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.

  • May 17 2013: I would put it this way: "Darwinism = Atheism". This is not a pure mathematical equality, obviously, since the two terms have different definitions and focuses. But it's a rather good first approximation: the concepts are readily/naturally compatible. As a potent "universal acid" (Dennett), Evolution tends to drive people away from the Bible, which is clearly a creationist book when read straightforwardly. Evolution undermines the historical foundation of the gospel provided in Genesis. Noted historian of biology Will Provine boasted: "Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism." And Richard Dawkins wrote, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." See my article on this, http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=54
    Regarding Kenneth Miller's book "Finding Darwin's God," I suggest this is a very silly title. Darwin was initially a Unitarian (where he attended services with his mother), then an orthodox Anglican (as he studied for the ministry), then an apostate from Christianity (secretly as early as the 1830s, then more openly after his daughter's death in 1851), and near the end of his life he called himself an Agnostic — which for him was distinguished from the title 'Atheist' mainly by its less aggressive attitude. "Finding Darwin's God" therefore means, historically, to slide from belief into unbelief, ending as an Agnostic/Atheist. To make the Bible allow Evolution, one must carry out an awful lot of Procrustean stretching or slashing, as seen in the various conflicting attempts such as the Day/Age theory, the Gap theory, the Revelatory day theory, the currently popular Framework view, etc. My brief review of Miller's book is here: http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=96&Itemid=54
    Atheist/evolutionist Will Provine recommends, Allow students to have full debate in science class: http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=103&Itemid=62
    • thumb
      May 17 2013: Richard, I think it comes down to perspective, God's perspective and ours. Here's my take: God created everything, all at once, in the Holy moment of now, and, from our limited, human perspective, it required billions of years of evolution to arrive at our current place, harmonizing, to some extent, the views of creationists and evolutionists.
    • thumb
      May 17 2013: Some great points here! :-)
      (Seems you are a very knowledgeable man!)
      The title shouldn't be taken literately! (Like all things, especially the "Bible").
      I think it was meaning that you could believe in evolution and be a Christian at the same time...
      Like I said I have no problem with theistic evolution, just creationism. Though I can't find myself to agree with their spiritual beliefs. However this is a very different matter.
      (Regarding them I take a very "Agnostic" approach. Rather similar to Bertrand Russell's!)
      If you wish to find another great biologist on "God(s)", then watch "Sir David Attenborough On God".
      Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI7f3xVgZdA
      It is possible after-all.
      • May 21 2013: I agree, it is 'possible' to believe in God / a god and evolution.
        But I submit that it is not 'logically' possible to truly accept evolution (rank neo-Darwinism as expounded by its leading advocates) and at the same time to genuinely believe the God of the Bible.
        Those who claim to believe in the compatibility of the two worldviews are, as Greg Graffin discovered in his PhD research, often simply involved in a public relations game. http://www.creationbc.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=61&Itemid=54
    • May 17 2013: The problem with your claims, Richard, is that you are imagining that your god is the only one that could be disbelieved by atheists. Sorry, but the world does not orbit around you and your beliefs. There's plenty of gods to reject, and there's plenty of Christian gods to reject. Yes, some gods can be rejected just because of evolution. Yes, evolution and atheism are very compatible, but evolution alone does not necessarily lead to atheism unless the god originally questioned by the atheist is one like yours.

      By the way, evolution is not the same as "Darwinism." Darwin proposed a mechanism and gave plenty of evidence that lead him to conclude that spies derive from common ancestors. But he did not know a lot of what we know today. It is a big mistake to talk about Darwinism when the person is discussing evolution. There's much more to evolution than what Darwin wrote more than 150 years ago.
      • thumb
        May 21 2013: Sorry Entropy.
        I think you sent me to this, not Richard.
        Regards, :-)
        P.S : Did you get my latest reply to you? :P
        • May 22 2013: Hi Bernard,

          The answer was for Richard. Check and you will see that the only way he could defend his position is by imagining that his god, sorry, not just his god, but his particular version of such god, is the only one an atheist does not believe. That's the only way in which evolution would equal atheism.

          I did not see your latest answer. you mean in the other discussion you had going? I might check later.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.