Is the debate between Creationism and Evolution serious in America?

[DirkGently]

The sooner Religion stop meddling with the Education system, the sooner we can start producing more intelligent and free thinking people.

Oh god that's not going to happen, the mere fact that you say it like that disproves your own point. You're not being free-thinking, you're being intolerant of another belief besides your own.

Whenever a majority has complete control, free-thinking goes down the drain, even if the majority considers itself 'free thinking.' That's just what happens.

And I didn't look at the e. coli thing yet, but no, micro and macro evolution are different. Micro evolution are smaller scale changes within a single species, while macro evolution is the actual shift from one species to another.

Because, of course, it can't be his own opinion that he came up with through his own free will, that belief in creationism/intelligent design/ and/or god makes one an idiot. It's a stupid opinion, making himself stupid. Free-thinking allows intolerance.

 

[Xanadu84]

There is a serious debate as in, people take it seriously. Not as in, anyone sane actually thinks there are 2 legitimate arguments. A conspiracy nut seriously thinks we never landed on the moon, but no one else takes him seriously.

No one in the scientific community, America or otherwise, takes creationism seriously. At the very least, no one in an actual field with an even cursory relationship to evolution. Creationist twist scientific debate amongst real scientists to make it seem like Evolution is not on absolutely solid ground, but those tactics are a grotesque misunderstanding at best, and outright, purposeful intellectual negligence at worst. Debate does exist, though not in big, open forums with creationists on one side and scientists on the other (to my knowledge). It consists of paper, of videos, readings, and other indirect methods of debate. The big issue with this debate is the fact that there is no debating crazy. Creationists put out some absolutely ludicrous idea about asteroids bringing snow to the ice caps, or the grand canyon being made by one giant flood, and it's honestly difficult to respond. Even the most basic scientific knowledge should discount the theories, and you just can't hold a debate with someone with a theory more dumb then your minimal expectations. Its like teaching calculus to someone, and then partway through the lesson, they go, "Oh yeah, well what if 2+2 is actually 3, huh? did you ever think of that smart guy?". It's impossible to hold a conversation with that person on there level. And creationists take that as a sign of success.

Also, when you talk about a large number of people supporting Creationism, you have to understand that America is not one large, homogeneous whole. First off, finding information like this is flawed from the start. If 50% of people are said to support teaching creationism, then it's possible that 24% believe that teaching Creationism is the best way to discredit it, and another 24% understand that they have no knowledge of the field, and figure that teaching more can't hurt. Even more might believe in evolution, but the way the question is worded might make them think that they have to choose between evolution and God with no option for both, and even more might misunderstand Creationism to be evolution that likes to think that evolution is what god had in mind to start with(I did this when I was younger). All could be said to be creationist supporters, and be marked as people who believe in creationism, when in reality there are far more reasonable motivations. Then, there's location. Strictly speaking, I can only talk about where I live. But where I live in America, Creationists are in the same boat as the people on the street corners with tin foil hats and, "The End Is Nigh" signs. I didn't realize it was a popular opinion until I got internet access. I may be biased when I say this, but if you want to point fingers, point it at the South.

As for magic and fireballs, no, because that would be the work of Satan. Proving Evolution wrong is pretty much as close to impossible as it gets at this point. But assuming they did, I really don't think it would matter to science. Applying evolution is a monumental basis for everything in science even vaguely connected with organisms. It has led to far too many advances in things like medicine. If Creationists were proven right, then they would teach there theories as fact, and the world wouldn't make any sense. It would mean that some all powerful god figure is randomly changing the rules of the world for no reason. It would prove that god is real, and that he is either insane or a serious dick. Meanwhile, Science would be taken less seriously, treatments and cures for Cancer, AIDS, more effective farming, and pretty much every advancement human society is making would be slowed down, and untold millions would die unnecessarily. But scientists would STILL use evolution, because even if it was somehow proven wrong, it's still led to too many advancements to throw away.

 

[Thaius]

It should be more serious than it is, really. Evolution is more widely accepted than it should be, considering it's taught as fact when it's really just a theory: an unproven and rather shaky theory if you look at the facts. Even a lot of scientists think so, but most people have put too much faith into it and won't accept that. And...

The sooner Religion stops meddling with the Education system, the sooner we can start producing more intelligent and free thinking people.

Have you seen our education? I don't know what country you're from, but the American school system is designed to create a bunch of little robots that think exactly the way they're supposed to think: free-thinking will (heck, probably already is) an illusion created by a system that says to think out of the box: and teaches you exactly how to do it. If someone teaches out-of-box thinking on a wide scale, it's not very special now, is it?

