural selection on its momentous way four billion years ago. Fascinating steps in the right direction have already been taken.

Before leaving the subject, however, I must repeat the warning I have given in earlier books. We don’t actually need a plausible theory of the origin of life, and we might even be a little bit anxious if a too plausible theory were to be discovered! This glaring paradox arises from the famous ‘Where is everybody?’ question, which was posed by the physicist Enrico Fermi. Enigmatic as his question sounds, Fermi’s companions, fellow physicists at the Los Alamos Laboratory, were attuned enough to know exactly what he meant. Why haven’t we been visited by living creatures from elsewhere in the universe? If not visited in person, at least visited by radio signals (which is vastly more probable).

It is now possible to estimate that there are upwards of a billion planets in our galaxy, and about a billion galaxies. This means that, although it is possible that ours is the only planet in the galaxy that has life, in order for that to be true, the probability of life arising on a planet would have to be not much greater than one in a billion. The theory that we seek, of the origin of life on this planet, should therefore positively not be a plausible theory! If it were, life should be common in the galaxy. Maybe it is common, in which case a plausible theory is what we want. But we have no evidence that life exists outside this planet, and at very least we are entitled to be satisfied with an implausible theory. If we take the Fermi question seriously, and interpret the lack of visitations as evidence that life is exceedingly rare in the galaxy, we should move towards positively expecting that no plausible theory of the origin of life exists. I have developed the argument more fully in The Blind Watchmaker, and shall leave it there. My guess, for what it is worth (not much, because there are too many unknowns), is that life is very rare, but that the number of planets is so large (more are being discovered all the time) that we are probably not alone, and there may be millions of islands of life in the universe. Nevertheless, even millions of islands could still be so far apart that they have almost no chance of ever encountering one another, even by radio. Sadly, as far as practicalities are concerned, we might as well be alone.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 29, 2012 at 20:06

Creationists are trying to roll back the enlightenment.

The theory of evolution is part of science. If a part of science can simply be dismissed or rolled back for nonscientific reasons, then where’s the end of it?

-Paul Murray

Well, obviously, creationists shouldn’t be allowed to block funding or research because of their beliefs, but Bill Nye is telling parents what they can and cannot teach their children, which is an entirely different matter.

I think a lot of people get upset over attempts to teach creationism in public schools, but this wasn’t Nye’s gripe. Personally, I think that if parents feel strongly enough about it, perhaps evolution could be an elective in schools (it isn’t necessary for high school level biology anyway), but by no means should they be allowed to impose either creation “science” or a ban on schools teaching evolution. I was raised Catholic, so, as another commenter pointed out, it’s never been an issue in my family or church, but those who are real literalists shouldn’t be forced to teach it to their kids.

To be honest, if we took the politics out of evolution, I bet it wouldn’t even be an issue and fundamentalists would stop objecting to it. The problem is the abuse of science for political purposes, e.g. the popular strict “Out of Africa” theory of hominid evolution that mimics the biblical stories of Genesis and Exodus so closely as to be highly suspect itself (East Asian scientists entirely reject this theory). When it comes to human origins, people instinctively begin to attach mythological narratives to the story, whether they are conscious of doing so or not. So what we are really looking at here is actually a conflict between two different religions rather than one between science and religion.

joeb August 29, 2012 at 20:09

But, In the end Both require us to take that same leap of faith .Nether would be what I or the forefathers would considered as “self evident ”
The affirmative truth is lacking on both sides . It seems to me they both end up fragmented .
Ether produce a logical explanation for pair bonding or would the designer step forward please .
Introducing ether argument in a system that demands truth is lunacy on both sides .
So lets get to the real issue separation of state and religion ,Scientific theory is the same as religion without logic .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Keyster August 29, 2012 at 20:23

The theory of evolution is part of science. If a part of science can simply be dismissed or rolled back for nonscientific reasons, then where’s the end of it?

In this NEW age of enlightenment religion and science are not mutually exclusive. They’re siblings in man’s eternal quest. Both need faith. The Vatican won’t be dragging Stephen Hawking in for an inquest anytime soon. Even the Pope welcomes discovery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price August 29, 2012 at 20:32

Christ, Welmer. You’re one of those guys? This is the worst thing I have ever seen you post. Anyway, creationism isn’t a theory, it’s part of a religious belief which is trying to masquerade itself as science. Don’t be facetious, you know that’s the case.

