How dangerous is creationism?
367877
I agree with mainwoolly (and not for the first time); I suspect that nonsensical beliefs of all kinds actually have a real-world, real-time effect, on the human mind if nothing else.\n\nWe all know people who never make a decision without first performing a tarot card reading, or faithfully check their horoscopes every day, or whatever.  They simply do not hear you when you point out that it's a pile, no, a truckload, nay, a Matterhorn of horse-hockey.  These same people retain enough sense to enable them to pass their drivers' license tests; to get and hold jobs; to raise children who stay out of prison (the majority of them, at any rate).  \n\nAnd they never notice the contradiction, they never notice that their own brains are divided against them.  It's like walking around with a big ole ugly-a$$ nine-hundred-pound gorilla perched on your shoulder.  I've never studied psychology so I can't understand how or why this works for anyone; but apparently it does.\n\nHow much might more have been accomplished already if so many of us weren't permitting ourselves to be held back in this way?  It doesn't bear thinking about, really.
374300
Actually, Charles Darwin discredited his own theory before his death, but few evolutionists recognize this fact.  Also, according to the second law of thermodynamics and a little thing called entropy, it is scientifically proven that all things move towards chaos.  Evolution suggests that we went from chaos to order, when, in reality, everything moves from order to chaos (for example, a fire causing wood to turn to ashes).  Personally, I have yet to find a scientific fact that disproves creationism.  Remember, science is simply man's way of explaining God's works.
147170
The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism in science classes violated the establishment clause (Edwards v. Aguillard, ruling on a Louisiana law requiring the teaching of both evolution and creationism in science classrooms). \n\nTherefore, the right-wing religious community changed tactics, and is now frantically pushing "intelligent design" where there is no God mentioned (nudge nudge... wink wink). But in Kansas, the state curriculum board wanted to alter the definition of science to include supernatural processes. \n\nDoes not sound a lot like science to me...
430814
I have a question for you. Have you EVER seriously looked at the evidence for either side? I doubt it, because there is evidence to support creationism. Plenty of it, you just have to look for it because it's not in the mainstream sciences. And there is quite a bit of evidence against evolution as well. Two good websites to look at are www.talkorigins.com and www.trueorigin.org. I think that's the website at least.
186914
Ugh, Why do so many creationists answer questions in the science section when they don't know what they're talking about?\n\nYou will find an excellent explaination of this in "Finding Darwin's God," by Ken Miller.  Also look at his homepage.\n\nThis idea of irreducible complexity from Michael Behe has been thorughly debunked.  The ones that have been illustrated are either not IC or could have resulted from a REDUCTION of redundant systems.  Or have resulted by using parts adapted for OTHER functions.\n\nRead what Calimecita wrote, at least she bothered to understand what she's talking about.  I am so worried about the education system in this country.
430259
I used to think it was enjoyable making fun of creationists.  Their ideas are so wacky, and they are almost completely ignorant of any scientific advance of the past 50 years.  But after a while you realize people like that are just going to believe what they want to believe.  I think it's interesting that when it comes to ANY other branch of science (medicine, computers, genetics, etc.) religious people have no problem accepting science.  ONLY when science contradicts their own unfounded beliefs (creationism) do religious people challenge science.
238663
It is truly absurd. \n\nI don't know if I can completely, 100% believe in creation, but evolution is even more impossible to believe. Even true science doesn't stand behind it. \n\nCheck out: 2nd law of thermodynamics, and Chaos theory.
133096
Let's face an unpleasant fact for the creationists: Almost no one other than a very vocal minority of Christians BELEIVES in creationism the way the fundamentalists talk about it.\n\nSure, a big chunk of Americans hold some creationist opinion, but the average Christian, in America and the World, DOES NOT BELIEVE IN LITERAL Creationism. It just does not make sense, either theologically or scientifically.\n\nSo, which one will win? Evolution, hands down.\n\nThe loudly outspoken Biblical literalists and fundamentalists will continue to rail and try to drum up support, and certainly experience a few minor victories, but just as they lost in most of the challenges this last year, they will contuinue to lose.\n\nHeck, if the vocal churches would stop weilding their political bats, the politicians would not even be making this an issue.
1067031
creationism or creation science, belief in the biblical account of the creation of the world as described in Genesis, a characteristic especially of fundamentalist Protestantism (see fundamentalism). Advocates of creationism have campaigned to have it taught in U.S. public schools along with the theory of evolution, which they dispute. In 1981 a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an Arkansas law requiring the teaching of creationism, holding it to be religious in nature; a similar Louisiana law was overturned in 1982. In 1999, supporters of creationism in Kansas succeeded in removing the requirement that evolution be taught as part of the state's high school biology curriculum, but after several supporters of the measure were not reelected to the state school board that decision was reversed in 2001. Fundamentalist Christians have also opposed the teaching of scientific theories concerning the formation of the universe (see cosmology). See also intelligent design.
180126
10,000 American clergy members signed this letter to the same effect.\n\nFor too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.\n\nIn the fall of 2004, I worked with clergy throughout Wisconsin to prepare a statement in support of teaching evolution. We were called to action by a series of anti-evolution policies passed by the school board in Grantsburg, WI. The response was overwhelming. In a few weeks, nearly 200 clergy signed the statement, which we sent to the Grantsburg school board on December 16, 2004. Additionally, groups of educators and scientists sent letters to the Grantsburg School Board and to the Superintendent of Schools protesting these policies. In response to all of this attention, as well as the efforts of others, the Grantsburg School Board retracted their policies.\n\nThe outpouring of support from clergy around the country encouraged me to make this a nationwide project. If you want to read more about it or join us in sharing this important  perspective, click here.  Encourage your clergy to consider signing the statement and please feel free to link to these webpages.  And, while the current focus is on Christian clergy, please let me know if you are willing to write and/or host a statement from other religions.\n\n\nSincerely,\n\nMichael Zimmerman\nDean\nCollege of Letters and Sciences\nUniversity of Wisconsin Oshkosh
598651
Yes, go to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html for the following quote\n\nOf the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
476036
well since the govenment likes to keep the separation of church and state in our faces and creationism is relgious I think you need to look at who is paying for the education...If you want creationism go to a religous school otherwise, teach accepted science and math and english in america and keep the self actualization out of the public schools.
820895
The theory of intelligent design is the same as when the ancient celts said "mushroom circles form because of fairies". Infact their is no evidence of intelligent design at all. Creationist Science is completely non empirical and a total insult to real science. Its either the earth is a giant labratory of differrent combinations of rna that is billions of years old and the universe started with the culmination of a big bang that was created by what quantum physics calls "the quantum bounce effect" or a black hole creating a baby universe. Or... some giant mythological being created a man and a woman from clay in a magic garden 4000 years ago. Thousands of years ago people did not have science and the world was a big and scary place, they were at the mercy of the elements so they used Gods and Goddesses to humanize the world around them. Sooner or later that developed into monothiesm. Then the early christians stole their creator diety from the Hebrew people. Talk about copywriting. However even though their is tons of real evidence backing up the anthropic principle. Millions of people are very primitive and need a diety otherwise their world view is incomplete.
845905
I can't give you every single person who supports/opposes it. Here are some names (all contemporary, and only those I could think of off the top of my head), though [note: I define "opposers" as those who have specifically spoken out against creationism; I also define creationism as the literal intervention of god, that is to say, nothing could happen without a god there to make it happen, which is different than theistic evolution):\n\nSupporters:\nKent Hovind\nKen Ham\nHugh Ross\nRay Comfort\nWilliam Dembski\nMichael Behe\n\nOpposers:\nRichard Dawkins\nCarl Sagan\nPZ Myers\nEd Brayton\nMassimo Pigliucci\nCarl Zimmer\nJudge John Jones\nKen Miller\nStephen Jay Gould\nJack Horner\n\nPlease note that the number of people accepting of a position does not necessarily mean that position is correct. Also note that each of those mentioned in the opposition list are actual biologists, whereas those mentioned in the supporters list are preachers. Majority may not count, but schooling does.
66439
Creationism means that "Zap!" there we (and all other living things) were... created as is in the blink of any eye (or a few days).  This is Biblical mythology.  Although interesting, it has been shown with much evidence to be incorrect.\n\nIntelligent design means that God either set in motion the changes that man and nature would undergo from the very begining... or that he invisibly changed nature over many thousands of millions of years and still continues to do so today... very slowly!  So that he set things up for evolution to occur and still controls it.\n\nHowever this "theory" cannot be tested.  We cannot, by the definition of God, experiment on God to prove what God has or has not done.  Many people BELIEVE that because nature is so complex, that it must have had an intelligent creator and therefore the intelligent creator exists.  But this does not prove the assumption that "If nature is complex, then it must have had an intelligent creator".  That statement is where the faith lies.\n\nEvolution shows that beings have changed over the millions of years by natural selection.  It does not say that God did or did not have a hand in it.  It is merely fact.\n\nSome people think that evolution is blasphemous because it contradicts the Old Testament.  But many things that are done now-a-days by most modern Christians contradict the Old Testament. (Dietary habits, clothing, etc.)  Even intelligent design contradicts the old testament.\n\nThe statement "The sky is blue." (on a clear day!) is no more or less true if you think it's blue because (1) God made it blue, or (2) because God set up the atmospheric conditions to make the sky blue, or (3) it is blue only because of atmospheric conditions and not because of God.\n\n"Evolution happend" is just a fact.  If you think it happened because of God or not is really a matter of faith.\n\nAnd being part of faith, should be kept out of government.  Much of the US constitution is based on keeping religion and goverment separate.  Evolution is fact and should be taught.  If you think it occured because of God, that is great, but it is not science.  Faith has done some wonderful things.  So has science.  But to contaminate faith with science is like trying to experiment on God.  And to enter faith into science completely destroys the objectivity of science.\n\nBoth creationism and intelligent design are based on faith and should not be taught in public schools.\n\n\nP.S.  To say that evolution cannot be proven is absurd.  There is countless evidence in favor of it.  Just as the theory of gravity.  You will have to read up on natural selection.
914208
An oxymoron. Science is objective lucidity.  Creationism is subjective magical-thinking.
838989
I was taught both - with the emphasis on Creationism....\n\nThank God I attended university afterwards and shrugged off the mind virus....