 

[Treblaine]

I always found these statistics interesting:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml

Yeah, Bush voters are less likely to believe God is the ultimate creator of humans and more likely to believe God was not involved at all.

What the hell is going on there? Could CBS be biased? For Bush?

Anyway, overall that's a whopping 67% believe God is the Ultimate creator i.e. creationist.

However even in the UK - where we have Charles Darwin on our freaking bank note, second billing to The Queen - a surprising 40% believe God is the ultimate creator = creationist.

But thankfully in both US and UK the majority of the public do not want science classes to be forced to change their syllabus. But that is almost admitting that they know what they believe is false or perhaps they just don't care about what science says.

NB: I don't include the "Believe in evolution, but god guided the process" answer (22% of US population) as a creationist viewpoint. It may be fanciful thinking, but ultimately it accepts the scientific facts in their most part.

 

[Darkong]

I haven't read all the posts; sorry if I repeat anything here:

Watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. Not pro-creationism, but definitely gives some perspective on things.

Summary
1 - Scientists do debate the theory of design versus chance.
2 - Teaching evolution only can be bad for at least two reasons: ethics and bioengineering.
Ethics - we have to be careful that we don't go down the path that Hitler and others have tried. Evolution is a great thing and we need to keep the human race evolving by preventing some from breeding. Getting a pure race, eugenics, etc.
Bioengineering - Understanding how or why things work in a cell, in our body, etc. is important. Sometimes more can be learned by taking a "how would I design a x" approach to understanding x versus, a "x just randomly occurred and was beneficial to the organism and therefore stayed" approach.

Expelled is pretty much just lies, propaganda and misrepresentation, don't take it seriously.

Evolution says nothing about ethics, its the explanation of how the diversity of life came to be, how organisms change over time and why they change, it says nothing about morals or the 'purpose' of life or anything along those lines.

 

[Semitendon]

Or is it just an internet thing or the 'wedge' strategy where no one in the scientific community is seriously discussing it but just misinformation spread to the public that it is?

Are there really scientists having debates against Creationists?

I have this idea that creationists hold large debates and invite scientists to debate which one is right (kinda defeats the scientific method though). And that a large number of the population support creationism.

Alternatively, lets say Creationism succeeds in proving Evolution wrong, they 'win'. What does that mean? Do they even have an existing scientific theory or is their entire method based on proving something wrong? Does this mean we can start learning magic and casting fireballs?

No, creationism is not just an "internet thing".

No, no one in the "scientific commmunity" is discussing it, because anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theory is immediately written off as "not scientific" regardless of the point or evidence that person may have to back up his or her claim.

No, a large number of the population does not support creationism, it is on the fringe, and is more often than not, ridiculed.

Creationism will never be proven correct. The scientific community will not except it, regardless of how much evidence is gathered.

There are three types of creationist's.

Type one: Believes that the current creationist theory ( whatever that may be) is correct. Believes that Evolution is false. Believes the Bible as an authority on scientific matters.

Type two: Believes that God created everything. Believes that Evolution is seriously flawed and does not have valid evidence to support it's argument. Does not neccessarily have a defined theory on how the universe came into being, other than God's reponsibility in it's creation.

Type 3: ( or what I like to call "the happy evolutionist") Believes that God created everything. Believes that God must have used evolution to accomplish this goal. Combines religion and "accepted" science as both being valid and coexisting.

I believe that God created everything. I believe that Evolution does not have enough evidence to support it's claims, it is an illogical system designed to explain existence.

One of the biggest reasons I believe in God, is the theory of evolution. While evolution is a fantastically well thought out system, it's evidence ( or lack thereof) is contadictory at best, and at worst blatantly refutes it own premise.

In that way, I cannot accept evolution as a valid argument for the existence of anything, and ultimately must turn to the only other explanation for existence. . . God. Since the intelligent design theory holds significantly more valid arguments for existence, I am bound to follow it as the only logical conclusion.

As I have said before, Evolution turned me into a Christian.

 

[Xanadu84]

It should be more serious than it is, really. Evolution is more widely accepted than it should be, considering it's taught as fact when it's really just a theory: an unproven and rather shaky theory if you look at the facts. Even a lot of scientists think so, but most people have put too much faith into it and won't accept that. And...

The sooner Religion stops meddling with the Education system, the sooner we can start producing more intelligent and free thinking people.

Have you seen our education? I don't know what country you're from, but the American school system is designed to create a bunch of little robots that think exactly the way they're supposed to think: free-thinking will (heck, probably already is) an illusion created by a system that says to think out of the box: and teaches you exactly how to do it. If someone teaches out-of-box thinking on a wide scale, it's not very special now, is it?

Sadly, this is impossible to say without sounding snarky, but you need to go look up the definition of the word, "Theory".

 

[Skeleon]

I find evolution to be very logical and (at least in its basics) to be very simple.

...it's evidence ( or lack thereof) is contadictory at best, and at worst blatantly refutes it own premise.

May I ask what evidence you're refering to?

 

[Treblaine]

It should be more serious than it is, really. Evolution is more widely accepted than it should be, considering it's taught as fact when it's really just a theory: an unproven and rather shaky theory if you look at the facts. Even a lot of scientists think so, but most people have put too much faith into it and won't accept that. And...

yeah, a Theory just like the Theory of Relativity, and just like Evolution, both have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be considered fact. But "fact of evolution" is grammatically incorrect.

What you fail to realise is the layman use of the work "theory" thinks that once it is proven it turns from a theory into a fact. I t is also completely different from the proper scientific use of the word 'theory'.

But in science, even once a theory is proven it is still called a 'theory' or a 'proven theory' which is considered a fact.

The word you are looking for is 'hypothesis', a theory that has not even been attempt to be proven yet.

And Evolution through Natural Selection (it's full name) is universally accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in all the fields relating to the origin of life.

And classrooms are not supposed to just read from a book and say "this is how it happened, now shut up", it goes through all the evidence and analysis to show that the current theory of Evolution is definitely true.

I mean the genetic evidence alone is indisputable.

 

[Skeleon]

Or just look at humans, the average height gets taller and taller with every passing decade, though not much.

This last part is largely attributed to better socio-economic and nutritional circumstances, though I agree with the rest of what you said.
The change in height occurs too quickly and too recently to be mainly a result of evolution.
Just thought I'd point it out.

 

[Treblaine]

Or is it just an internet thing or the 'wedge' strategy where no one in the scientific community is seriously discussing it but just misinformation spread to the public that it is?

Are there really scientists having debates against Creationists?

I have this idea that creationists hold large debates and invite scientists to debate which one is right (kinda defeats the scientific method though). And that a large number of the population support creationism.

Alternatively, lets say Creationism succeeds in proving Evolution wrong, they 'win'. What does that mean? Do they even have an existing scientific theory or is their entire method based on proving something wrong? Does this mean we can start learning magic and casting fireballs?

No, creationism is not just an "internet thing".

No, no one in the "scientific commmunity" is discussing it, because anyone who disagrees with evolutionary theory is immediately written off as "not scientific" regardless of the point or evidence that person may have to back up his or her claim.

No, a large number of the population does not support creationism, it is on the fringe, and is more often than not, ridiculed.

Creationism will never be proven correct. The scientific community will not except it, regardless of how much evidence is gathered.

There are three types of creationist's.

Type one: Believes that the current creationist theory ( whatever that may be) is correct. Believes that Evolution is false. Believes the Bible as an authority on scientific matters.

Type two: Believes that God created everything. Believes that Evolution is seriously flawed and does not have valid evidence to support it's argument. Does not neccessarily have a defined theory on how the universe came into being, other than God's reponsibility in it's creation.

Type 3: ( or what I like to call "the happy evolutionist") Believes that God created everything. Believes that God must have used evolution to accomplish this goal. Combines religion and "accepted" science as both being valid and coexisting.

I believe that God created everything. I believe that Evolution does not have enough evidence to support it's claims, it is an illogical system designed to explain existence.

One of the biggest reasons I believe in God, is the theory of evolution. While evolution is a fantastically well thought out system, it's evidence ( or lack thereof) is contadictory at best, and at worst blatantly refutes it own premise.

In that way, I cannot accept evolution as a valid argument for the existence of anything, and ultimately must turn to the only other explanation for existence. . . God. Since the intelligent design theory holds significantly more valid arguments for existence, I am bound to follow it as the only logical conclusion.

As I have said before, Evolution turned me into a Christian.

Using logic to justify your faith = contradictory.

Religion is not about fact or evidence but Gospel. The bible and the biology textbook cannot be combined (nor can the biology and physics textbook, nor geography textbook, etc) as it is the path to madness to try and blend what each are teaching into each other.

I would rather have the blind faithful who simply ignore science in blissful ignorance rather than these new types who try to force science and religion together.

