Difference between revisions of "Creationism vs. science"

From Issuepedia
m ("we have the fossils; we win" - putting it here for lack of a more obviously better page)
(Reference: salem hypothesis)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
* Wikipedia:
 
* Wikipedia:
 
** [[wikipedia:Creation-evolution controversy|Creation-evolution controversy]]
 
** [[wikipedia:Creation-evolution controversy|Creation-evolution controversy]]
 +
*** [[wikipedia:Salem hypothesis|Salem hypothesis]]: creationists claiming a scientific background tend to be engineers
 
** [[wikipedia:Creation and evolution in public education|Creation and evolution in public education]]
 
** [[wikipedia:Creation and evolution in public education|Creation and evolution in public education]]
 
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/ The TalkOrigins Archive]: "exploring the creation/evolution controversy"
 
* [http://www.talkorigins.org/ The TalkOrigins Archive]: "exploring the creation/evolution controversy"
 
* '''Books''':
 
* '''Books''':
 
** ''[[Science, Evolution, and Creationism]]'' -- link for now: [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876]; the book is available in print form, as a free PDF (registration required), and viewable on the web site in low resolution (text is barely legible)
 
** ''[[Science, Evolution, and Creationism]]'' -- link for now: [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876]; the book is available in print form, as a free PDF (registration required), and viewable on the web site in low resolution (text is barely legible)
*** '''2008-01-04''' [http://blog.au.org/2008/01/04/good-book-science-academy-says-dont-confuse-religion-with-biology/ Good Book: Science Academy Says Don’t Confuse Religion With Biology]
+
*** '''2008-01-04''' [http://blog.au.org/2008/01/04/good-book-science-academy-says-dont-confuse-religion-with-biology/ Good Book: Science Academy Says Don't Confuse Religion With Biology]
 +
 
 
===Debate & Editorials===
 
===Debate & Editorials===
 
* '''2006-12-27''' [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_dawkins/2006/12/post_845.html Big mistake] by [[Richard Dawkins]]: "It is important to understand the sheer magnitude of the error that creationists are attributing to their scientific colleagues."
 
* '''2006-12-27''' [http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_dawkins/2006/12/post_845.html Big mistake] by [[Richard Dawkins]]: "It is important to understand the sheer magnitude of the error that creationists are attributing to their scientific colleagues."

Revision as of 18:55, 3 May 2009

Overview

This page is in need of updating. This page should probably be combined with other pages (such as anti-Darwinism, criticisms of evolution, and creationism/objections) and left as an index to those pages... or something like that. See evolution vs. intelligent design.

Science is continually under assault by creationism, in its various forms.

Most such assaults amount to easily-refuted criticisms of evolution, rather than advancement of any truly plausible or satisfactory alternatives.

These efforts, which accelerated greatly during the Bush II administration, have had a noticeably detrimental effect on the quality of science (especially geology and biology) in the United States.

Areas of Dispute

Evolution-fossils-win.jpg
  • Evolution is a process which can be observed, over human-scale timeframes (decades or less) in nature. Creationists generally concede that small-scale evolution ("microevolution") does exist but that larger-scale evolution of recognizably new species ("macroevolution") does not occur, and that such clear speciation requires some sort of intervention.
  • The origin of life is a guaranteed doctroversy, as any attempt to determine some non-supernatural explanation runs afoul of non-metaphorical interpretations of the Bible. Many branches of Christianity (such as the Mormons) find no contradiction on this point, however.
  • Common descent, i.e. the common ancestry of all life, is a related doctroversy.
  • The origin of humankind is perhaps the sharpest point of doctroversy, as the "specialness" of humans is a key point of much religious doctrine including the Biblical creation story.
  • Intelligent design is a re-dress of creationism which attempts to make some headway in the popular mind by leveling a number of scientific-sounding attacks on evolution. These attacks, while easily refuted, gain traction because they are repeated far more widely than are the refutations, and many laypeople are left thinking that evolution has somehow been proven wrong.

Related Pages

Links

Reference

Debate & Editorials

News

Quotes

  • From StarTribune.com interview with Lee Strobel: "Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process. But even scientists say the universe had to begin somewhere. Then you look at genetics, cosmology, physics and other fields. From there we can extrapolate that there had to be an immaterial, powerful, intelligent cause to the universe coming into being. The evidence defies a coincidental explanation. And random, undirected evolution precludes a creator calling the shots, so there's an intellectual disconnect for me. Also, Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator."