Another Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[POS Industries]

Well, I've noted this in many other venues before, because it's something that typically goes unnoticed, but teaching the story of the creation in schools isn't actually banned. It's just that it's typically taught in most 10th grade World History classes to look at Christianity and Judaism from a social development standpoint along with every other major religion on the planet. The reason that it's not taught along side the evolution theory is because it doesn't have any basis in biology, which evolution not only does but teaching it necessary to set the groundwork for more advanced chapters in the textbook. Start from the ground up, essentially.

Without evolutionary theory, there's no way to commonly link all life on the planet, which causes issue in teaching why there are so many commonalities between different species. I mean, you can't even start at single-celled life and determine the development between prokaryotic and eukaryotic species other than, "God decided that some would have nuclei and others wouldn't".

[Archbio]

I'd like to believe that all theories can be taught and kids can make up their own minds

If the word "theory" is defined broadly enough so it includes this museum's claim as well as evolutionary theory then that's basically a physical impossbility, since you get an infinity of "theories", as opposed to just actual valid scientific theories and unsubstantiated claims molded by the religious or political beliefs that are prominent at that time and place.

Of course, maybe by "taught" you mean "not censored out of existence", in which case it does seem reasonable. The fact is, if a so-called musem like this can operate without public subsidy then any problem it might cause has nothing to do with the museum's existence by rather with the context which makes it's claims resistant to reality.

[Fifthfiend]

If the word "theory" is defined broadly enough so it includes this museum's claim as well as evolutionary theory then that's basically a physical impossbility, since you get an infinity of "theories", as opposed to just actual valid scientific theories and unsubstantiated claims molded by the religious or political beliefs that are prominent at that time and place.

This is pretty much the crux of the thing. Creationism just, well, isn't a theory; at best it's extremely misguided and at worst it's willful self-delusion.

I mean this isn't even apparently creationism-with-its-suit-and-tie-on Intelligent Design, which at least has the decency to be scientifically unprovable. This is just good old-fashioned Adam-And-Eve-Riding-Dinosaurs Creationism, which flatly contradicts the entire established body of scientific knowledge.

The fact is, if a so-called musem like this can operate without public subsidy then any problem it might cause has nothing to do with the museum's existence by rather with the context which makes it's claims resistant to reality.

I think the main problem is that they're calling it a museum, this is like labeling Cinderella's Castle at Disneyland a "Historical Re-Creation."

[RaiRai]

Originally Posted by Archbio

Of course, maybe by "taught" you mean "not censored out of existence", in which case it does seem reasonable.

That's about the gist of it. I don't like that most schools will only teach one or the other, without taking into account the many possible theories that could be taken into account, these two seem like the main two. And it's rare that they're taught alongside or in place of one another. You're either made to believe one or the other until you can reach a point in your life where you're able to discover both theories for yourself and make your own conclusions.

However, because of the major religious influence to the creationism theory, a lot of the people who believe strongly in this refuse to believe anything else. In fact, I spoke with a young man today who was quite religious and tried to tell me that because technology is flawed, we cannot take the evolution theory as fact because we couldn't prove it. And his religion, to him, proved that creationism was the correct theory.

This just...doesn't seem right to me.

[Sithdarth]

I just think its interesting that the reason they give is that subjective interpretation of the bible is leading to moral relativism which is bringing down society. As such they must promote that the bible as absolutely literal with no room for interpretation. Neglecting a few important facts namely:

1) The sun should be orbiting the Earth.
2) We should be stoning to death approximately 90% of our population for out of wedlock affairs.
(insert various other crazy things here)
...
n) Moral absolutism generally leads to more problems than moral relativism, like the difference between murder and self-defense goes away. As well as the whole diminished capacity thing or just a straight up accident.

[Archbio]

these two seem like the main two

But that's only appearance. The reason "creationism" is presented, and taken, as the main alternative, or an alternative at all, to evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the subject. Indeed, evolutionary theory is a specific scientific domain while creationism is all over the place: from the origin of the universe to the nature of life. Of course, because of the peculiarity of its origin (read: abrahamic, strict monotheistic and literalist religion) it actually compresses all of these subject matters into one scientifically unhelpful and unfalsifiable proposition.

Why "creationism" is taken to be an alternative and forcibly put in the same category as evolution has to do with a particular cultural context. There's no actual corresponding scientific dispute.

Note that when I meant censorship, I meant censorship. Not "not teaching in school".

[Roy_D_Mylote]

First, I find it embarrassing that whenever anyone does anything to support Creationism it's always from a Christian stand-point. Other religions have Creation tales too, people.

I think it's odd that someone can claim that Darwin's book is a lie, when adaptation to survive is proved to be the case by just the history of mankind. Clothes, fire, etc.

And what's this about all animals being vegetarian before sin? Does that even make any kind of sense? What about all those animals that can't survive on grass and berries alone?

[Archbio]

[When] adaptation to survive is proved to be the case by just the history of mankind. Clothes, fire, etc.

It's an apt analogy. The mechanisms are equally known and demonstrated.

And what's this about all animals being vegetarian before sin? Doees that even make any kind of sense? What about all those animals that can't survive on grass and berries alone?

I think the idea would be that an hypothetical supernatural agency changed the animals somehow, for an arbitrary, hypothetical reason. It's a shame no one wants to campaign to get a "Babel Theory of the History of Languages" (which could be a perfect companion to the rest of creationism in scientific value, as long as the age of the Earth was left alone) to be taught in school.

I wanted to add that I remember this "alternative theory" being included in some school textbooks of my youth. Of course, it was in the history section, filed under "defunct worldviews."

[Fifthfiend]

First, I find it embarrassing that whenever anyone does anything to support Creationism it's always from a Christian stand-point. Other religions have Creation tales too, people.

We actually had a Hindu Creationist here one time, like forever ago. I'll see if I can find the thread.

EDIT Oh yeah, here it is (see the posts by Dasanudas). Warning: Ultra-texty.

[Sesshoumaru]

I don't mind evolutionists (hell, I believe in the theory myself). What I can't stand are Darwinists (aka, people that say evolution is teh roxx0rz and precludes the existance of a supernatural deity). You see, evolution refers to how species change, and has nothing to do with how life began (there are plenty of other theories for that).

And yes, I know that I'm using 'darwinist' as a perjuritive (did I spell that right?); 'cause I can't think of anything else to call that particular group.