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 4 2013: The reason that people who argue for teaching creationism (or intelligent design which is the same thing) are wrong is because faith cannot answer questions of science, and science cannot answer questions of faith.

    In science, if you cannot test your hypothesis and show it to be wrong, then you cannot use that as a hypothesis. In faith though, any faith, there are many untestable hypotheses.

    The simplest example is the question why is the sky blue? If your hypothesis is that God made it that way- then you cannot test that, and therefore it is not science. It may be right or wrong but we don't "know."

    If your hypothesis is that the sky is blue because it is reflecting the ocean (the guess I hear most often from my students- which, it turns out isn't the reason- look it up! :-) then you can test that and it is a good scientific hypothesis.

    This also speaks to the nature of science which can be confusing. That is, in science we say that nothing really can ever be proven true! Evolution is just a theory- but so is gravity! The only "laws" are those mathematical equations such as F = MA that are based on physics.

    So, if there was ever any evidence that the theory of evolution was wrong (just ONE fossil out of order for example) then scientists would have to research another explanation. In the same way, if any evidence ever appeared that our understanding of gravity was wrong, then scientists would have to get busy.

    However, over a long period of time, all of our observations of these two phenomena have lead to the current conclusions- across many centuries and many cultures etc... That is how science works. Sometimes it takes a while for a consensus to be reached- think of the Copernican revolution for example, but eventually once many scientists have seen the evidence, the current theory takes shape.

    It is important not to discount right away dissenting voices- our history shows that many times, the evidence for their claims was there. If not, ignore them.
    • thumb
      Jun 4 2013: The reason, I believe, science and intelligent design do not contradict each other is that we can explain why the sky is blue, how species evolved, or whatever else we can or want to explain, and still say "God made it that way". But "God made it that way" is not a scientific explanation.
      • thumb
        Jun 4 2013: Arkady, (I hope you don't mind me asking) do you believe that a God (or spirit of any kind) exists? Sorry, because I can not honestly remember! (I have a very bad memory!) I just want to know. :D
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2013: I can't give a simple answer. I've recently watched this video


          It explains quite well why certain things cannot be explained in a logical way using words. Words are symbols. Symbols are meaningful only when they are connected to something else. When we ask "does tree exist?" What do we mean by that? It's impossible to answer without context. It can mean a specific plant, a general kind of plants, or we can refer to a structure with "branches" stemming from a "trunk" (e.g. a tree of biological species). Now, what does it mean "to exist"? We can't literally "see" the tree of biological species. It exists only as an idea. It doesn't mean that it's not "real" or "does not exist".

          If "God" means a bearded old man in the sky with a stern look watching our every step who, supposedly, created us "from dust" and will judge our deeds - no. I don't believe such old man in the sky exists.

          If "God" and "spirit" refers to a principle that drives existence and our life - yes. I believe, such principle exists.
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2013: I think, Alan Watts video does an excellent job demonstrating why life and universe as a whole cannot be explained in words in a sequential manner as in "A came from B". Attempts to understand life and universe as a sequence of causes and effects lead to the "chicken-and-egg" argument which has no answer or logic. Everyone knows and understand that eggs grow inside a chicken, and chickens develop from eggs. They grow together, from inside each other - from within "self". The growth of life, growth of ripples on the water, and the expansion of universe is the same process governed by the same principle. If I ask you, where a circular ripple on the water starts, the obvious answer is that a ripple starts from its center. You will not find where a ripple starts by going around the ripple - from the chicken to the egg, back and forth. You will not find it going from one ripple to the next either - all ripples are alike. Each ripple moves on, raising ripples in front and ripples behind. The principle that caused the ripples is in the center of them, but it's not the part of the ripples.

          I cannot explain it with words arranged in sentences. "Those who know, don't tell; and those who tell don't know". If you understand what I'm talking about, it would be enough for me to draw an image of ripples on the water with no explanation. I believe, this elusive "self" which is in the center of everything is God (I am who I am). So, it's ultimately useless to discuss whether matter comes from spirit or spirit comes from matter, whether we need faith to find knowledge or we need knowledge to believe, whether we have free will to choose our experiences or whether our choices are predetermined by our past experiences. We are looking at ripples spreading from the center. What's in the center? "Self". What is "self"? It's "self" - that's it.

          I love the new animation that they use in front of all TED videos now.
        • thumb
          Jun 4 2013: And, if anyone thinks he understands how ripples from a drop of water are formed, watch this.


          or this


          Notice how a drop creates ripples, and ripples create a new drop. What causes what? Chicken and egg again.

          There are, perhaps, hundreds of slow-motion videos of ripples from a drop of water, some are accompanied by the kind of music used in churches, and some - by "spiritual" messages from all kinds of religions. How do people make these connections and associations? In a "metaphoric" or "spiritual" sense, this drop of water causes "ripples" in our minds and our words cause "ripples" in the minds of other people.
        • Jun 5 2013: Arkady,

          I feel like they explained the phenomon of the water droplet forming pretty well in the first youtube video you gave us?! What is your question?

          They said it was a layer of air that holds the droplet up, and is slowly pushed out from between the droplet and the water. Tthen, because the mixing of the droplet and the water happens so fast- some gets pinched off (the new, smaller droplet). After that, the surface tension of the water holds the new droplet up until the new layer of air is pushed out from inbetween them. This process repeats until the droplet is small enough to be completely absorbed.
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2013: Austin,

          Re: "I feel like they explained the phenomon of the water droplet forming pretty well in the first youtube video you gave us?! What is your question? "

          They feel that way too. When we see something, we feel that we understand it and can explain it. Once these scientists got this fancy camera in their hands and "saw" it, immediately, there is a theory in their head explaining it and the scientist who saw it first can look smart on the video and explain this and that. But did the scientist have any idea of this droplet bouncing back and forth before he saw it? I have a feeling that seeing this droplet bouncing over 4 times on the water within a fraction of a second was a complete surprise. And I'm sure, if they look at it under 10,000x magnification or slow down the time 1000 times more they would see something they have no idea about.

          Do you understand what "understanding" means? You can say, you do, and it may be so. But there is no logic or explanation. There is nothing but reference to "self" again.
    • thumb
      Jun 8 2013: "You and my faith half agree on a lot of this, and you and my science half disagree."

      Not to sound arrogant and condescending, but let me make this observation: One man's "faith" is another man's fact.

      My argument is anecdotal, based on personal experience, and not "faith." I don't expect you, or another not so disposed, to agree with my experience, but my knowledge of life and the unseen reality that buttress it is unshakable.

      "Ideas are not necessary for life. Saying the purpose of life is life itself is begging the question with an invalid premise."

      Value it or not, the Source of life is Life, the substance of life is Life, the outcome of life is Life, the reason for life is Life (or we wouldn't see so much of it, at least on this planet), and when I continue Life after my physical body ceases to be, Life will still define, and sustain me.

      For my part, I don't see science as a friend, but I'm not at war with it either, not in ways that are obvious. Ignorance and laziness was, and is, so many impediments to spiritual growth (the source of real power and dominion), and science continues to usurp that power by insisting that man and the universe are essentially, if not wholly, physical.

      I fault religions, more than science, for not entering the Kingdom, and for not allowing mankind to enter the Kingdom when it sought the kingdom, although these religions held the keys.

      I don't seek to reconcile science with religion as I don't think the two intercept, but are irreconcilable and antagonistic one toward the other, with religion designating God (Spirit) as the Source of all we see, while science elevates matter and enshrines empiricism as the way to understand life, our world, and our universe, including those physical mechanisms that seem to drive it.

      I hate being an alarmist, but this world is at a crossroads. We'll lose if we travel the road we're taking, where our focus is turned outward, rather than inward, and we choose to not go within, but to go without

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.