Eric Bradner, writing for the Evansville Press, has an article on last night’s gubernatorial debate. The candidates were asked to answer a question hearkening back to last session’s SB 89 which attempted to mandate that schools teach creationism as science.
Creationism isn’t science because it doesn’t follow the scientific method. And it’s not even very good religion. It’s perversion of one, masquerading as another. Making me think of Jonathan Coulton’s song Skullcrusher Mountain where the mad scientist protagonist asks his kidnapped love interest in frustration:
I made this half-pony half-monkey monster to please you;
But I get the feeling that you don’t like it;
What’s with all the screaming?
You like monkeys, you like ponies;
Maybe you don’t like monsters so much;
Maybe I used too many monkeys;
Isn’t it enough to know that I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
Asked about whether it should be taught in class rooms, Mike Pence is in favor of allowing creationism to be taught as science if the locals vote to do it. John Gregg ducked the question but then apparently gave a better answer:
Democratic former Indiana House Speaker John Gregg deflected the question during the debate, instead focusing on other education initiatives, but said afterward he’d prefer to keep creationism in literature classes.
But, during the debate when it counted a little more, Rupert gave the correct answer:
And Libertarian Rupert Boneham said he wants to keep creationism out of public school science classes altogether. “If we want our children to just be taught creationism and not evolution, we should find those alternative schools,” he said. “I want to keep science science.”
Give that man a cookie.
This is a subject that my own views have been evolving on.
I’m someone that actually believes in 6-day creation. That said, I’m perfectly fine with evolution being taught in public schools.
I think it is important for everyone to understand the scientific process. It is based, or should be based, only on what can be observed with the most likely conclusion being accepted at the time.
Not only should students (and voters) understand this, they should also understand that it frequently comes to the wrong conclusion. There are libraries of books filled with incorrect conclusions from scientists past, but they are only incorrect because we have better data now. Given the data they had at the time, their conclusions are usually perfectly acceptable. It also sometimes comes to the correct conclusion, which allows our society to advance.
We need to get this debate away from “Evolution is FACT” and “Creation is FACT” to a solution of:
“One way to look at the world is with the scientific process. Here is how it works, here are examples of how this process has greatly improved society, and there is where it has failed. In our science classes, we will only look at things through this lens, for better or worse”
“Another way to look at the world is with philosophy and/or faith. Here is how it works, here are examples of how this process has greatly improved society, here are examples of how it has failed. In our philosophy/literature/religion class, we will look at things through this lens, for better or worse. In addition, you also have the opportunity to do this through your religion.”
Let’s spend some time educating the public on what the scientific process is, and what it isn’t.
If Atheists are good with this, then so am I. If you agree, just do me the favor of not lumping me in with some of the people that claim to follow the same God as me.
“I’m someone that actually believes in 6-day creation.”
“Let’s spend some time educating the public on what the scientific process is, and what it isn’t.”
What the scientific process doesn’t do is provide a scintilla of evidence to support the ludicrous claim of a 6 day creation.
And the Flintstones was made up. It didn’t really happen. There is hard scientific evidence that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago, not 6,000.
Good thing he didn’t say otherwise, then.
Reading comprehension: it’s important, son.
My point, jackass, is is somewhat useless to spend time trying to educate yourself about science when you completely reject science and believe in a 6 day creation.
Last I heard Christians are supposed to spread the word.
So is he advocating spreading the word of of 6 day creation or science. You can’t do both.
I’m supposed to spread the love of Jesus, first. Jesus was quite against a government forcing religion on everyone.
So, how am I showing the love of Jesus by forcing schools to teach religion in science class?
Perhaps you need to open your mind to other possibilities, but it IS completely possible to accept the scientific process for things that can be tested and to also prefer faith for things that can’t.
When science makes a new galaxy and a new intelligent life on one of the words from nothing but gas I’ll review my faith. Until then, I have reasons for accepting both faith and science, and listening to the one that speaks the most truth to me.
EDIT: One of the worlds
I think he’d rather have your vote. He’s on his way to getting mine.
Aye. Give Rupert the vote. I’ll take the cookie!
I believe in evolution. I don’t believe the six day day creation discussed in the bible should be taken as literally as some want to take it.
Having said that, I am very, very concerned about the politicization of our science. Too many scientists’ have allowed their approach to science to be colored by a political agenda that is fueled by grants that fund research aimed at getting the politically correct result. When I first saw this post, I thought this was what Rupert was talking about. But, alas, it wasn’t.
Proof, please. Your lack of understanding/acceptance of climate change does not count.
I am very, very concerned about the politicization of religion. Too many church leaders and members have allowed their approach to religion to be colored by a political agenda that is fueled by tax-exempt statuses and faith-based initiatives aimed at getting the godly-correct result.
******************************************************************************************
A few words changed here and there, and we have similar results on both sides of the spectrum. Quite honestly, I prefer the side of science, but your point, Paul, is well-noted as we need to make sure our government is doing what is correct instead of being pressured by one group or the other.
Oh, but you know if scientists don’t reach a preferred conclusion, someone’s going to accuse them of politicizing science. Lay people aren’t able to tell real science from politicized science. Journalists won’t help, they’ll just tell “both” sides of the story.
The idea of a six-day literal creation has, as a matter of history, not been supported by the Christian Church. Even Augustine and Calvin weighed in against that notion. It is a relatively recent phenomenon. The literal six-day creation not only fails as science, it only reflects a minority of Christian believers. If politicians want the schools to teach the creation stories of the 92+ world religions, biology teachers will need preparation in comparative religion, but that’s not science either and it won’t prepare our kids to be knowledgeable users of science or scientists.
I guess the literal six-day creation became a hot point of contention when Darwin discovered evolution. Which suggests pathologies of various kinds, I guess – if it means that a religious belief became *more* important to the faithful only when the scientific method began to suggest that it wasn’t true.
The actual history is more complicated than you might expect. It’s important to understand that the six-day creation notion was only accepted by a small minority of Christians during the first half of the 20th century. It evolved with the help of names like Ellen G. White, George McCready Price, John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. With the current tendency to view ideas ahistorically, people often think their perceptions have always been the way they understand them. I understand that Cicero said, “To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain forever a child”. Now the state is likely to foist an idea with no tradition on our own children, but it certainly is not science.
One problem is that there is always an increasingly large body of history to be learned and seemingly less time to learn it in. What older facts/theories/timelines are given shorter shrift or no time at all in order to include the more recent historical additions? Textbook writers are probably in charge of this, but we know they are subject to political pressures from time to time.
I don’t know how they ignore every verse that says “…there was evening, and there was morning, the (1-6)th day…” that comes after the description of each day.
I don’t find that it takes me any less faith to believe in this than it does to believe that we are the results of gasses (that seem to come from nowhere) combining and exploding.
“I don’t find that it takes me any less faith to believe in this [a literal 6 day evening-morning creation cycle] than it does to believe that we are the results of gasses (that seem to come from nowhere) combining and exploding.”
As one who leans far more toward science and less toward dogmatic religious speculations, I do resonate a bit with you, Jason, in that when scientific theories postulate infinite numbers of parallel universes, it begins to sound more abstactly theological than scientific. (Maybe, just as our geometry teaches sold us two parallel lines meet at infinity, that’s where we’ll find some kind of cosmic Starbucks where the two groups meet for coffee). But at least we can, though the rigors of scientific methods, take what we can tangible observe, say, about how gases behave as temperatures rise, or how gravity bends light as Einstein first postulated, and make plausable extrapolations still based on scientific considerations. I don’t think the same can be said for theological speculations based mrerly on “Because Scripture says so”.
Is that in the older versions too?
Your second item is a big one. Is it harder to believe that one isn’t anything special in the universe, or that some supernatural agency has made some effort to make you who you are?
I know Twain said he wanted to be in Kentucky when the world ended, because it’s always twenty years behind the times, but he should have really tried Indiana. Why in Indiana, Preacher Mike and his party ain’t even heard of the Scopes Monkey Trial. In Indiana we’re a century behind the times.
Welcome to Mississippi on the Wabash, courtesy of the corrupt fraud who will be our next governor
How about Indissippi? I like the sound of it, and it describes the aspirations of the governor and the legislative assembly. When you say “we’re 50th”, they think that’s a good thing because it’s a high number.