Thesis- In this day and age, when so much of our society depends on the development of scientific progress, it is absolutely essential that kids are exposed to the truth in school. The problem, though, is that a large percentage of the citenzry of the United States buys into pseudoscientific ideas; seen no more clearly than the amount of people who believe in creationism, or as it has recently started to be called in an attempt to appear scientific, intelligent design.
Outline-
1st point- I will first do a quick overview of the amount of people who believe in creationism, as well as other bogus sciences such as astrology and seances. Then I'll mention a couple of the recent cases where people have tried to get creationism back into public schools. After that, I will review why in all of those cases the judge and jury ruled in favor of evolution instead of creationism.
2nd point- I will next focus on the problems and outcomes of having a scientific illiterate country. I will reference history as well as the present. This will include European countries such as Sweden, France, and England, and how the majority of their populations have grown pass infantile beliefs and turned instead towards science and reason. And how becuase of this, in certain scientific aspects, they are more enlightened than the United States.
3rd point- My third point will focus on what educators and scientists can to do to address this problem. And also briefly talk about what the role of education is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Im writing my paper on the science of creationism... Dr. O'Rourke asked me to look at you page.
You keep saying that Creation is a pseudoscience but do you deny that there is empirical science that supports creation, or at least the young earth theory?? If you really want to get across to an intellegent audience you need to address the FACT that evolution is a THEORY. no matter how many people who believe it, or how fast its growth in popularity it 'has not' (cannot) be proven...thats why they call it a theory.
Yes I do deny that there is empirical evidence that supports a young earth theory. Not because I'm being biased, but because there is no empirical evidence for it. Many different forms of radiometric and carbon dating have all pointed to an Earth that is billions of years old, not thousands. I also disagree that evolution is a theory that has not can cannot be proven. Evolution can and has been proven. Through fossils, DNA and other genetic testing, the tree of life has been mapped. And if you are saying this can't be trusted because we weren't there to watch it, just look at the evolution of the St. Bernard. The bone layout of a St. Bernard has substantially changed in just the past 120 years. So not only is evolution occuring, but it can occur at a rate even faster than most scientists used to think. I still would like to know what the evidence is that supports a young earth.
I was unaware that evolution was proven... show me some proof that any legitimate scentist claims evolution is not a theory and ill abandon my entire paper. And for the record, natural selection is real...as in your case of the st. bernard, have you ever wondered why they still call it a st bernard...because it hasn't changed species, just bone structure. As for DNA i think it would be great if we could run DNA tests on fossil records but thats not possible. And you can take carbon dating to heart all you want but i suggest you researh mount st. helen's... the carbon dating there doesn't seem so empirical.
Actually you can extract DNA strands from fossils. Here's one site, of the many that you can check out, to show you, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025143311.htm
In Darwin's and Wallace's time, cell structure and genes were not understood. When these things were discovered they could have easily shattered the entire theory, but they have in fact strengthened it. Over the past 150 years evolution has gone through the most testing of any other theory, and so far nothing has been able to disprove it. Dan Dennett called it the most provable theory in all of science. Just read one of his books to see him prove it.
As for the St. Bernard, it has only been a 120 years, macro-evolution takes place at the quickest in tens of thousands of years, but usually hundreds of thousands of years or even millions. I have no idea what you are talking about with the Mt. St. Helen's example. I could not find a scientific journal on the subject, only creationist websites. And plus radiocarbon dating only works on living matter or matter that was once alive. There are many other tests that can date geologic time and they all agree almost exactly to the year. I'm just curious, what do you believe is historical fact, Noah's Flood, where Noah somehow went around and hand picked a female and male of all the millions and millions of species on the planet, including the millions of insects alone, and put them on a five story ark. I wouldn't base science on the bible, after all the bible also says the earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the earth.
Ok, i couldn't find your article on the website you posted but even if i did conceed that point was true it doesn't support your point. For me to believe the theory of evolution i would need some specific example, and proof, that one species has evolved into another. And your theory must still account for that first cell that evolved.
Archeology has also come along way since Darwin, and since Darwin they have found that the geologic collumn, accoring to evolution has some serious flaws, there aren't enough meteorites, single upright trees are fossilized through layers of sedimentary rock that was supposedly lay over millions of years.
As far as Mt. St. Helens-stratified (layered) deposits appearing to encompass thousands of years of geologic time (according to evolution)were deposited in less than a day.
And as a matter of fact i do believe in Noahs ark. But God brough the animals to Noah...something like 'Evan Almighty.' Read the article in TIME magizine, many explorers and satellite pictures show where the ark could be but we can't get researchers out to Mt. Ararat because of political reasons.
And by all means get me a referance from the bible that says the world is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth...
and while you're finding that i still want one refrence that says evolution is not a Theory.
Alright so God brought the animals to the ark. Now the earth is only six thousand years old, so that means there has not been enough time for plate tectonics and continental drift, which means the current oceans were the same then. So to get animals to the ark, were they flying in the air over the oceans and continents, or was it like Star Trek and they were beamed to the ark. Without plate tectonics, the creationist has to explain why exact same fossils in the exact same layers of the earth are found on coastlines seperated by thousands of miles of oceans, such as is found on the eastern coast of South America and the western coast of Africa. And don't blame the not finding of the ark on political reasons, there have been many creationists who have gone looking for it, and when they find something all the other creationists go crazy, and every time they have embarassingly been proven wrong.
As for Mt St. Helens, heres a site that has real facts, http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Projects/Sediment_Trans/PP1573/HTMLReport/PP1573.2.html. Don't just trust creationist sites, they either make stuff up or completely misunderstand or minipulate the facts.
Here are just some of the bible references that say the four corners of the earth and other sayings that mean the earth is flat- Isaiah 11:12, Revelation 7:1, Jeremiah 16:19, Daniel 4:11.
Bible references that say the earth never moves- Psalm 104:5, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, Ecclesiastes 1:5. There are many others, and lets not forget the Book of Joshua where he halts the sun in the sky until the battle is over. Obviously it was not known that the earth spins on its axis causing the illusion that the sun is revolving around the earth.
Also if God did create all the animals in their current forms, you have to acknowldge that he is an extremely flawed designer, which I don't think any Christian would ever admit. There are thousands of flaws in animals including humans, that can be explained by evolution but not by creation. The most obvious is the eye, but we still have the remnants of a tail-bone, a backbone, and abdominal muscles much like those of the four-legged mammals, but which leave us open to back pain and which barely hold in our vital organs (because they weren't designed to be carried around vertically), and we have an appendix (a small remnant of a prior ancestor species' intestinal sack) which not only is of no use to us but which can sometimes kill us when it gets clogged up and infected.
Also, there are transitional fossils. Scientists long knew whales descended from land animals such as Ambulocetans natans, so they predicted we would find transitional fossils under the ground off of shores. And we found tons of fossils with all of the transitions needed. Some whales still have evidence of their ancestors too. In certain whale embryos, teeth and feet begin to grow, but during further development of the fetus and birth process they are either absorbed back in or join up with developing other body parts.
Again, there are tons of books by biologists, biochemists, ecologists, zooligists where they discuss the evidence and prove evolution is a fact. Here is one site though, http://revcom.us/a/v24/1161-1170/1170/evol5.htm. And also evolution doesn't have to affect your faith, many theologins believe in evolution, as well as the former pope.
Vestigal Structures?
If you want to look at theories of plate tectonics then we take this argument back to Noah. Evidence supports a massive, instantaneous, disaster (like the flood of Noah)has been found. For instance the Wooly mammoth that was found completely frozen, still chewing, with four pounds of preserved vegetation in it's stomach.
God's flood, as described in the bible, would have been enough to through the earth off its original axis (which it is, ancient astrology and Egyptian astrology show that something changed our axis...research the house of RA, an Egyptian pyramid) the flood and after math of the flood would have been so strong it broke up our, once singular, lands (somewhat of a Pangaea theory, also explaining your inexplicable theory of how the animals got to Noah).
To say that creationist sites 'make up facts' is a very ignorant statement. Some sources, for both creation and evolution are biased and have been flushed put as make believe, but there are plenty of reliable creationism sources out there. Creation sites only post information on creation, evolution sites only publish information on evolution...both are backed up by nonbiased science. What makes creation sites lies and evolution sites above all criticism?
Any good creation site cites research done by evolutionists. Often, something is found or learned that doesn't fit into the evolution model, on accident.
The four corners of the Earth refer to the four corners of the land, both evolution and creation, agree that at one point all our continents could have been connected in one land mass. The earth doesn't have to be flat to have four corners; it just has to be the four farthest points away from each other. And just in case you can’t accept that theory, its important to note that no creationist or theologian takes the entire bible as literal. The four corners of the earth as we know it (as round) could simply mean (points close to) north pole, south pole, an two opposite points on the equator.
Most of the references you gave me of the world being the center of the universe were horribly misinterpreted. In one, God is referring to all of humanity as ‘the world.’ In another God places the earth on its foundations…foundations of religion, kindness, and fruits of the spirit. Be sure to read the context of your research…you’re making mistakes that many have made before by taking things out of context that they don’t know much about.
God did stop the sun for Joshua. Even back then Joshua knew the sun keeps moving until it gets dark. He asked God to stop the sun so he could have light to finish his battle. They didn’t need to know anything about astrology (although they did know a lot) all Joshua wanted was some more sunlight to fight under.
Im not ignoring your other points, im just out of time for now. Ill get back to them later.
Let's start with the flood you are referring to. (I always find it funny that creationists will believe in scientific testing when they think something supports their claims, if a ship was found in some mountain they would all of a sudden believe in radiodating techniques.) There was a flood 8,000 years ago, which is too early anyway because theologians believe everything started at 4,004 B.C.E. The North American Ice Sheet collapsed causing the Black Sea to flood. It is true that this flooding is most likely the source of the Noah's Ark myth. There are many other tribes around that area that developed their own flood stories. Also, the flood was only in the Middle East, there is no evidence of a global flood, which if there was one there would certaintly be evidence for it.
Also, you are getting plate tectonics wrong. There is no original earth's axis. The axis changes, by magnetic dating we know that it has even completely flipped a couple of times. This is not what drives the movement of the lithosphere that results in plate tectonics. And I think you mean astronomy, not astrology. Astrology is the superstitious belief that stars and planets move with humans in mind and effect our behavior. Like horrorscopes. The tilt of the axis was greater in Egyptian time, not because of their work, we know that it fluctuates in 41,000 year periods, the tilt is currently in a decreasing period. And it is true the Egyptians were good astronomers, so were the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas, unforntunately we won't really know what their work was, because after the European Christians came and slaughtered them, they burnt almost all of their writings because they believed it to be Satan's work.
But back to the flood, a flood would not affect plate tectonics like you say, especailly to a degree that continents would be moved thousands of miles in a relatively short time, when it in fact took hundreds of millions of years. And once again, there would be evidence if this occured, things would look a lot different if that was what happened.
A reliable creation site is an oxymoron. What makes evolution sites and journals reliable, is that evolution scientists use evidence to back up their claims, formulate theories and send them to scientific journals. Other scientists then conduct their own testings, and after an agreement and support by lots of scientists the article is published. Scientists then continue to conduct tests to see if theories hold true. That is what science is. Creationists don't do any of this. They never publish anything in science journals because they know it won't pass because there is no evidence for it. So they completely skip this process and end up putting it on internet sites and books as if it were fact.
Wow, no religious person takes the entire bible literally, that's news to me. Well, how do you choose what is literal and what is not. Aren't you going against God's word? You say the sun keeps moving until it gets dark, but the sun doesn't move. Except if you are referring to the fact that all of our solar systsem is revolving around the center of the Milky Way Galaxy, which takes over two hundred million years to complete one orbit. And once again, I think you mean astronomy, not astrology.
And I think you are the one misinterpriting the verses. Check out Psalm 19:4-6 regarding the sun, "Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and nothing is hidden from its heat." Once again, the sun doesn't move. Also the bible talks about the sun and the stars, but the sun is a star. Another verse- 1 Chronicles 16:30- “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” And the Daniel quote talks about a tall tree at the center of the earth and visible to the earth's farthest bounds. How is this possible unless the earth is flat.
Post a Comment