TED Conversations

Bernard White


This conversation is closed.

Does creationism indicate bad education? (If so how can we fix this, and should it be taught?) Does Creationism have any credibility to it?

I started this debate, with a new aspect (or perspective) on our current education problem. Considering many focus on how to motivate students and various other aspects. Yet this (creationism) still remains a big problem to the American education system today, and I don't think many people think about this when they consider the education system today.

I feel I should have probably made this clearer, when I say creationism, I am making reference to the type of creationism which tell people "Evolution is wrong". (Or in other words the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate).

Creationism - http://www.creationism.org/
Does it have any credibility to it? Should it be considered a science?
Considering due to recent polls 46% of American believe in creationism.
Link :
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html

Many psychological studies have shown a strong correlation between a lack of education and creationism. These studies indicate that not many creationists actually understand what the scientific method is.
With all this talk of how to "improve education" surely it would be wise, to finally finish the "Creationism vs Evolution" debate, if we wish to ensure a better scientific education!
Watch this 3 minute link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTedvV6oZjo (By Lawrence Krauss)

Here are some reasons, people believe creationism should be taught in schools, which I believe are false :
Considering, if the polls are to be believed, 46% of Americans are missing out (in my opinion) on a proper scientific education.

I think it is worth mentioning though, that I am fine with "Theistic evolution".
A good book recommendation on this matter is "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution" by Kenneth R. Miller. I personally have never understood the claim "Atheism = Evolution"...


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 16 2013: Cliff,
    I live in TN, USA,(Silver buckle of the Bible Belt USA) and as the sun is shining here, I can clearly declare that: ID folks-their main driving agenda-- is to bring religion into the science classroom, period. I have engaged in debates with them and when presented with Evidence regarding Physics & Biology (and not being able to refute it) they state:"we know what truth is because is in the Bible".One more thing look at the discovery Institute heavily lobbying in Washington DC for their agenda (instead of working in the lab????!!!) to push and push ID into the classroom ,it gets votes-- but torquing politics instead of science Cliff I stand by my statement. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_in_politics.
    When asked ,Where is the evidence for the creator? ID says:None, hmm? how they get their ideas forward then? So, lacking the evidence ID proponents concoct a Dualism: Anything that Theory A cannot explain (right now) is evidence for Theory B, and if we argue like that then the moon is made out of cheese if you weren't sure is made of up of anorthosite rock. P Johnson/R Boston and its "wedge strategy" state:" that one of the objectives is:" to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"
    ID is God(S) of the gaps fallacy ,lives at the Perimeter of Ignorance. Let's teach Astrology and Alchemy since we are at it. Judge Jones is a conservative person and he saw right through the ruse of the Discovery Institute.
    I just hate to see ignorance in action when there is so much knowledge to be offered.

    • May 16 2013: Carlos, I have no argument with you regarding the politics and what people may or may not say in one context vs. another. Understanding you are from TN helps me in realizing it seems you have had no exposure to the broader community of folks who value science but also happen to believe in a Creator. What you have stated regarding the creationists or ID folks you have run into may very well be true. I want to assure you that it is not representative of the broader community.

      To equate ID with god of the gaps fallacy is a common misunderstanding. Speaking for myself, to suggest that there is an intelligent being that should be credited with the creation of the universe (and what has subsequently come into existence) is not suggesting that "there is no current explanation, therefore it must be God"--the basis of the god of the gaps. For me, it is a philosophical/religious belief that does not rely on whether gaps of knowledge are filled in or not. Rather, it posits that at every point, whether we understand the processes by which things came to be or not, there was a supreme being outside of our realm of existence engineering and directing those processes. This is a question on which science ultimately must be silent, because it is not a scientific proposition that can be explored with the scientific method. And it doesn't make one any less scientific for believing it. One can still hold the scientific method in the highest regard and do scientific work with the greatest rigor. Many great scientists, past and present, have! I think much of the issue with creationism is that it is a backlash against science classes that go beyond the boundaries of science and teach that evolution (or anything else for that matter) somehow disproves or negates a belief in a higher power. I have no problem with evolution, as long as it is not coupled with its own philosophical (not scientific) statements such as "evolution contradicts/eliminates belief in God", etc.
      • May 18 2013: Hi Cliff,

        I have read what people in the ID camp write. Far from being reasonable as you, they do indeed rely on god-of-the-gaps fallacies all the time. Look at their literature, it's all about Darwin being wrong on this, Darwin being wrong on that (which is also a creationist propaganda tactic, blame one person alone for al the evils you want your followers to oppose). This structure being too complex to have arisen by "random chance" (another creationist bit of misrepresented science), that structure not described to atomic level by evolution, the probability that this would arise by chance is such ... all classics of the worst kinds of creationism, only trying hard to disguise them as if they are scientific claims. Much unlike you.
        • Jun 3 2013: Just read your response yesterday. Thanks for the compliment. I'm curious what you believe about science's ability to address claims of a spiritual world (God's existence, etc.). Perhaps you have addressed this in other comments, but I'll readily admit I'm too tired/lazy to look through them all. Do you believe science can eliminate the possibility of a spiritual world (essentially a non-material parallel universe), or do you believe science must be silent on it because it is not a testable hypothesis, but rather a philosophical proposition? If you take the time to respond, thanks.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.