-Lord Simon

Simon, if you’ve been reading me for a while you’d know that I openly and frequently write about human evolution. Although I don’t make a big issue of it, I think that should make it pretty clear that I do not accept the creation stories (there are two of them) in Genesis as literal truth.

My point – and I stand by it – is that believing literally in the biblical version of creation is no worse or more preposterous than what leftists choose to believe.

El Bastardo August 29, 2012 at 20:34

This is why I am still in the middle.

To be fair this is one of the fairest conversations I have watched; and I mean fair conversation. Usually this topic broils into an unfair argument where nobody senses they have been heard. Merely dismissed.

I have debated, argued, conversed with numerous people on this topic. Biologists, Churcheans, regulars, and others who I could tell were incredably smart people; physicists to biochemists even.

Everyone has an opinion, and I think Price is right; most people can’t tell you one way or the other. Irrespective of what they might claim to believe.

As most people are an expert on one, maybe two topics; they usually just take the “experts” word for it. I guess I learned that is part of the problem; half the time the “experts” don’t have a clue.

That guarantees the rest of us are probably not Sherlock Holmes ourselves! Like Holmes would say: ‘It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.’

And:

‘How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?’

And Lastly, but most important:

‘I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands on it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it – there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.’

It is frustrating; it is the same thing I see when talking about Men’s Rights. Everyone has an opinion one way or the other; but no one wants to feel like they are being told.

Guess what, you get into a conversation, they feel like they are being told. Also, the more “brainy” the subject; the more people feel like you are talking down to them.

As the saying goes; “You don’t talk to people about Religion, Politics, or anything else.”

Just say hello, and shut up! God I miss the service sometimes; even the ones who did not score high on their exams. Makes me feel like Sheldon on The Big Bang Theory: Almost.

LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead August 29, 2012 at 20:48

“My point – and I stand by it – is that believing literally in the biblical version of creation is no worse or more preposterous than what leftists choose to believe.”

I hear you Welmer, and it is a credit to you that you have responded only to those who seem exasperated by the creationist argument. As someone who leans toward evolution myself, I certainly relate to extra discretion toward those things I take more seriously.

The point you are discriminating is rather subtle though.

I agree that teaching Creationism probably will do no more ‘damage’ than teaching Evolution, if we assume that neither will have any real influence in the thinking of the many in their adult years, but if this is the case, we can easily reverse the argument and state that teaching Evolution cannot do no more harm than teaching Creationism.

But I wonder how the comment section would look then?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter August 29, 2012 at 21:13

@Welmer

“I don’t see why Creationism is any more damaging to children – or society in general – than the idea that all people are created equal, which is widely accepted despite being untrue (at least in the literal sense).”

I like you and respect you, but on this point I have to disagree. Creationism, like magic and Santa Clause, is fantasy. I don’t disparage those who pursue such ideas, I’m not exactly mainstream myself, and others should be free to pursue their own ends.

Bill Nye is absolutely right, kids need to be allowed to come to their own conclusions. Science belongs in school, creationism belongs in church. Let the chips fall where reason lead’s them . . .

If the Creationists are to ever be taken seriously – they need to ‘produce’ their god. Mankind has been waiting 2000 years for that – sorry, it ain’t happening dude and it is fun to think about but we each must find our own way. (Inspired by his noodly omniscience. . . pasta on FSM :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
3DShooter August 29, 2012 at 21:31

Anecdotally, I had the following exchange with my youngest:

son: Dad, do you believe in god?
me: No, son i don’t. There is no evidence to support that myth.
son: Dad, do you believe in Jesus?
me: Yes, he was a real person and well documented in history.
son: Dad, do you believe in the devil?
me: Yes – and I know HER name . . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Ray Manta August 29, 2012 at 21:53

Gunn wrote:
Speciation has been said to be observed in a couple of experiments (which I have not read about in depth), however its actually very difficult to point to any demonstration of speciation in the natural world.

The url below has a list of multiple observed speciation events.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sun August 29, 2012 at 22:43

Well a well thought out post.

Evolution, if anything, disproves equality.

Leftist love evolution only when it comes to bashing Christians (note Muslims will not be bashed because of “hate”).

I like to think of them like the Lysenkoist of the Soviet Union–selectively choosing what they like about science, mixing in their own political b.s., all the while believe and telling the world how they’re “pro science.”

Equality is a creationism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sun August 29, 2012 at 22:56

@ 3 D Shooter

You completely missed the point that he was making.

Price is not claiming that Creationism isn’t harmful. What he is saying is that there are other ideas that damage children and creationism isn’t anymore destructive as other myths. That means he is making a comparison, not defending creationism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Sun August 29, 2012 at 23:25

This is the entering into Social Darwinism–how societies/institutions evolve and their impact on evolutionary survival of a specie.

“Another thing to consider is that if you do accept evolution as scientific fact, Creationism and associated religious faith fits right into the concept of natural selection, as faith is an adaptive trait. People who are believers have larger families, and therefore propagate more of their genes. If natural selection is a good thing, and leftists do tend to attach moral significance to it, then what’s wrong with adopting a strategy that provides an advantage, even if it consciously contradicts scientific wisdom?”

I do not believe that Faith in and of itself creates larger family. There is a correlation. However, I think faith binds people together on a common (tribal) ground. They’re more likely to work together and survive during times of crises over those who are individualistic in nature. Also, if you all believed in the same god you are compatible and willing to die for some cause greater then you, thus ensuring survival of the group.

To many there is a survival need to explaining the unknown and anyone who is serious about evolution will take into consideration that religions evolve over time and play some impact. For example, having a social rule about sex after a religious rite (like marriage) ensures a bond/contract in which the father will stay faithful and raise his own kids. This impacts survival and evolution very directly. Children from mothers with no fathers where more likely to die during paleolithic ages.

Religion is one small aspect of traditionalism or conservatism. These people tend to live in rural places where farming is huge business (kids can help on the farm). Those from religious backgrounds are more likely to have larger families. As larger families were required to survive. A large ideological emphasis is placed on traditional gender roles and women staying away from work to raise kids.

More liberal minded people have smaller families (or no family at all), in part, due to living expenses. However, ideology plays a role. When women are going to work and being pushed into being men (Feminism), then there is less likelihood of producing offspring.

Immigration has been one way to solve this (with drawbacks I won’t go into). Large Hispanic groups have very traditionally minded and tend to have large families which helps provide more income (because of lower economic status) because everyone works and they all live together in some apartment.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Sun August 29, 2012 at 23:35

Reading from the comments people have hard time understanding what Mr. Price wrote. Especially those “smart” atheist (which is laughable as they continuously try to refrain the argument).

As Mr. Price writes, “So what we are really looking at here is actually a conflict between two different religions rather than one between science and religion.”

I feel bad for the man having to defend himself from the driveling stupidity of the masses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
a_guy August 30, 2012 at 02:09

I have believed for a long time that the theory of evolution is nothing more than religion for people who hate the idea of God and need, desperately, something else to explain how we all got here. Let’s put aside the actual scientists for a moment, and just look at the lay people.

99.9999% of people in the world do not understand the modern theory of evolution at all. Not even in the slightest. They hold up Darwin as the spiritual leader of the movement without realizing that the modern theory, as it exists and is studied today, has NOTHING to do with Darwinism. Pretty much all of Darwin’s original hypotheses have been discarded. He is still regarded as the father of the theory, but none of his original ideas remain except the most basic concept of organisms adapting over time. In Darwin’s time, for example, the very concept of DNA was unknown.

Yet, despite this, your average lay person still views the modern theory of evolution as being the same as Darwinism, and even then, this average person has little to no understanding of Darwinism, even as Darwin presented it. They simply know that there IS a theory of evolution, that many, if not most, scientists support it to some extent, and therefore they accept it as true without understanding it AT ALL. This is EXACTLY equivalent to a congregation accepting the interpretations of a religious text by a member of the clergy based on pure faith.

In other words, people credit themselves with a false sense of enlightenment and education simply for believing in the “correct” thing, without understanding that thing. If every person who condemned religion because of evolution did so because they fully read up on the modern theory of evolution, understood it, and then fully read up on the Bible, Torah, Koran or whatever, understood it, and then made a calculated, rational decision based on the evidence, then you would have a truly enlightened, rational population of people.

But that’s not what we have. We have a population of people who believe fully and absolutely in a THEORY that they don’t even understand the basics of, for the sole reason that it is politically correct to do so, and because all of the “cool” people, like those in Hollywood or those at the Democrat convention, say that anyone who doesn’t believe it is a toothless hillbilly. That is EXACTLY like religion (except that a lot of Christians and Jews are actually intelligent people who understand the Bible) where the people take something purely on faith because the cool people told them to.

In other words, in the view of many, a half-wit with an IQ of 80 who has never read a book in his life but believes in evolution will be considered smarter than someone with an IQ of 140 who has read all of the scientific literature on evolution and understood it, and has read the Bible, and understood it, but rejects the theory of evolution because it appears unsound (or at least, rejects the unquestioning acceptance of the theory as fact), SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT HALF-WIT BELIEVES IN THE “CORRECT” thing. That is not science, nor enlightenment. That is pure political orthodoxy, at least as bad if not worse than any religious orthodoxy that has ever existed.

Now back to the actual science:

The Theory of Evolution is called “theory”, not “law” for a reason. There are 3 main stages of the scientific method: 1) hypothesis, which is essentially an idea you pull out of your butt, 2) theory, which is a hypothesis which has held up, more or less, under further scrutiny (initial testing, etc.), and 3) LAW, which is a theory that is shown to predict an outcome that is correct and REPRODUCIBLE every time.

For example, it is called the LAW of GRAVITY, because the original theory, proposed by Sir Isaac Newton, predicted the behavior of two (or more) masses in proximity to each other, correctly, every single time it was tested. And it wasn’t just predicting that an apple would fall to the ground from a tree; Newton correctly predicted, using his theory, the behavior of the planets in rotation around the sun. SIDE NOTE: Newton was a devout Christian, as were so many of science’s giants before we became so “enlightened”.

Evolution, on the other hand, is still called a THEORY, because it has not been shown to predict the behavior of organisms accurately, and it has NOT BEEN REPRODUCED. EVER. People bring up the examples of grey vs. black moths, and bacteria which become anti-biotic-resistant because they do not understand the theory, nor what constitutes actual evolution.

So why, then, if evolution is just a theory, do so many people not only accept, but DEMAND to be accepted, the theory of evolution as immutable fact, as if none of the tenets of evolution were in question in the least? It is because of political orthodoxy – the purely sociological pressure from a given group of people on other people to accept a belief regardless of its validity. Perhaps evolution is correct and it simply hasn’t been perfected yet. That is immaterial. The fact is that people feel pressured to accept it as fact, right now, because the cultural elites, most of whom understand ZERO about the theory, have decided that this is the correct belief, and anyone who does not accept this belief unquestioningly is a toothless, inbred, hillbilly moron. Well, I don’t want to be one of those, so I’d better pledge my allegiance to evolution.

This political orthodoxy actually IMPEDES the refinement and perfection of the theory (or its proper refutation, if necessary), because those working on the theory are afraid to present any data that defies the orthodox thinking. They may be afraid of being mocked or they may be afraid of losing funding. Either way, their conclusions are forcibly biased, which means that we are far less likely to reach the truth.

On a final note: I see this discussion as being entirely appropriate for this forum. Why? Because the evolution vs. creationism vs any other mode of thinking debate is a perfect example of how we have reached a period of anti-enlightenment. We are in a time of rigid orthodoxy which promotes ideas and modes of thinking that either impede rational thought or actually PREVENT IT.

Feminism, for example, is an extremely anti-rational mode of thinking. The adoption of feminism as part of your ideology renders you incapable of seeing simple truths and recognizing simple logic. In a rational world, one would observe men and women and conclude that they are vastly different and have their various strengths and weaknesses. One would notice, for example, that women tend to be smaller and weaker than men, and would logically conclude that men would therefore be better suited for physically demanding vocations, like firefighting or combat.

But feminism makes that logical conclusion impossible, because a principle tenet of feminism is that men and women are exactly equal, except when women are better. Therefore, any conclusion, regardless of how well supported by data and logic it is, that does not show that women are equal or superior, MUST BE DISCARDED, truth be damned. This is anti-enlightenment. This is anti-intellectualism. This is anti-rationalism.

In order for the world to truly take the red pill, we have to reject these anti-rational modes of thinking, wherever we find them. Evolution may have some validity, and may one day be proved correct, but the theory, AS IT IS USED TODAY, is simply another ideological tool to prevent rational thought, or to keep people in line with other anti-rational modes of thinking. One can’t accept all of the planks of Marxism if one believes in God, now can he?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay August 30, 2012 at 02:36

I don’t like being lied to. And, evolutionists lied to me, and are still lying to me. And, they are lying to you. There is no evidence of evolution. Evolution is only a theory based on the religious belief that the universe made itself out of nothing.

So, even knowing that your particular god exists they chose to lie to you to achieve political ends? Those devious scientists, the devil must have possessed them.

A scientific theory basically holds true until evidence to the contrary arises. Then the theory needs to be revised or replaced. This is what happened with evolution. Of course it’s a theory, but it’s based on the best known evidence. If you really get down to it, there are no absolute facts because new evidence can still come in.

Religion also evolves. Most of the things that happened in the bible also happened in other religious texts. The thing is, religion is not open to new evidence. If I say the “theory” of Noah’s Ark is implausible because you can’t put 5 million species all part of the same food chain on a boat no one goes and changes the bible to reflect that.

What I could do now is call everyone who is religious and believes in things that are completely implausible a liar. But, to lie requires that you know what you are saying to be false. This doesn’t apply to religious people and it doesn’t apply to most scientists, they sincerely believe in one way or another that what they say is the truth. Scientists for the most part just don’t think it’s the whole truth.

As keyster rightly points out, many who don’t believe in any particular god pick up some alternative religion, for example the believe in total equality, multi-culturalism and the state as the savior of the proletariat. You can see a lot of that going on in the political sphere. Policy isn’t based on facts, it’s based on ideology, for either side. And bad policies aren’t corrected when evidence presents itself that it has an opposite to the intended effect (think the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty). I guess this is what happens when you elect a bunch of lawyers, who are pretty apt at arguing things they themselves don’t believe to be true (defending the guilty, prosecuting the innocent).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ActaNonVerba August 30, 2012 at 02:43

I’ve always been torn between who chaps my ass more…religious zealots or atheist zealots. Douchebags all around if you ask me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
namae nanka August 30, 2012 at 04:40

“If natural selection is a good thing, and leftists do tend to attach moral significance to it,”

http://blog.jim.com/science/a-tell-revealing-central-authority-over-the-official-line.html

and is also funny to read Mr. Sailer’s opinion of the subject

http://isteve.blogspot.in/2011/08/in-slate-brian-palmer-denounces-135.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ode August 30, 2012 at 04:59

Creationists believe god has created a heaven in the afterlife.
Liberals believe the powers of big government can create a heaven on earth through social welfare programs.

Creationists believe they have the correct formula to gain entry into heaven.
Liberals believe they have the correct formula to create a heaven.

The difference is that creationists are more tolerant of people who disagree with their belief system.
If you disagree with a creationist they will think you are misguided and miseducated, but they will NOT automatically think you have malicious intentions to do harm.
Compare that to a Liberal who will automatically think you’re a nazi or whatever because you don’t believe all races have equal capabilities.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
S-Cargo August 30, 2012 at 06:14

S-Cargo’s Law:

With few exceptions, comment-oriented websites degenerate into a fundamentalist Christian senior citizen clubhouse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Ethical August 30, 2012 at 06:27

When trying to make sense of all the information available, the theory of evolution is without question the most logical explanation for our origin. It’s also generally the most helpful whereas creationism can be decidedly unhelpful. In practical terms a number of technical careers simply aren’t accessible to creationists (think “evolutionary biologist” and go from there).

However not everyone has a burning need to reconcile all the scientific data with their beliefs, or even a use for doing so. Outside of certain technical careers, a belief in creationism is not much less functional than a belief in evolution. At a cultural or societal level a belief in creationism may as Price points out even confer some advantage.

But what caught my attention was the fascinating point Price raised about hypocrisy. There is a realm of faith encompassing all that can never be proven or disproven in this vast unknowable universe. In the realm of faith we chose to believe because we derive comfort and other benefit from doing so. Or we choose not to believe for the same reason.

Then there is the realm of that which seems to be objectively provable or disprovable. Liberal intellectuals often feel themselves morally superior because feel they are devoted to the “truth”. But being devoted to evolution, or pet liberal ideals like equality, and the positive benefits of feminism, is not the same as being devoted to the truth. Devotion to the truth means having no attachment to any particular notion. It means being ready to give up that notion when facts point elsewhere. Too many liberal intellectuals are completely unwilling to examine their own assumptions. Their slavish devotion to ideas like feminism, and the assumption of equality makes them completely unable to understand the issues facing men or other demographics who aren’t traditionally seen as victims. In this sense, it would be incredibly hypocritical not to see this liberalism to be as much of a handicap as liberals see creationism.

Pointing out this hypocrisy is so significant because truly seeing outside the box that closes liberal minds is I what embodies the soul of the manosphere.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus August 30, 2012 at 07:11

I believe the following paragraph from 19th Century English philosopher Benjamin Jowett, might appeal to Welmer as it seems to me to be pertinent to this thread – Jowett was a Christian and I suspect that the paragraph is an attack on the enlightenment ideology which still permeates:

“In an unmetaphysical age there is probably more metaphysics in the common sense (ie more a priori assumptions) than in any other, because there is more complete unconsciousness that we are resting on our own ideas, while we please ourselves with the conviction that we are resting on facts. We do not consider how much metaphysics are required to place us above metaphysics, or how difficult it is to present the forms of expression which are ready made for our use from outrunning actual observation and experiment”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
anon August 30, 2012 at 07:30

Creationism is pure made-up nonsense and has no place in American education.

That said, the Left has much to answer for given their insistence on the idea that men and women are just the same, which is also pure made-up nonsense.

By forcing the secular religion of Feminism on us, and bolstering it with half-baked pseudo-sciences like sociology, the Left has degraded the entire idea of Science, and has opened us up to nonsense like Creationism. Damn them all to Hell – if I believed in Hell…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
imnobody August 30, 2012 at 07:45

Bill Nye is absolutely right, kids need to be allowed to come to their own conclusions.

So we will ban all meaningful discussion about that in media and education. We will hide the debate and the forgeries made in name of evolution. We won’t speak about the problems the theory has. Only one theory will be introduced.

Then kids will come to their own conclusions, the ones that our masters want them to come. The same as with lef-leaning liberalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Manlyman August 30, 2012 at 08:03

As soon as I see the word “leftist” in a post or comment, I scroll on. I’ve done a lot of scrolling in this thread.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer August 30, 2012 at 08:16

I like evolution. I think about it a lot. Biology and paleontology are endlessly fascinating subjects abounding with evidence that supports the fact of evolution. I belong to the local paleontology society and go out on digs to unearth crap that’s been in the ground for 150 million years. I want to write programs that generate morphologies and analyze evolutionary trends in the abundant fossilized brachiopods that I will somehow digitize and turn into 3D finite element geometries, then do evolutionary image animations. Some nerd no doubt has already done this. Recently have looked into “morphometrics” and “morphogenesis” and ways to achieve this and find a wealth of people considering the same ideas. Leads to tangible 3D object creation now available from web services. As a side issue, readings on how the development of textiles lead to the rise of computers, which circles back to my current efforts to get the government to fund my research into textile modeling. Would you believe that fabric wrinkling and “procedural textile generation ” are topics of security interest to the government? Anyway, that’s me.

Biblical Genesis is really the same thing. It’s the story of evolution according to the cosmology of Jewish shepherds around 6000 years ago. Adam becoming “aware” regards the evolutionary transformation from animal to human consciousness. No big whoop.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer August 30, 2012 at 08:30

I agree with you somewhat Price. Lefties are fond of embracing any offbeat spiritual trend while disparaging fundamentalist Christians.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dion August 30, 2012 at 08:47

While I don’t really concern myself with the whole creationism vs evolution debate, the crux really is this:
a) Do you believe that a Supreme Being created the universe, or
b) Do you believe that the universe is the result of a series of scientific events?
If you believe in b) then your ‘religion’ must be purely physical science, updated every year according to our accumulated knowledge, and supplemented by theories that may be subsequently proven or disproven.
If you believe in a) then all speculation is akin to deciding on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A Supreme Being that how the power to create the universe and everything in it also has the ability to alter, divulge or withold knowledge at will, from fossil records to geological formation to the human ability to interpret the same.
Essentially this is a philosphical debate, not a scientific one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
WW August 30, 2012 at 10:51

“I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with the world we observe, that’s fine,” Nye asserted. “But don’t make your kids do it. Because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems.” –Bill Nye

It’s soooo true! Everyday in our schools I see the effects of differential evolution over the last 50,000 to 100,000 years! And everybody seems to deny it!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Survivorman August 30, 2012 at 11:59

Quite a heated issue here! Let me just offer this idea;

If you take the Book of Genesis as literal truth – the process of *creating* the Earth is described in meticulous step-by-step detail.
So, you’d better believe that the earth is actually… FLAT!

Just sayin’..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
gunner451 August 30, 2012 at 12:19

Interesting debate on religion but as an engineer I can tell you neither is a true science but simply two world views in conflict. People that don’t want to believe in God need some explanation of how we got here and evolution gives that to them, and you can see how very upset that they get when you imply that their religion is false. Those that do believe in God (and I’m speaking of Christians here as a subset of them are the ones promoting creationism) seem to have a spectrum of views that span from evolution to God creating the earth about 6,000 years ago. Truthfully I don’t understand why Christians would believe in anything else but creationism and still call themselves Christians. You either believe in the God of the bible and what the bible says or you don’t. Trying to split the baby so to speak just makes them look weak and not committed to their religion.

They both have evidence that if looked at objectively would be convincing that their view is correct. They also both have serious problems with conflicting evidence that seems to disprove both. But as I said, they are both religions and as such neither should be taught in public schools, certainly not as established fact as evolution is taught.

I find it interesting that many evolutionists get very upset and agitated when this subject comes up and you can see it in some of the comments. That just to me re-enforces my view of evolution as a religion not a science and that these “believers” are somewhat shaky in their belief and don’t really want to think all that much about it as they might have to admit that it is a religion and not a science.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 30, 2012 at 12:19

The reason that Creationism is silly is because everyone knows that the people pushing this mean the story in Genesis from some Hebrew(?) writings that were tacked onto the Bible NT. There are many creation stories in various writings but this is the one people mean when they say they believe in Creationism. They’re not talking about the creation or the gods in the Iliad by Homer which is about the same age as the writings of Moses.

@70-even if science was wrong 99% of the timethis does not mean that some story written by Moses is correct or that Creationism is correct.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 30, 2012 at 12:29

a) Do you believe that a Supreme Being created the universe, or
b) Do you believe that the universe is the result of a series of scientific events?

Neither. All matter has always existed. There is no beginning or end to it. It is infinite.

Don’t try to argue because this is a concept that the human brain is unable to comprehend.

And btw, if you believe in some entity you call god, who created it? Did it create itself?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ahamkara August 30, 2012 at 12:37

I don’t think evolution is incompatible with religion. I see the bible as a creation myth, it doesn’t have to be literally true to have meaning. To me, science explains how but not why. Even if you believe that the universe is like a set of dominoes falling over and everything is completely deterministic, the question still remains: who set up the dominoes? I think religion also teaches humility. Even if we understood the entire universe we should not delude ourselves into thinking we are more powerful and important than we are. This is where snotty liberal types are getting it wrong. But I don’t think they’re intentionally making up junk science to thumb their nose at the bible. It’s just hubris – after all, they may be wrong. But I think an honest scientist would submit that evolution is the best explanation that we have given the evidence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 30, 2012 at 13:22

ahamkara-you’re very confused.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
minuteman August 30, 2012 at 15:19

People talk about evolution and creation like they are two competing visions of the origins of life. They are not even related. Darwins theory of evolution explains how apes evolved into people. I buy that. I get natural selection. I get that domestic cattle evolved from wild cattle. I get that wolves evolved into domestic dogs. But nothing evolves out of thin air. Creation doesn’t explain where the first living thing came from, and a non living soup of cosmic dust doesn’t just suddenly become a living thing. That would violate every law of physics.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Whammer August 30, 2012 at 16:22

@minute-everything always existed and it is infinite. The changes that you see in your minute speck of space are meaningless and are just part of the constant changes that are never ending and have no meaning.

“That would violate every law of physics.”

Physics like philosophy are just some magic tricks made up by man for amusement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
E August 30, 2012 at 17:04

Leftists Bash Creationism because they care about science. By the way, race is a social concept.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
will August 30, 2012 at 18:56

Creationism is simply the statement: “God did it” and has ultimately is flexible in its view of the process of creation. Maybe evolution maybe not. The process does not necessarily prove a creator but would leave the person at best an agnostic.

Unless atheists want to provide a satisfactory measure that proves or disproves the existence of a creator at least. What type of irrefutable evidence is required?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster August 30, 2012 at 22:28

Considering how little air time science/scientists get, I’m not sure why Nye picked this particular issue, even though I basically agree w/him. When Carl Sagan was our only known public scientist having his 15 minutes of fame, he tried to reason newspapers out of running daily astrology columns, to no avail.

The “oh, science is just religion, too” argument is sophomoric. Kinda like saying creationism is ok in science class, so long as teaching evolution is equally ok at church would be.

Science cannot easily weather Title 9-ing by feminists any more than it can from xtians. If you want to compare two religions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Marcos - Brazil August 31, 2012 at 04:44

The reason the Left loves evolution is that it matches their ideas that man can evolve politically and socially through Communism.

Creationism points to a completed development.

This is the main point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Marcos - Brazil August 31, 2012 at 04:46

DNA research and computers are destroying Darwin. The more science advances, the more clear it is that evolution is impossible.
Read “The Edge of Evolution”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
OK... whateva August 31, 2012 at 14:03

“…the idea that all people are created equal, which is widely accepted…”

You might want to retract this one. People only expect equality when they are falling behind, outright lost, or looked down upon for living a destructive marginal lifestyle. Also, the whole credo of SWPL is how great and elevated they are. Hardly a disposition of equality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
E September 1, 2012 at 14:11

Common Monster The “oh, science is just religion, too” argument is sophomoric.

Strawman, worship of scientific orthodoxy is what people have a problem with…”skeptics” don’t know the difference.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mr. Fabulous September 7, 2012 at 18:29

Firstly let me be open about a few things:

1. I am an atheist.
2. I’m a Leftie.
3. I believe in evolution as the most plausible answer that we have at present.

Basically, I just want to address a few points in this article itself:

“I don’t see why Creationism is any more damaging to children – or society in general ”

In my view, Creationism is damaging to society in general in much the same way that the feminist position on domestic violence is damaging to society in general. Creationists teaching others that their point of view is right, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary is akin to feminists saying ‘only men are violent and only women are victims’. I think we would all agree that the feminist view of DV is damaging to society as it paints a completely false picture of reality.

‘if you do accept evolution as scientific fact, Creationism and associated religious faith fits right into the concept of natural selection, as faith is an adaptive trait’

Anyone that accepts evolution of ‘scientific fact’ doesn’t know what they are talking about. Its called ‘The Theory of Evolution’ for a reason. It has not been conclusively proven (only then would it be fact), but the interesting thing is, it has remained virtually unchanged since Darwin proposed it and stands as the closest thing we have to ‘fact’, despite many people attempting to (unsuccessfully) debunk it since it was first introduced.

‘If natural selection is a good thing’

Again, supporters of evolution do not label or consider it a ‘good thing’ nor is there anything ‘morally significant’. Evolution just is. The results of evolution are neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’, it is merely the propogation of an individual species due to genetic mutations (such as a longer beak). Darwin theorised that if a creature was born with a mutation that happened to give it an advantage over other members of the species and it was thus able to live longer, the chances of it handing that mutation on to it offspring meant a greater chance for their survival, with the result that over many generations, the mutation became the norm.

‘I think the reason Creationism bothers leftists is just that: it gives their competitors an edge, while their own popular fallacies and illogical beliefs do the opposite.’

What ‘edge’ do Creationists have over (as you say) Lefties? Are you asserting that all proponents of evolution are Lefties? Creationism is the belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible. A question I would like to put to believers in Creationism here:

If the Universe is only 10,000 years old (since Genesis 1:1 states ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’) then how do you explain how we are able to see light from stars that are millions or billions of light years away being able to be seen from Earth?

What is this ‘edge’ that Creationists have over Lefties? I have no issue with people believing in creationism – I used to have a friend who identified as a creationist and we had long conversations around the topic and it never got nasty, because we respected each others’ views, but to claim that Creationists have an ‘edge’ over Lefties in some way is like saying feminists have an edge over MRA’s because they believe their version of DV is right, despite all the evidence that proves them wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh September 8, 2012 at 00:17

There’s no way to know how the earth or mankind was created so I’d rather let the scientists fight it out while we argue about how to keep mankind from being destroyed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bharatiyaa September 9, 2012 at 01:22

For the schools that teach Creationism, which religion’s version of it do they use?

I can see where in a public school, teaching only one religion’s version of it would be problematic. You’d have to cover all the major known religions, or at least the religions of all the students, otherwise what would be the point?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: