Quote:
Originally Posted by Textcritic
On a related note, debunking creationism is becoming something of a hobby of mine; I think largely because of my close connection to many of its proponents. I read what I can about the subject, and I also spend (probably too much time) perusing the internet for additional resources. I don't know if this has been posted before, but I recently found a very, very good critique of creationism on youtube: It is a series of fifteen ten-minute videos produced by a geosciences major at the University of Texas who calls himself "AronRa". his attack is positively withering, and should be considered essential viewing for anyone who ever doubted the strength of Darwin's theory. |
I just wanted to post that I just watched all fifteen of these videos--and I have to say, these are in my view required material for anyone who wants to have a discussion about Creationism, Evolution and Theism. This guy knows his stuff, and the videos are fast-paced and persuasive. So--thanks for posting those, Text--I'll be sending them around to friends and family.
On the topic... I guess I think the important thing for a discussion like this is that we agree to some ground rules, in the sense that we have to use the terms of the debate consistently.
1. A belief in Evolution does not necessarily contradict the existence of god. It can't, because like any scientific theory it can only make theories about what is empirically testable. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that science believes nothing one way or another about the existence of God.
2. Belief in God does not necessarily contradict evolution. In fact, many evolutionary scientists (though certainly not all) are Christians.
3. What is at issue here is not "religion" but "creationism," which is a narrower subset of belief. Evolution and creationism are only at odds where creationism seeks to make predictions about the empirical universe that turn out to be wrong. This is an important point. If "creationism" made correct predictions, or if it were scientific,
there would be no conflict--it would merely cause a reconsideration of existing paradigms to account for the novel data. The conflict only arises because people insist on believing this stuff in spite of the fact that the evidence contradicts them.
4. This is because evolution is actually not a belief, unlike creationism. It's not an "ism" at all--it's not a doctrine, it's not a religion, in fact (as AronRa convincingly argues) it's in a way the reverse of these things. Creationism rests on belief,
science rejects belief as a source of truth in favour of empiricism.
5. The reason this is an important question when it comes to formal public policies and educational curricula is because in spite of creationists' attempt to make of their fringe ideology a mainstream belief system, "evolution" and "creationism" are not on equal footing at all. They don't belong to the same systems of knowing, and therefore can't explain the same things or even answer the same questions. Teaching creationism in the science classroom is not just a matter of "equal time" for different viewpoints. It's more akin to teaching sorcery in the mathematics classroom; it replaces science with superstition and tells students that they're the same thing. This is not okay--and if it ever comes to pass we should not stand for it as an enlightened nation.