TED Conversations

Bernard White

TEDCRED 20+

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 :
http://listverse.com/2013/02/07/10-reasons-creationism-should-be-taught-in-school/
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"...

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 17 2013: Cliff,
    indeed I've met creationists not only In TN, but Madrid, Boston, Arizona, LA, L.A. and even with lab coats. I did meet one good fellow from Austria a creationist that has made the mos sincere statement to date in this regard: "Carlos to me is just a matter of faith, not the scientific method or else just faith"-- I respect that.
    Id does lives directly at the God(s) of the gaps fallacy, ID pulls the proverbial rabbit out of a hat " an intelligent being that should be credited with the creation of the universe (and what has subsequently come into existence) "-just out of thin air. Now there is a YEC PHD (Geology, Harvard)-K Wise-that have stated:"If all the evidence in the universe pointed to an old Earth, I will be the first to admit it, but I will still be a YEC because that is what scripture teaches". Cliff you state that "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."(out of our realm of existence???)doesn't make one any less scientific for believing it."So to you is philosophical/religious, valid regardless of our level of understanding-science must keep quiet about it, but nonetheless this doesn't make it less scientific, Cliff what a bouquet of contradictions!!!!???/
    What religion folks profess is fine just as long as they don't try to ram it to everyone else hooked or crooked.
    Newton, Huygens, when confronted with issues they could not solve they pointed at God (God of the gaps)
    ID= is too complex to figure out, thus God Did it. What do you do with that line of reasoning? Science is about discovery, ID is about embracing ignorance, you cannot build an education program based on the assumption that no-one is smart enough to figure out an answer to a problem. ID rather belongs in psychology, religion classes, but not in a science classroom.

    Cheers!
    • thumb
      May 17 2013: "ID= is too complex to figure out, thus God Did it."

      I've alluded to this before: We would both agree that MS Windows is intelligently designed, and that it can be reversed engineered, further reinforcing its intelligent origin.

      But there's a greater than MS Windows in regard to the complexity of our vast universe, but nevertheless one which we can, and have, reversed engineered to some degree, calling the exercise science.

      But rather than attribute the design and creation of the universe to an intelligence that preceded its creation, as we have with MS Windows, science hastens to eliminate such an intelligence from the creation of our universe, and, unlike MS Windows, say that our complex, and little understood universe serves no purpose, but is the results of a chance combination of matter--matter unintelligent, and lifeless--triggering the big bang, which ultimately created our physical universe, including intelligent humans--all derived from this lifeless, unintelligent, prototype matter.

      At the very least, It takes uncommon hubris to posit such a claim.
      • May 18 2013: "We would both agree that MS Windows is intelligently designed"

        I don't know about Carlos, but I would not agree. :)

        A few problems with your view:

        1. That we require intelligence to do something does not mean that similar things in nature are therefore made by intelligent agents. Example, we need intelligence to make a fire. Yet, we know of ways in which fires start in nature. Example, when some dry leaves are struck by lighting, or when some dry and flammable materials are touch by lava, et cetera. Therefore, that we require intelligence to do something does not mean that what we see in nature required intelligence to be done.

        2. Science does not hasten to eliminate the possibility of an intelligence. It's rather that there's no reason to include such a ridiculous and non-informative variable. Let alone because when people do so is with fallacious reasoning. Think about windows: at the very least we know that there is a probability that there were intelligent beings around to build it.

        3. So far, the only kinds of intelligences we can talk about are biological in nature. Yet you propose one that's outside the universe and is non-biological in nature?

        4. I explained before that there's no mystery about non-life producing life, and I could do so about intelligence. After all, we have living examples that posses from very simple intelligences to ours. Why couldn't then it have arisen naturally? After all, we see it happening all the time too. A baby is build inside its mother all by natural processes from a single cell fed with non-living food. The baby is not intelligent from the beginning, the structures have to develop properly for this to happen. So far I have not seen a little tiny gnome introducing an intelligence device into the baby, and the intelligence always depends on proper development. Why then would we find it mysterious that natural processes have done this if they do this all the time?
        • thumb
          May 18 2013: "Therefore, that we require intelligence to do something does not mean that what we see in nature required intelligence to be done."

          I'm sorry: This is tantamount to a straw man as it doesn't represent my argument. Here's my argument: You can only reverse engineer that which is intelligently designed.

          Both MS Windows and nature can be reversed engineered; hence they're both intelligently designed. We might quibble as to who the designer is, but there shouldn't be an argument as to whether they're intelligently designed, or not.

          What has man done with his intelligence, he has devoted a great deal of it to reversing the very thing that he claims wasn't intelligently designed--nature--but was primordially the result of certain elements of matter combining to create our universe.

          I challenge you and them to create a computer, or MS Windows, or a human, using this "magical" prototype matter, and you and they can take a few billion years in which to do it.

          "Science does not hasten to eliminate the possibility of an intelligence."

          Saying so doesn't make it so. Stephen Hawking and many of his ilk have created a cottage industry using God as a foil to advance their own theories, insisting that God was not a necessary player in the creation narrative, while others insist that the universe is purposeless.

          "Yet you propose one that's outside the universe and is non-biological in nature?"

          It's a better argument than saying dumb, lifeless matter gave us the complex wonder we call our universe, as well as our animal kingdom, including intelligent man. Frankly, we should all be insulted to say that that is so, as it's so patently implausible.

          "After all, we see it happening all the time too. A baby is build inside its mother all by natural processes from a single cell fed with non-living food."

          What came first, the chicken or the egg?

          What we have, then, is life producing life, not nonliving matter creating sentient beings, a proposition that I heartily oppose.
      • May 18 2013: Hi Wil,

        "You can only reverse engineer that which is intelligently designed."

        My point was aimed at showing the fallacy inherent in taking human endeavours to conclude about how or what nature does or requires. Not an attempt at a straw man. You take reverse engineering of computers, it looks like what we do in science with nature. Since computers were intelligently designed, then nature was intelligently designed. Many more steps, still the same fallacy. Since we need intelligence to make a fire, and we see fire in nature, fires in nature are intelligently designed. Same thing, less steps. The fire example shows quickly that something is wrong with your logic.

        "but there shouldn't be an argument as to whether they're intelligently designed, or not."

        I see no reason to think that nature was intelligently designed. That's just an opinion based on problematic logic. Therefore I can reject it. Why can you to over-conclude from engineering, but not conclude properly from the fact that all the intelligence we observe is biological that therefore nature could not possibly be intelligently designed?

        "it's so patently implausible"

        That you don't understand why we think it's plausible does not mean that it is implausible.

        "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"

        The egg by billions of years before the chicken. But you are missing the point: we see non-living matter becoming living matter all the time. No miracles involved. The catalysts are living, but the non-living becomes alive. I see no reason why the process could not have started through non-living catalysts.

        Oppose as much as you wish. Non-living stuff becomes alive. Non-intelligent stuff becomes intelligent. All the time.
        • thumb
          May 18 2013: Well, Entropy, we've arrived at an impasse, as we can't seem to agree on what factors constitute reverse engineering and a precise definition of living and nonliving matter.

          Thanks for the discussion.
      • May 18 2013: Not a problem Wil. I hope I was able to show you that your logic is not so compelling that just everybody would see these things the way you see them.
    • Jun 3 2013: Carlos, I haven't been on here in awhile, so I just saw your response from 5/17 yesterday. Sorry for the delay.

      I haven't read much ID literature, but if you insist that it is built on 'god of gaps', then I have to distance myself from it. I do believe in an intelligent designer, but not simply one who fills the gaps. You asked: "ID= is too complex to figure out, thus God Did it. What do you do with that line of reasoning?" Simply, I reject it because it is not my line of reasoning.

      You wrote in your response to me "what a bouquet of contradictions". Please explain, as you did not elaborate on what the contradictions are. Does it simply not smell nice to you or is there a specific contradiction you can point out? I still hold that what I expressed is not contradictory. If you think so, I'd like to know where. I'd be glad to explain how each item I mentioned fits cohesively with the rest without contradiction.

      Do you think it is possible to know anything without measurable evidence? I'm wondering how you feel about that and would like to know your thoughts.

      You wrote: "What religion folks profess is fine just as long as they don't try to ram it...." I agree with you here that nothing should be rammed on anyone. I am fully in favor of honest, thoughtful dialogue, and anyone of any religious (or non-religious) perspective should feel free to engage others in discussing its merits. If they are not interested in engaging in such a discussion, that should be respected. To be honest, I think an outside observer might view your comments in this conversation as a bit more on the 'ramming' side, but maybe you just tend to choose stronger words when expressing your arguments.

      I agree with you that ID does not belong in science class. I also am eager to explore and learn more, rather than accept ignorance. Besides, the existence of an intelligent creator does not hinge on any discovery of how it happened. Science isn't able to refute that possibility.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.