TED Conversations

Bernard White

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

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"...

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 20 2013: When talking creation versus abiogenesis, not evolution then anything that is NOT categorized as Natural Origins which is the underlying axiom of evolution, is considered, by most, to be pseudo-scientific.

    What I suggest is the possibility of scientific design as a possible alternative backed by science.

    http://www.technewsdaily.com/17766-could-life-be-older-than-earth-itself.html
    Could Life Be Older Than Earth Itself?
    Could life have existed before the Earth did? Two scientists say it’s not only possible — it’s probable.

    I've been writing a hypothesis about Scientific Design... Biomolecular Design as shown in the lab effectively falsifies the underlying axiom that Evolution is built upon, that ALL life is a result of PURELY naturalistic means!

    Convincing the scientific community, by the use of evidence that not ALL life is a result of purely natural means, even with evidence to such is another story.

    The people who worship evolution as their foundation to life are egotistically convinced that humanity IS the pinnacle of evolution and they will NOT entertain the possibility of any sort of design.

    The basis of evolution theory is backed by the sole premise, that ALL life advances by purely naturalistic means and this just is NOT the case as shown by scientific design… Unless one can show that the entire fossil record reflects this sole position that evolution takes, (in which no one has done) then there is no way to state anything other than the truth, as shown by scientific design in the lab and that is that “life 'can' be designed by advanced scientific people and evolution cannot/is NOT the sole reason for ALL life advancing!”

    One must remember that with the evidence of scientific design, that not ALL life is a result of purely natural means and can NOT be stated as such any longer (as taught by the theory of evolution) and any such teaching of such in our schools is a misnomer and in the same class of teaching that of Christian creation.
    • May 21 2013: If you wanted to convince the scientific community of anything you would have to start by getting your facts right. Coming up with such misinformation as "anything that is not categorized as natural origins is the axiom of evolution" would get you laughed at. Same goes for going to conclusion based on an "article" ignorantly commenting on an extrapolation that has more holes than swiss cheese about life originating before the earth. Then you go on talking about "the people who worship evolution." You go on by stating that they worship it as "the foundation of life," when evolution is about common ancestry, not about origin of life, and you continue with people thinking that humanity is the pinnacle of evolution, which could not be more false about anybody who properly understands evolution.

      Not content, you continue with "The basis of evolution theory is backed by the sole premise, that ALL life advances by purely naturalistic means." Wow, so the basis for evolution is not any scientific observations, oh no, it's both that some people worship it, and that life advances by purely naturalistic means. Who cares about evidence.

      After those flaws, I can't but expect that your "evidence for scientific design" will consist of equally flawed thinking and misunderstanding of science in general and evolution in particular. You have some serious studying to do before anybody could take you at least a bit seriously.
      • May 21 2013: Entropy, besides "ridicule", why do you NOT address the elephant in the room, that of scientific design showing a contradiction to the stance that the theory (of evolution) takes, that "ALL" life advances by 'purely natural' means?

        I tend to laugh at the people who say that evolution is backed by science YET they have no peer reviewed papers backing anything stating that the fossil record is "purely" evolutionary... Such an "assumption" is unsubstantiated!

        I'm guessing that if humanity terraforms a barren planet (through "Scientific Design") and you end up going there sometime in the future, finding a fossil record, you will ridicule anyone that tells you that the fossil record does NOT reflect evolution but instead that of design?

        Point being, that there is NO way to state that ALL life is a result of evolution because we have shown that this stance just is NOT true in the lab. With that being said, how do you come to the scientific conclusion that ALL fossilized records that paint the picture that you have of evolution all points towards evolution and evolution alone? This is a stance that holds no merit and if some other people in the cosmos came here and manipulated life on this planet, the fossil record would not reflect "how or why the change occurred". How can you deduce evolution to be the ONLY factor in changes found in the fossil record? This is an assumption that you are assuming yet has no basis backed by science.

        Can you say evolution and evolution alone is 100% responsible for ALL life on the planet? If you state yes, then you fall into the category of the arrogant that truly believe that man is the pinnacle of evolution and that no other being in the history of the universe has ever reached the point of scientific technology that we are just now reaching.

        Maybe you are the one that needs to take a look at the theory that you seem to deem infallible and reexamine how it is built upon unsubstantiated assumption in some key parts of reasoning.
      • May 21 2013: Entropy Driven stated ~ “Wow, so the basis for evolution is not any scientific observations, oh no, it's both that some people worship it, and that life advances by purely naturalistic means. Who cares about evidence.”

        Ha ha ha, you seem a little bit distraught and confused...
        You seem to ignore any evidence associated with scientific design for the biased stance that Evolution is the sole explanation to ALL the fossil record. Who here is really ‘not caring about evidence here’ me or you and the theory that you defend?

        Please show me the evidence that "backs" the assumed stance that Evolution is the ONLY factor in changes found in the fossil record and you'll prove your point otherwise all I hear in your posts are empty ridicule directed at me because you lack evidence to defend your theory and are showing bias by such a ridiculous post.
      • May 21 2013: To sum up my post, I have never seen actual "evidence" backing the stance that "evolution" is the sole reason for every single fossil on planet Earth... You may even ponder my stance in saying that I have no evidence to any other life in the universe so you may 'think' that my stance holds no water yet you stand by a theory that has no evidence supporting it's stance of being the only reason for the fossil record, where I have never claimed to have evidence of other peoples in the cosmos but I can show that through scientific design, that Evolution is NOT the sole reason for life and such a stance has more validity than any evidence that supports the stance of evolution being that ALL life comes from purely natural means when scientific design itself falsifies the stance that evolution IS built upon.

        In other words, I have never "claimed" that life does NOT advance, but I don't consciously ignore scientific data that contradicts the very essence of the theory of evolution.

        I've been told that DNA evidence supports evolution but if I refer to the goat that produces spider silk protein, we soon see that scientific design follows the fossil record with more accuracy in evidence in reasoning than does the Theory of E. because this goat did NOT evolve but was scientifically designed so how could your reason that some fossil in our past wasn't "designed" over the biased view that evolution takes in that the only possibility is that of evolution? To use the fossil record to back the theory of E is an "Unsubstantiated Assumption" in reasoning and you claim that I don't know about scientific procedure? The theory of Evolution ignores the scientific methods in many cases where assumption is shown to be fallacy yet the charade continues...

        Why is Evolution theory exempt from unsubstantiated assumption when the rest of science abides by a more precise stance in reasoning and if anyone shows a falsification in any assumption associated with the ToE they are ridiculed?
      • thumb
        May 22 2013: Great reply! :D
    • May 22 2013: Barry,

      Once you are told that you should start by getting your facts right, insisting on the erroneous ones won't help your case much. I did not offer ridicule Barry, I told you what you were doing wrong. In your insistence you displayed again lack of understanding about how science works. So I will insist that you should get your facts right, instead of all those assumptions that you carry as if they were based on some reality that escapes anything I have witnessed in the scientific community and in the scientific process itself.

      There's no elephant in the room, no contradiction, and no such thing as "the stance that the theory (of evolution) takes, that "ALL" life advances by 'purely natural' means." You are putting the cart before the horse there. You would not, I hope, take seriously someone who told you that the stance of the theory of gravitation is that "ALL" planets in the universe gravitate by 'purely natural' means. Scientists have checked and gravitation is enough to explain the planetary movements we see. Some noise here and there, which Einstein was able to fix by proposing a view of gravitation that solved problems that Newton's take did not solve, but so far gravitation works. But here's the main thing: the theories of gravitation started with observations that lead to the idea of a force that, for example, shapes the way cannon balls fly, and then expanded to explain the way planets were observed to move around the Sun. Observations then theories. That cannon balls are also propelled by the gun powder did not bother anyone. Did not prompt anybody to say: oh, an elephant in the room! Contradiction! Why gravitation? Planets must be moving by gun powder too!

      Evolution also came after observations and evidence. Not after some weird stance. As with gravitation, further facts have led to modifications. So I insist, if your "evidence" for design is one tenth as bad as your assumptions about evolution and science, there's no reason to take you seriously.
      • May 23 2013: Entropy,

        Your analogy of gravity is fine but the 'theory' of E does NOT abide by the same rigors of science because it assumes many things that are unsubstantiated and are being shown, that there IS another reasonable explanation in which the theory of E ignores. You are insinuating that by the biased assumptions that are used, that evolution must be factual just as "gravity is apparent" but this notion is being shown to be wrong by the advent of modern scientific research in how biology can be designed.

        Evolution IS based on the notion that all things evolved to the point of our existence and that is, as I have stated before is an arrogant egotistical assumption leading to the stance that you believe that we are the pinnacle of evolution. It's a "biased" view in ignoring the lab based factor of scientific design in favor of purely naturalistic advancement when scientific design falsifies this stance yet you still ignore "concept" in favor of a biased viewpoint which is NOT as solid as the fact of gravitation.

        If you can show evidence that man evolved from "apes" then I wouldn't be having this conversation but all you can show is unsubstantiated assumption to back your stance. I have scientific Design backing my assumptions too just as you have the fact that life advances backing your assumption so my point of view is based on science with evidence backing it in the same fashion that your stance is based with the sole difference being, that eventually through scientific design, eventually we will show, how, through genetic biomolecular design, we can actually change an ape into a homo sapiens, a feat that the "theory" of Evolution has yet to demonstrate in the lab...

        You can keep on defending evolution and claiming that I am wrong but it makes no difference to me because the evidence speaks for itself in the end and you have yet to show actual evidence that "man" evolved from apes, it's just an "unsubstantiated" assumption.
      • May 23 2013: Entropy,

        Do you not know what an "unsubstantiated" assumption is? It means that is unverified: not proven... Unconfirmed, unsupported, uncorroborated...
        You are "assuming" it into being "fact" when there IS another "scientific" reason for it and that my friend is just bad science, now I'm trying to help you yet you remain consciously ignorant which only makes you and your theory look bad in the light of scientific reasoning.

        Again I'll repeat the scenario that I have repeated many times within this past two years...

        If we terraform a barren planet and you go there years later "not knowing that the life was scientifically designed", are you going to go there and ignorantly claim that the fossil record is irrefutable proof of Evolution just as we know gravity exists?

        Your stance is a fallacy and fallacy holds no merit in scientific reasoning.

        Am I claiming that life was designed? NO! But I am claiming that the possibility is there and your theory IGNORES it to the point that people argue over it when it exists.

        If you claim that Man evolved from apes, this IS an unsubstantiated assumption and NOT FACT so don't even use the analogy that evolution is close to the same thing as gravity.
    • May 24 2013: Barry,

      Please pay attention. So far all I have attempted to do is show you how mistaken you are about evolution and science. I have not once told you whether I think one thing or another. Please check what I wrote. What I told you is that your claims are wrong. Check it twice or thrice please. Yes, I know what unsubstantiated assumptions are. Here a few examples:

      1. "the 'theory' of E does NOT abide by the same rigors of science"

      It abides by every rigours of science. You have no right to say otherwise while sitting on your pile of unsubstantiated assumptions.

      2. "Evolution IS based on the notion that all things evolved to the point of our existence "

      False, evolution is based on the examination of lots from little to big observations about life, fossils, biogeography, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. That we are evolved is but one conclusion from the many sources of data. As I said, you put the cart before the horse for no reason but your prejudices and ignorance about how science works.

      3. "you believe that we are the pinnacle of evolution"

      I don't. I dare you to find anything in what I wrote that would confirm this unsubstantiated assumption.

      4. "scientific design falsifies this stance"

      Scientific design does not falsify anything. Not even your made-up cartoonish non-existent stance.

      5. "but all you can show is unsubstantiated assumption to back your stance"

      That you don't know the evidence for our common ancestry with the other apes does not mean that there's no evidence. Instead of making this unsubstantiated assumption you should have done lots of research.

      6. "I have scientific Design backing my assumptions too"

      Which is as strong as pretending that planets were fired up with gun powder.

      ...

      I was not saying that evolution is like gravity, I was showing your problems in a context where you might understand them. Read it this time. Stop this charade. You have a lot of studying to do if you want to be taken seriously. Got it now?
    • May 24 2013: Barry,

      I know that you will insist on presenting unsubstantiated assumptions about evolution and showing further problems with your understanding of science and how it works. So here my final piece of advice with little hope of you listening anyway:

      You cannot come and say that you have a revolutionary idea about design over evolution while you're on top of a mountain of ignorance and misinformation.

      For example, should I say something as ridiculous and there not being evidence for our common ancestry with the rest of the apes, and making such deeply ignorant comment in a way that betrayed lack of knowledge about our own classification as apes ourselves, there would be no reason for the rest of the scientific community to listen to me. If I can't be bothered to first learn about what's known, and how it's known. then I would have no business proposing any "new" ideas.

      Asking other scientists to prove to me that we have such common ancestry would be akin to telling them that I did not bother to learn first the state of affairs in the science I pretend to revolutionize.

      Be reasonable man. I am not telling you to accept evolution. I'm telling you that ignorance and unsubstantiated assumptions are not a good basis for you to be taken seriously. Check your facts, learn how science actually works, study hard. Then you might have something to say. Right now you are just ridiculing yourself. I say this with the best of intentions. Is this really that hard to understand?
      • May 24 2013: The main point I argue against in the common misconception of evolution is…

        The basis of evolution theory is backed by the sole premise, that “ALL” life advanced by purely ‘naturalistic’ means and is reflected as such in the use of the fossil record to assume the many facets of evolution… Unless one can show that the entire fossil record reflects this sole position that the theory takes, (in which no one has done) then there is no way to state anything other than the truth, as shown by scientific design in the lab and that is that “life 'can' be designed by advanced scientific people and evolution cannot be/is NOT the sole reason for ALL life advancing!”

        If YOU think that you can "politic' an answer in a way that shows otherwise, I would like to hear your response.... (can you really change a scientific deduction???) Other than that, I have studied the theory of E for over 45 years and I know how assumption and presumption work.

        If you are basing evolution on lab based evidence (in which you are not) then you might be in the same class as Scientific Design in which it does produce presumptive results with accuracy where evolution fails in this area because of the unsubstantiated assumptions that are being shown to be invalid through the many disciplines of genetic engineering.
      • May 24 2013: Before the advent of modern synthetic biology, the theory of E could "assume" many things because there was no basis to question the assumptions. (DO YOU UNDERSTAND?)
        With the advent of modern biomolecular design, the "CONCEPT" of design was established.

        Before this paradigm shift, the theory of E could assume, "that it was the only valid stance to all life living and in all of the fossil record.

        After this shift, you now have to reevaluate ALL the assumptions that were taken to be backed by the stance that all life came from purely naturalistic means and they become unsubstantiated assumptions UNTIL shown otherwise with actual evidence backing their stance in the lab...

        Scientific Design IS showing this evidence that the theory of E lacks...

        Do you NOT understand the impact of modern biology in the realm of synthetic biology and biomolecular design?

        You seem to be fighting against modern science itself and not me...

        I may NOT be the best person to explain it to a "biased" evolutionary crowd but at least I understand it where you seem to still be ignorant in this area and all I can figure is that you are like everyone else that believes in evolution and all of its assumptions based on faith/belief and through your bias in your belief, you ignore and fight against anything that seems to change your preconceive perception of this blind alley science. Thus the reason I call out your arrogance.

        When you consciously ignore new data for a preconceive belief in science you are following what they call "blind-alley" reasoning and this IS exactly what you are doing here and the people who are following me can see this very clearly and the ones that ridicule me to no end as you keep doing are the ones that are putting their belief in these unsubstantiated assumptions even after all the work in modern synthetic biology says that some of these assumptions ARE invalid! (DO YOU FOLLOW AND UNDERSTAND or are you still one that insists on following blind alley science?)
      • May 24 2013: In other words...

        If you still adhere to the notion that Evolution and Evolution ALONE is the ONLY scientific explanation to the fossil record and advancing life, you do so by using blind alley reasoning in consciously ignoring any data that shows synthetic design which is NOT evolution but advances life by synthetic means. This "concept" called "Design" or more specifically "Scientific Design" (so that the religious sect can NOT adhere to), is retro-active as being a scientific principal even before it's inception in modern times...

        Many people have a hard time with this concept but only through the arrogance in "thinking" that evolution 'was' the sole reason for all life and that we are the pinnacle of such an action. People can not conceptionalized that "design" could be inherent before we 'evolved'. But the scientific concept of design is a valid concept backed by the scientific methods and saying that it could only be inherent 'after' evolution is the same thing as saying that gravity did NOT exist until man made it a scientific concept. It always existed, man just wrote down his interpretation of it. As is with Scientific Design. It states that life can be designed by scientifically advanced, living people and this does NOT adhere to just the blind alley reasoning that man is the only intelligent living being the universe, it's a scientific concept that goes beyond that sort of egotism in thinking that man IS the pinnacle of evolution so design could NOT have happened until his evolution (blind alley reasoning backed by a blind alley theory)

        If we can show that an atom can be split, we don't say that atoms were never spilt until man split them and only then were they ever split, that is pure nonsense and the same blind alley reasoning that the Theory of Evolution uses in claiming that such a stance is unsubstantiated as you calmly put it adhering to a blind alley stance while stating such nonsense.
      • May 24 2013: On a lighter note, my hypothesis is based on the "fact" that life exists in the universe and this is fact, "life does exist in the universe"...

        Evolution is based on the concept that our advanced scientific concepts are a result of Natural Origins leading up to us being the pinnacle of Evolution and that Scientific Design did NOT exist until our arrogant stance that we alone invented it through an evolutionary pathway.

        Do you see the 'flaw' in the theory of E yet or are you still blinded by bias?

        Evolution states that since we have NO Evidence to other life in the cosmos that we are the pinnacle evolution even without having evidence to Natural Origins the Theory of E bases it's assumptions without a proven axiom of origins.

        My hypothesis is based on the "fact" that life exists in the universe. Evolutionary scientists have a hard time understanding this part because they still adhere to the principal that Evolution is the ONLY driving force behind advancing life when we can show that scientific design is another force that is well more advanced over the occasional advancement that Evolution may have on life because even in design, evolution usually is the "root" cause of flaws related to perfect design because of mutation.

        People often state that if life was designed then their god wasn't perfect. I'm not claiming God as the designer but ordinary scientists just like us... Look at what we have designed, a GOAT that produces spider silk protein? Plants that kill insects, the main carriers of pollen that help the plants spread and a multitude of other crazy genetic designs that are not logical when examining the fossil record.

        Just saying, I don't care if you think that my concept is crazy to the point that others will not listen because in the end, my points are being spread across the internet and I have found some people, like you that criticized me, a year later using the same things I threw out there against people just like you, go figure...
        • thumb
          Jun 3 2013: So you propose "scientific design" as basis for life on Earth. If I understand you correctly, this means highly advanced aliens coming here, terraforming and whatnot, for whatever reason and creating life on Earth.

          Even though the fossil record does not support this in any way (really, it doesn't), it might be true. We do not know life on Earth started exactly, maybe these aliens did it, we are not certain, but you might be right.

          But then... where did they come from? What gave rise to them? How did their ancestors become these advanced scientists? We (that includes you) can really think of only one answer: evolution.

          All you do with your hypothesis is replace the problem.
      • Jun 3 2013: I propose that Evolution is NOT the only exclusive possibility! There is NO way to show that Evolution was the only reason for ALL life on this planet.... My hypothesis suggests that "life exists in the cosmos and advances to the level of scientific design."

        Evolution does NOT explain "how life originated" but only assumes such... Neither does my hypothesis explain "where life may have originated", in the terms of abiogenesis.

        Unless YOU can show detailed evidence to, "how life originated" then you have the same problem Gerco...

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.