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.

  • Jun 2 2013: Your statement about scientific findings validating the book Genesis is categorically wrong because the bible is a ridiculous fallacy. There is no science that supports the ridicules assertions in the utterly ridicules bible. You should stop pretending that you are educated in an area in which you are so obviously totally uneducated.
    • thumb
      Jun 4 2013: You seem to be very sure of your comments. 100 %, positively, without a doubt... that is a sign of youth. When I was young, I knew every thing too.
      I am In my 8th decade, I have learned there is nothing that is positively, 100% and doubtless. Even death; some think that it is a transition into another state or dimension. I am not sure.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: "some think that it is a transition into another state or dimension. I am not sure."

        I am.
    • thumb
      Jun 4 2013: Me?
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: He must be talking about you, Bernie. I can't believe he would should show such disrespect for the views of his elders.
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2013: Wait sorry.
          This reply confused me! Is it implying he or she is younger than me, or is it implying that I am younger than she or he?
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: Bernie:

        Now, I am confused. but I am old and it is allowed. I'll let you deal with Bill to find out who is owed respect. Personally, I think it's you..
    • thumb
      Jun 4 2013: @Bill Slagle:

      If you take all that is said in the Bible as literal statements and fact, then yes, it is a ridiculous fallacy.

      If you take the Bible as a series of metaphors, then it changes everything.

      When the Bible was written, all they had was metaphor to help explain the inexplicable. They did not have science.
      • Jun 4 2013: Allan, I think I'm getting pretty far off the original creationism topic here, but I wanted to comment on your thoughts. You wrote: "When the Bible was written, all they had was metaphor to help explain the inexplicable. They did not have science."
        I am not going to argue with you over their lack of scientific understanding, but I will point out that "metaphor" was not their only way of writing. I may be stretching your statement to a much broader application than you intended, but I do take issue with those that say, "you can't take the Bible literally, so you much treat it all as symbolic (or metaphor)". This is much too simplistic an approach for a complex document like the Bible. Clearly, much of what is written in the Bible is written as history ("on such a day, in such a geographic location, when so-and-so ruled", etc.) and is meant to be understood as events that literally happened in time and space. Other portions are clearly written in a manner that implies a figurative interpretation. I say this because the popular viewpoint seems to be that you either have to take the Bible 100% literally (leaving no room for figurative interpretation of portions that are obviously written that way), OR you have to take the Bible as 100% figurative and simply a book of some fables with some symbolic truths tucked away in places. There is a much more logical middle ground--interpret each portion according to the manner it was written and was intended to be understood. This is not always easy to discern, but this approach does lead toward a reasonable, consistent interpretation that is not contradictory with modern science, and still upholds its claims of being a record of real events that happened in history.

        Best regards,
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2013: Cliff, apologies in advance - I am disappearing into the wilds of Wales for a few days, and won't be able to respond to you immediately. You've given me something to think about!

        • Jun 4 2013: Hello Cliff, If I could just jump in here and take Allan's place for a second :)

          As Swedenborgians we believe that the first 11.5 chapters of Genesis are made-up history. Copied by Mozes from earlier Revelations. The total rest, everything, is history written to portray a spiritual meaning of life and its process. It is that spiritual level which makes the Bible God's word, not the historical text. The Creation Story has nothing to do with this physical world.

          This book is volume 1 of 12 , of a word for word interpretation of Genesis and Exodus. This may be an eye-opener regarding Creation..

          Would love to hear from you
        • thumb
          Jun 5 2013: @Adriaan Braam : "The total rest, everything, is history written to portray a spiritual meaning of life and its process."

          True, but I would go a step further and include the first 11.5 chapters of Genesis that you say Swedenborgians exclude, despite what you might believe regarding their origin.

          What I've discovered written there, hiding in plain sight, is nothing less than mind boggling. What I've received by way of revelation casts these scriptures in a total new light, revealing heretofore little known insight into how the life process works.

          "The Creation Story has nothing to do with this physical world."

          I agree to a point. But it does explain the interaction between the inner and the outer, and how the inner interfaces with the outer and the outer with the inner.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: "Are you?"

        "Have you been there to find out?"

        Yes, thousands of times. Try it. It's exhilarating.
        • Jun 7 2013: Hello dear Wil, I only just saw your post, sorry.

          One most important point I'd like to make and that is we do not, and I mean do not, exclude those first 11.5 chapters of Genesis. We believe they can easily be seen as the 'index' of the whole Bible, because of their spiritual significance.
          The long and hard 'trip' the Israelites went through from Egypt to Canaan can be 'indexed' by the six stages of Creation. Not a creation of a physical world but the creation of a spiritual being from a natural one.

          Please see what we regard as the meaning of the Creation Story at the link just above. A story that we can follow and apply in our daily life. Which is hard to do with the literal text,.

          The real text at the link starts on page 7 and, this volume 1, goes from there (often word for word) to Gen. 9: 29

          Really appreciate your thoughtful and wise statements on the subject.

          --"Yes, thousands of times. Try it. It's exhilarating."--
          But you have to turn on your light. LOL

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.