Challenge: Evolution Debate in the US settled

[Grimm Reaper]

Settle the debate over evolution?

About time someone took care of them godless atheists trying to peddle their devil-theories to raight thinking church going moon-shine enjoying decent folk!

OOPS! Forgot to include either 'pinko' or 'commie'.

Given the current president, how can anyone doubt we are related to the apes, chimps in particular?

 

[Michael E Johnson]

--Given the current president, how can anyone doubt we are related to the apes, chimps in particular---- LOL

 

[Max Sinister]

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a scientific fact are great con-men, and the story they tell is the greatest hoax ever. They do not have one iota of fact" (Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Director, US Atomic Energy Commission).

Hmm, is evolution a greater hoax than creationism? Even creationists have to admit that no man was there to observe it, if their story was right.

 

[Akiyama]

How about this? Early in the 20th Century, Bible translators, wishing to fit in with modern scientific knowledge about the age of the earth (Creationism wasn't such a big issue in the US before the 1920s) use the word "era" rather than "day" in the English translation of Genesis (so God creates the world in seven eras, not in seven days). This would actually be a more correct translation (as most of the early Church fathers such as Origen or Augustine knew) since the Hebrew word here translated "day", when used without a definate article means "indefinate period of time" (the same way a phrase like "in King Harold's day" wouldn't refer to a single 24 hour day) and in Genesis it *is* used without the definite article.

Since modern translations of the Bible, including the New International Version used by Evangelical Christians, would no longer appear to claim that the earth was created in a literal seven days of twenty-four hours, evolution might become a non-issue in the US, the way it is everywhere else in the Christian world (or was until recently, with US evangelists being fixated on the issue and wanting to spread the good news that Darwin was wrong to other nations). More likely, creationism would still exist, but it would be "old-earth" creationism rather than "young earth" creationism.

Alternatively, what if some genius comes up with a good solid theory reconciling biblical creation with scientific evolution, and the theory of original sin with our being descended from apes (I know there are LOTS of Christian scientists today with ideas as to how this is possible), and, say, publishes a best selling book on the topic that gets his ideas accepted into mainstream Christian American thought (let's say in addition to being well read in both science and theology he's a brilliant writer with a talent for self-publicity and a modicum of luck).

Alternatively, conservative Christianity could go into a decline. Liberal Christians today are mostly rubbish at converting and inspiring people, but this doesn't have to be the case. Look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers - an extreme liberal (for his time) who inspired thousands to reject the established Church and re-dedicate their lives to Jesus. How about a liberal religious revival sometime in American history?

 

[Michael E Johnson]

---would no longer appear to claim that the earth was created in a literal seven days of twenty-four hours, evolution might become a non-issue in the US, the way it is everywhere else in the Christian world (or was until recently, with US evangelists being fixated on the issue and wanting to spread the good news that Darwin was wrong to other nations). More likely, creationism would still exist, but it would be "old-earth" creationism rather than "young earth" creationism. ----


Even some "old-Earth" or intelligent design creationists are loath to admit Earth is as old as scientists believe it is.And while they often "accept" microevolution they wont acknowledge that the principals of natural selection,mutation,symbiosis,preferential selection,genetic drift and macroevoultion all come along with it-in other words the theory of evolution

 

[Mark]

I think there are two options to reduce/eliminate the strict creationists. Either the Modernist/Fundamentalist split needs to be avoided or Fundamentalists need to choose a different litmus test for orthodoxy.

One major problem with using a new Bible translation is that the King James Version was The Standard. Even in the 1980s, I met someone who argued that KJV was the only true English-language Bible. I also remember people questioning the use of the Revised Standard Version, which is generally considered more "literal" than the NIV. So a new translation won't satisfy the Fundamentalists.

I still think psychology or sociology had the potential to become a litmus test. Perhaps an earlier Margret Mead type of person?

 

[gianluca790]

excuse me?

Those who are most qualified are usually the ones who get elected. It is only the Christian Patriots who believe that there is a Communist conspiracy to subvert the values of good old fashioned Whites with Atheistic Socialist Science. The American Patriots probably believe all scientists think in terms of extremely racist National Socialism. The Christian Fundamentalists who believe in the Originalist Constitutional viewpoint are the ones who think that Theocracy is better than Democracy. The Divine Right of Kings is based on this concept. Just replace King with President and you know what it is that these militant extremists believe. I do not want any of those people anywhere near the levers of power.

 

[Max Sinister]

Hey gianluca,

excessive thread-bumping is one thing, but your last posting sounded pretty confused. I don't like the creationists either, but what you say isn't the best advertising for scientific worldview.

 

[oudi14]

Only time will make this controversy go away. About 400 years ago, when Gallileo invented his telescope and discovered the Jovian moons, he advanced the theory that the earth revolved around the sun, not the other way around. And then the church freaked out in a major way. It was accepted doctrine then that the earth was the center of the universe, and everything else revolved around it. Galileo was thrown into jail, declared a heretic, and this charge was only dropped by the vatican in comparatively recent times. Yet today nobody believes that the sun orbits the earth. [some claim the earth is flat, but that's another issue]
But there has not been enough time for fundamentalists to give up their cherished beliefs that the entire human race is descended from Adam and Eve. I can't think of any new scientific discovery that could sway them, if they can't accept the obvious from what is arlredy out there. Only time will work. I know lots of fundamentalists, and some really hard core ones even claim that Cain married his sister, who followed him to the land of Nod, even though the bible itself admits that there were other people out there [Gen.4:14] Maybe in 200 years nobody will believe in creationism.

