Difference between revisions of "Creationism vs. science"

From Issuepedia
m (Evolution vs. direct creation moved to Creationism vs. science: slightly better focus, until things can be rethought)
m (meta tags)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
+
<hide>
{{notice.need-update|This page should probably be combined with other pages (such as [[anti-Darwinism]] and [[creationism/objections]]) and left as an index to those pages... or something like that. See [[evolution vs. intelligent design]].}}
+
[[thing type::comparison]]
[[category:worldview conflicts]]This page compares the [[scientific theory]] of [[evolution by natural selection]] against the various [[informal theories]] which hold that the Earth and all life thereon was [[creation|created]] as an explicit act ("[[direct creation]]") of an intelligent being, typically by a supernatural entity who is most commonly stated to be the [[Christian]] [[God]].
+
[[thing type::worldview conflict]]
 +
[[category:comparisons]]
 +
[[category:worldview conflicts]]
 +
</hide>
 +
==About==
 +
{{notice.need-update|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 comparisons essentially amount to [[criticisms of evolution]], with [[direct creation]] (interventionist) theories offered as being much more sensible and reasonable by comparison.
+
Most such assaults amount to easily-refuted [[criticisms of evolution]], rather than advancement of any truly plausible or satisfactory alternatives.
===Disputes involving evolution===
 
* [[Evolution]] is a process which can be observed, over human-scale timeframes (decades or less) in nature. We are not currently aware of any significant controversy over this.
 
* [[Disagreement over the origins of life]] is more of a controversy, as the [[scientific theory of the origins of life|scientific explanation]] (which incorporates evolution) contradicts the more [[Biblical literalist|literalistic]] (or [[legalistic (religion)|legalistic]]) interpretations of [[the Bible]]. Many branches of Christianity (such as the [[Mormons]]) find no contradiction on this point, however.
 
* [[Disagreement over the origins of humankind]] is probably where the corresponding [[evolution as a theory of the ascent of humanity|evolutionary explanation]] is the most controversial, as it contradicts the Biblical creation story on both the above issue (the origins of life) and the creation of humankind.
 
* There is also much [[criticism of evolution]] in general.
 
===Notes===
 
Apparently "disagreement over the common ancestry of all life" is an issue as well; to be researched.
 
  
 +
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===
 +
[[Image:Evolution-fossils-win.jpg|thumb|right|350px]]
 +
* [[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 [[abiogenesis|non-supernatural explanation]] runs afoul of [[Biblical literalist|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 [[intelligent design/claims|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==
 
==Related Pages==
* [[Evolution vs. direct creation]] is an example of [[religion vs. science]].
+
* [[Creationism vs. science]] is an example of [[religion vs. science]].
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 
===Reference===
 
===Reference===
 
* 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."
Line 29: Line 38:
 
* [http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=1142 Creation and Evolution in the Schools] by [[Orson Scott Card]] (2006-01-12)
 
* [http://greensboro.rhinotimes.com/story.html?id=1142 Creation and Evolution in the Schools] by [[Orson Scott Card]] (2006-01-12)
 
* [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ The Creation/Evolution Controversy] by Don Lindsay
 
* [http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/ The Creation/Evolution Controversy] by Don Lindsay
* [[User:Woozle/Evolution vs. Intelligent Design|a biased analysis]] by Woozle
 
 
* [http://www.teach-nology.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-372.html some debate] (''mostly'' calm) at Teachnology Teacher Forum
 
* [http://www.teach-nology.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-372.html some debate] (''mostly'' calm) at Teachnology Teacher Forum
 
 
===News===
 
===News===
 +
{{links/news}}
 +
====to be filed====
 
* '''2006-11-28''' [http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 How Old Is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say]: "Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology"
 
* '''2006-11-28''' [http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=801 How Old Is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say]: "Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology"
 
** An [http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/grandcanyon/ archived version of "Welcome to Grand Canyon National Park"] goes so far as to describe the canyon as having been "carved over millennia" (rather than hundreds of millions of years) and "a gift from past generations" (implying that the canyon was somehow created by living creatures from which we are descended, or at least that it wouldn't still be here if not for them... was GC ever in danger of being exploited by developers, perhaps? Can it be proved that humans are actually related to developers?) The [http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/geologicformations.htm Geologic Formations] page, however, describes the canyon's history as beginning "about 1,200 million years ago".
 
** An [http://www.nps.gov/archive/grca/grandcanyon/ archived version of "Welcome to Grand Canyon National Park"] goes so far as to describe the canyon as having been "carved over millennia" (rather than hundreds of millions of years) and "a gift from past generations" (implying that the canyon was somehow created by living creatures from which we are descended, or at least that it wouldn't still be here if not for them... was GC ever in danger of being exploited by developers, perhaps? Can it be proved that humans are actually related to developers?) The [http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/geologicformations.htm Geologic Formations] page, however, describes the canyon's history as beginning "about 1,200 million years ago".

Latest revision as of 22:40, 27 May 2019

About

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

version 2

    [refresh]

    to be filed

    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."