 

[Nieroshai]

A far as my studies have gone, there is overwhelming proof for microevolution. It's undeniable. But macroevolution? I have heard very few convincing arguments for macroevolution, and the Piltdown Man wasn't the only case of an archaeologist getting so desperate for macroevolution to be fact that he just made up the evidence. What I'm saying is that, while religion is faith-based, "fact"-based macroevolution has been declared a fact before the evidence has been verified. Both sides need to be a little more convincing.

Also: a lot of you have a misconception of religion as blind faith. I would discuss that here, but that really needs its own thread.

 

[Bat Vader]

I say let people believe what they want to believe. If people want to be willfully ignorant on either side of the debate that is fine with me.

Unfortunately many people believe that you're wrong and need to be brought over to the right side lest your soul be lost.

I tend to never pick sides in a debate.

 

[Skeleon]

...rather than these new types who try to force science and religion together.

...harming both in the process. Totally agreed.
The saddest part is that the separation of state and church seems to continually be going further down the drain.

 

[SadakoMoose]

Not particularly...
In some parts of the country it isn't as hotly contested as it is bitter and stubborn.
It'll probably just blow off in a few years, as your average American is really too worried about the economy to care about things like this.

 

[keepstherainoff]

Haven't got time to do a proper post, so I'm going to have to copy & paste links

I haven't read all the posts; sorry if I repeat anything here:

Watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" by Ben Stein. Not pro-creationism, but definitely gives some perspective on things.

Summary
1 - Scientists do debate the theory of design versus chance.
2 - Teaching evolution only can be bad for at least two reasons: ethics and bioengineering.
Ethics - we have to be careful that we don't go down the path that Hitler and others have tried. Evolution is a great thing and we need to keep the human race evolving by preventing some from breeding. Getting a pure race, eugenics, etc.
Bioengineering - Understanding how or why things work in a cell, in our body, etc. is important. Sometimes more can be learned by taking a "how would I design a x" approach to understanding x versus, a "x just randomly occurred and was beneficial to the organism and therefore stayed" approach.

Most of what was said in exposed was misinterpretation and misinformation

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

I don't think there is any "real" debate going on within the scientific community about creationsim v. evolution. 99.999% of scientists accept evolution.

Speaking as someone who considers himself a Christian (albeit an unorthodox one...fundamentalist Christians would probably call me a heretic) I think the idea of creationism as literal fact is laughable.

I view the creation story as a fable that you tell your kids who won't understand the complex intricacies of the whole truth. When your kids ask where babies come from, you don't tell them about the processes of fertilization, implantation, and cell division. You tell them a story about how the stork flies in a baby when mommy and daddy love each other enough. When they get old enough, they will be able to understand the whole truth and also the necessity of the simplistic story they were told as a child.

Creationism is that same kind of story. Stone/Bronze Age ancestors knew little to nothing about astrophysics or biochemistry and couldn't absorb that information. If you look at Genesis as a simplified story, it's actually pretty close to the Big Bang/Evolution theory.

(I'm drawing this from memory so if there are minor discrepancies, just get the gist of it)

God creates light - the first thing that happened was the debris from the Big Bang condensed into stars and galaxies.

God creates the heavens and the Earth - after the stars formed, the planets formed, including the atmosphere.

God creates the oceans - once the Earth cooled down, the water vapor became liquid.

God creates animals - animals came before people.

God creates man - who evolved from the animals.

So yeah. Just because we understand what natural processes created the universe doesn't mean that God didn't create those laws of nature to exist and set things into motion. I don't even see a conflict between the two TBH.

But for that reason, I tend to view creationists like I would a teenager who stubbornly refuses to accept that Santa Claus or the stork really was just a story. No offense to anyone...just a personal opinion here.

I know you weren't saying that you thought, or you thought creationists thought that the bible was supposed to be an accurate account of the development of life, but in Genesis Enigma: Why the bible is scientifically accurate, Andrew Parker tries to argue that Genesis is an uncannily accurate that is unlikely to have come from anywhere other than divine inspiration of God, with incredible scientific detail.

If you accept that they couldn't fill in all the scientific detail. Or indeed much of it at all. And if you take bits of it to be artistic licence, or metaphor, when it doesn't even vaguely match up (e.g. the verse about grass and shrubs and trees, despite grass evolving much later, is just a metaphor for all photosynthesising life...).

Oh, and you should probably ignore Genesis 1's account of animal evolution going animals except humans of both genders, human males, human females, but Genesis 2's going human males, all non human animals, human females.

 

[loremazd]

It's not really debated heavily outside the academic platform.