 

[Cavendish]

I am really concerned about how the greatest cultural, economic and geopolitical power in the world is still arguing about science that was accepted long ago by the rest of the world.

What I also find concerning is the marketing of creationism to children. For a child the complexities of cellular biology, ecology and biochemistry are far to difficult to comphrehend, yet a delighfully illustrated picture book showing lions and horses playing with humans and dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden is.
When such ideas are promoted to people at a young age they are going to struggle with understanding more complicated aspects of science.

Oh, and anyone who says that "evolution is just a theory- therefore it can be discounted" is utterly ignorant of science. Evolution is as true, accepted and proven as just about any other aspect in biology, chemistry, physics and other sciences.

All I can say is that the rest of the world looks at parts of the US with their "Jesus Camps" and anti-evolution lobby with a mix of horror and amusement.

 

[Dave Howery]

I am really concerned about how the greatest cultural, economic and geopolitical power in the world is still arguing about science that was accepted long ago by the rest of the world.

All I can say is that the rest of the world looks at parts of the US with their "Jesus Camps" and anti-evolution lobby with a mix of horror and amusement.

before you get too horrified and worried, realize that these nutters are a distinct minority, and evolution is taught in the vast majority of classrooms...

 

[Cavendish]

before you get too horrified and worried, realize that these nutters are a distinct minority, and evolution is taught in the vast majority of classrooms...

Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

 

[Dave Howery]

Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

they do. In fact, they have influence in government far over and above the numbers of people who actually believe in them. But in spite of that, most schools still teach evolution. the main reason the RR has so much influence in the US is that far too many Americans are apathetic about politics in general and don't vote. If the US had voter turnout rates like most other democracies, the moderates would dominate everything...

 

[Nosb]

Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

True, but local government is strong as well and has more of a say at what is taught at schools then the Federal government. Even in states with a strong religious-right, most people don't believe that local churches should dictate school curriculum. If they do they send their kids to a Catholic or Protestant school - which, on the vast majority, still teach evolution because its required at the state level to earn a high school diploma. School curriculum is decided in a complex way that involves the federal government (to a very small degree), state government, county/school district, teachers organizations and parent organizations. If any one of the last three causes a big enough problem with a curriculum change then it doesn't get done. And most of the school district positions are electable. What happened in a rural county in Pennsylvania is they introduced "Intelligent Design" along Evolution in the school district and all six of the board members that supported it lost their sets the next year and the new board got ride of ID.

Sex Education took years to implement in most schools - its still not taught in a lot of places and in a lot of private schools - in the county despite most state governments and the Federal government pushing for it because of the resistance of parents and some teachers. Sex Ed is still a little bit of a touchy subject and was a volunteer extra-curricular class in my middle school.

Teachers have a powerful sway at what is taught in the classroom both officially (text book and curriculum choices) and unofficially (how something is presented.) Needless to say, teachers in the US are part of the 25% minority that have college educations and are overwhelming smart enough to oppose ID.

Even though ID may, at one point or another, have been taught in a minuscule amount of schools for a very short time with conjunction with evolution Europeans still, on the whole, have more religious tunes to education. I say this purely based on the fact that almost no public schools teach classes on religion with the exception of in a historical context. That said, American education is a national disgrace. Its no wonder that most of our leading intellectuals overwhelming went to private schools (either religious or not) for most of their entire education or to specialized, but highly, highly selective public schools (like Bronx Scientific).

 

[Dan1988]

There was a program on PBS not too long ago about the Earth's origins and an argument was put forward that evolution could complement creationism and the other way around. This could be the moment.

 

[Keenir]

Oh, and anyone who says that "evolution is just a theory- therefore it can be discounted" is utterly ignorant of science.

gravity's a theory too.

 

[Cavendish]

gravity's a theory too.

Indeed it is. A theory in a scientific context is different to your own "theory" on why your favourite sports team isn't doing so well this season. my annoyance is with the "just a" part of that phrase rather than the "theory" part of it.

 

[Wendell]

Yea, I hope. But endless 60minutes 'documentries' and that awful fox news (that is about all we get from the states in terms of media....) tend to give the impression that the religious right have a strong, well financed lobby that has influential tentecles all the way up into the executive banch of government.

But how are you seeing this whole matter being played out there?

 

[gianluca790]

here is how it would work

Hey gianluca,

excessive thread-bumping is one thing, but your last posting sounded pretty confused. I don't like the creationists either, but what you say isn't the best advertising for scientific worldview.

Evolution as the tool God uses to affect change in the world.

 

[zoomar]

Well, from a scientific/philosophical perspective, I hope "the debate is never settled." We (scientists and evolutionists) still have a lot to learn and we need to recognize that unanticipated evidence might require us to revise our paradigms.

The problem in the USA is that this debate (as well as other areas of legitimate scientific debate such as climate change) becomes a political football with laypersons attempting to decide the answers. You would need to get rid of the basic American suspicion of "expert authority". This country was founded and settled by people who often rejected and fled the prevailing "expert authorities", both religious and intellectual, of the places they left. They came here because in america, ideally at least, one person's opinion was no better than another's. Thus, as long as there remains at least one crank with a PhD who believes the earth is 6000 years old, a large percentage of americans - even more than a few who accept evolution themselves - will say he or she has the right to have that theory at least mentioned in high school science classes.