Creationists urge Cover-Up of Evolutionary Evidence

more dangerous than most people realise.
Besides increasing the "knowing" preachers power over people.(after all who interepts God's thoughts)
It also encourages people to use faith to try to stop catastrophies.
Like praying to volcanoes so they dont errupt or praying a hurricane will move out the way rather than evacuating. OR even killing a gay man to try to appease God's anger.
Not saying it happens oin our society but in societies that creationism is the rule and not the exception it does happen and frequently.

I dont mind the creationists being misguided but i hope they remember my favorite quote from church
"God helps those that help themselves"
SO when a huricanne comes, get out of the way.

JoulesBeef:

Have you heard the story about the man, who jumped into a lion's cage at some zoo, saying to people around him: The Lord will protect me from this lion!

He was of course ripped apart by the lion.

Now, I wouldn't say this proves, that God does not exist.

(The story is actually true, I have it from a Danish newspaper)

All it proves is that God does not suffer fools.

I read that a while back. Pretty silly really... lions and christians don't have a friendly history :P

lions and christians don't have a friendly history

Yeah. It's Jews that have a good relationship with lions.

I think the Chinese have the best relationship with all animals. We just eat them.

Jack Huang! Yeah, that's the relationship I like most ... at least with the more popular livestock types.

I agree with your sentiment, Pam, but I don't think the Evangelicals believe their beliefs have a weakness. I think they believe the people who would visit the museum have a weakness -- ignorance -- insomuch as the Evans. think that these people are so uneducated and faithless that they can't see all sides presented to them and still make a faith based decision.

If natural selection takes its course, we're doomed.

I'm sorry, let me try to explain that comment:

Natural selection favors those humans who have the most sex. In a few centuries, all that's left will be rapists and whores.

Natural Selection favours genes, not people; it requires offspring; and it has done a fine job so far.

Natural Selection favours genes, not people; it requires offspring; and it has done a fine job so far.

Except, of course, that mankind is doing it's best to override natural selection, in that we're able to ensure that the weakest also survive. There's an excellent Channel Four program called "What Makes Us Human?" that follows some of this.

I love the implications in Nailer's comment. I think I'll fully agree with that comment and base my perspective on Creationists off of that ideology.

Natural Selection be damned, if the Creationists fully adhere to their beliefs, they'd make themselves extinct within a year. No making use of fossil fuel-powered transport (i.e. bikes only); no making use of anything our world of modern medicine provides; and so forth and so forth. Imagine the impact that'd have on their lives — who needs Nature to do any work, then? ;)

I would go farther. I have a standing bet along the following lines: if creationist myths about the age of the Earth are correct, then everything we understand about nuclear physics is basically wrong. Therefore I will convert to their beliefs if a large group of creationists will gather together in a remote spot and witness to their faith that the Bible is right and the physicists are wrong. As a final test of the wager, a nuclear weapon will be detonated in their midst. If it fails to go off, they win and I convert.

Strangely, no one is even willing to take me up on this in principle, ignoring the practical difficulties involved.

if the Creationists fully adhere to their beliefs, they'd make themselves extinct within a year. No making use of fossil fuel-powered transport (i.e. bikes only); no making use of anything our world of modern medicine provides;

I think you are mistaken. If Creationists switched from fossil fuel powered transport, there would be a lot less pollution in the air, if they biked everywhere they would be getting lots and lots of exercise, which would improve their health and well being. If they refused to make use of modern medicine, they would not use birth control which means they would be breeding like bunnies, and survival of the fittest tends to favor groups with high birthrates over those with lower birthrates.

@AdipicAcid

I'm not a creationist, but considering the practical difficulties, I'll be glad to take you up on your challenge. You provide the nuclear weapon and I'm there. And it has to be a real nuclear weapon, no shiny bomb casings filled with pinball machine parts. If it fails to go off, you have to convert to the Church of Robotics and support my re-election to the office of Robo-Pope.

stevetherobot: and your hordes of Creationist bunnies would, every few years, be drastically thinned out by sweeping plagues of dysentery, bubonic plague, and the flu.

Hehehe... Creationist bunnies. Reminds me of the scene in Men in Black 2 when the tiny alien society in the locker worships the watch, complete with tiny alien Moses. Hehehe. Creationist bunnies.

I think you are mistaken. If Creationists switched from fossil fuel powered transport, there would be a lot less pollution in the air, if they biked everywhere they would be getting lots and lots of exercise, which would improve their health and well being. If they refused to make use of modern medicine, they would not use birth control which means they would be breeding like bunnies, and survival of the fittest tends to favor groups with high birthrates over those with lower birthrates.

Jack already pointed out the one big flaw in your arguments here, but I'd like to point out another: you really think these Creationists would actually go to work on a bike each day? I don't think most of these people are the sporty type willing to bike 20 miles back and forth each day, let alone carrying a briefcase to boot. I could be wrong about that, of course, but even then there would still be dysentery and what not, weeding them out. =)

@David Rutt,

Mankind is certainly evolved to point where it can tinker with the same fundmental units and influence the direction of the species to some extent. Still, in reference to Slartibartfast, I don't think we'll be selecting whores and rapists with any more frequency than Natural Selection will.

. . . they would not use birth control which means they would be breeding like bunnies, and survival of the fittest tends to favor groups with high birthrates over those with lower birthrates.

More kids would be born, but most of them would die from things like the flu and measles and tetanus. And the ones that survive would have a poor living style.

Besides, the Amish are basically shunning technology, and, while they have managed to survive, they haven't, nor will they ever, become the majority because of natural selection.

most of them would die from things like the flu and measles and tetanus

Not necessarily. As a child I had the flu and measles and didn't die. The mortality rate from those (at least the regular varieties) is not that high, especially if the victims are in good health otherwise. I would expect that if fundamentalists shunned modern science, they would be eating organically grown food, walking/bicycling everywhere and would be reasonably healthy. Not to mention that the flu and measles can be curtailed using quarantene and good hygiene, both biblically sound concepts.

the Amish are basically shunning technology, and, while they have managed to survive, they haven't, nor will they ever, become the majority because of natural selection

They are also a small group. If all fundamentalists started shunning modern technology, that would be a breeding population of millions upon millions.

As a child I had the flu and measles and didn't die.

Did you take non-herbal medicine at all?

Further, if fundamentalists shunned all of modern science (asopposed to just evolution-centric technologies), there goes your microbe-filtered water supplies, your modern air conditioning, your antibiotics (though I've already said), electric dynamos (power plants), etc.

Did you take non-herbal medicine at all?

Just aspirin.

A better statement would be Creationists on one side and smart people on the other.

It is important to recognize, that not all religious people are creationists.

I am religious myself, and I have 2 things against creationism:

1) Taking the Bible literally in such a way that it contradicts science, and trying to replace the theory of evolution with biblical creation or "Intelligent Design" is not only wrong - it is potentially dangerous to civilization and mankind.

2) When creationists are really active, as they are today, they give all religious people a "bad name".

A museum should not ber worrying about presenting the religious point of view in a science section at all. If they have a valid reason for exhibiting religious artefacts and beliefs then fine, but present it from a sociological or archeological point of view. This is a museum, not a church.

Behind My Screen

A better statement would be Creationists on one side and smart people on the other.

Agreed.

It's a little more complicated than that; it seems they accept that God gave humanity free will, but then they say people shouldn't use God's gift to question, you know -- the existence of God.

The whole problem stems from the acceptance of the Bible as the literal word of God, naturally -- anything that contradicts it must be wrong, no matter what facts, evidence, and "common sense" have to say on the subject.

(Please note the sneer-quotes around "common sense"; since more people don't have it...)

On the contrary, I believe that Darwin strengthened religion and spirituality by uncovering the beauty of nature.

State and government should be neutral in such a way, that there is not only religious freedom to be a Protestant or a Catholic, a Shiia-Muslim or a Sunni-Muslim - or a Buddhist for that matter. The most important thing is, that people who are not religious at all, can live their lives without being pushed towards religion.

Since you can say, that agnosticism is the most neutral standpoint, I actually think it might stabilize human society in the future, if a relatively large group of agnostic people is playing a dominant role in politics and science. Without oppressing the various religious groups, that is! Oppressing religious groups would in fact contradict the definition of "agnosticism".

In this connection it is of course very important to make a clear distinction between agnosticism and atheism - since you cannot say, that atheism is neutral.

I hope, that in the future, people who are not religious will choose to be agnostic rather than atheistic or anti-religious.

This view is probably not so common for people that are deeply religious them self, I guess?

I mean, the Bible, Talmud, Koran, or whatever other dusty tome you hold sacred may have some inspired writing in it, but seriously- isn't it possible some parts of it were meant to be taken as metaphor? It was written my [sic]people; or at least transcribed by them, and people make mistakes.

That makes me wonder why more people wouldn't expect such a powerful intellect such as God may either

• have purposely communicated abstract concepts via metaphor because the metaphor is a powerful instrument; and/or
• have purposely communicated abstract concepts via metaphor because the relatively feeble human intellect is incapable of fully grasping them?

Why is it reasonable that God would only speak literally to his creations?

To avoid confusion? If he had said/inspired men to write Genesis with a little footnote that said (don't take this @!$%# literally, it's just a metaphor so that you can understand), a whole lot of arguments would be dead.

I think that more effectively proves that man would have written the bible in a way that makes it much more powerful as a tool, rather than as an honest description of reality.

Is it God leaving out the footnote or is it mankind with all of its insecurities and fears of others? Hmmmm....

Vincent, I don't quite get whether your reply is intended to counter mine, or not. I agree that some primer on what God expected us to take literally, and what should be considered metaphor, would certainly disambiguate several considerations. I expect one possible Christian (not solely Creationist) response might be that that is part of the test of faith: that we aren't supposed to expect to reason it out. It would be through our faith that these things are clarified, not through our intellect.

These arguments are all weak; but I'm trying to bridge the gap, to consider the religious perspective. It's often quite a stretch, however. If it's a Maurice Cendak book, willing suspension of disbelief is pretty easy, not least because no one (that I know of) is in the business of building regimes and spilling blood about interpretations of Where the Wild Things Are.

There are many possible interpretations of religious texts. And I think that is just how God wanted it to be. Every part of religious texts can mean several things all at once. There is no wrong interpretation. It is said that you can learn something new every time you read a passage from the Bible or the Koran or whatever. And this ambiguity is the reason why.

Since you can say, that agnosticism is the most neutral standpoint, I actually think it might stabilize human society in the future, if a relatively large group of agnostic people is playing a dominant role in politics and science. Without oppressing the various religious groups, that is! Oppressing religious groups would in fact contradict the definition of "agnosticism".

Interesting point, and definitely something to think about.

In reference to Daniel's, Vincent's, Faruk's, and Slartibartfast's conversation above:

I think that metaphor's power is in its encouragement of deep thinking. Countless philosophers and religious leaders — and not just in Christianity — have written of the importance of exploration, questioning, wonderment, and meditation relating to a particular religion's scriptures and theology.

Slartibartfast:

There are many possible interpretations of religious texts. And I think that is just how God wanted it to be. Every part of religious texts can mean several things all at once. There is no wrong interpretation.

To be a little glib, what makes you think God would want it to be like that? Is there an indication via scripture? Then, by your own definition, I can just as resoundingly (if disingenuously) say that I think he meant no such thing. While an omnipotent entity might actually be able to pull off such an absolute duality, I'm not sure how useful it would ever be as a message to lesser intellects than his.

I gather that you would consider laughable my (admittedly argumentative) potential interpretation of the Bible to be that it advocated homosexuality as the default sexual preference, as well as that evolution is, in fact, his will. I'm not trying to blaspheme, rather I think either you didn't mean to indicate so strong a plurality; or you're overly ambitious in your egalitarianism.

songbird6:

I wasn't at all questioning the utility or place of metaphor in religious texts. I happen to think that, despite the dogmatic wardrums and violent rhetoric that are sometimes associated with religion, religious texts are of no less inspiring power than other forms of literary expression, even in the absence of a deity. Certainly, a proscription against murder is generally a good thing, for instance, whether God said it or not. And within the aims of proselytization you can often find solid humanitarian work. I am not as gracious to my fellow human as a great many religious people are.

Lazy people aim for polarizing the issues to make it easier to pick sides..

Daniel:

I know. In fact, I was agreeing with you. And I hope you would note that I mentioned philosophical writings, not just holy texts. As someone who reads all kinds of books, I enjoy metaphor in many capacities.

I hope that comment about polarizing issues wasn't directed towards me. I was just putting in my two cents.

I wasn't at all questioning the utility or place of metaphor in religious texts.

I know. In fact, I was agreeing with you.

Okay. I must have parsed it wrong. Not that it seemed directly argumentative, but rather sounded like you'd taken my comment wrongly.

I hope that comment about polarizing issues wasn't directed towards me. I was just putting in my two cents.

Not at all. I was just sort of stating that I understand that some of the controversy in these discussions is forged, either by device or ignorance. It was kind of a "We're in this together" sort of thing, if ill-executed.

If religion does not follow logic then why are morals supposed to be logical?

This is a generalization. Only parts of religion are illogical. The basic reasoning behind every set of morals, no matter how complicated it is, is that the goal of life is to be happy without interfering with others' happiness. Except maybe all of those terrorists who believe that is is moral to kill hundreds of Jews and/or Americans.

Behe's argument is flawed in many ways that can be easily explained by a simple google search. No one in the mainstream scientific community gives his ideas much weight.

I'm not outright calling Creationists idiots, in fact, those who remain committed to a 6000-year old world in light of such evidence for evolution do indeed have a strong resolve. Those, however, who seek to hide their opponent's evidence are cowards.

If it makes you feel any better I've read parts of The Case for a Creator (didn't really have time to read all of it) by Lee Strobel. It was recommended to me by my creationist friends when I wanted to see things from a different point of view. From what I saw the main points against evolution were pretty weak. The best point was that fossil records show the rate of evolution to be a little different than early scientists predicted. More research leads to changes in our scientific theories? Wow, who knew.

The God I believe in, is not a book. He is the living God who created our universe in around 13 bn years. A universe much more beautiful and fantastic than those who wrote the Bible could ever have imagined - because they didn't have science to enlighten them.

It is science that uncover the beauty of creation.

How can anyone be against that?

The mutual admiration society on Newsvine should consider reading biochemist Michael Behe's book - Darwin's Black Box.

Matt274, Behe's anti-evolutionary philosophy hinges on the concept of irreducible complexity. That is: "It's so goddamn complex that I, and my friends, can't POSSIBLY think of a way that random stuff could make that come about. Thus, it must be God."

This makes the presumption that everything in the Universe, if not currently fully understood by us humans, cannot possibly be explained in any logical and deductive manner.

Isn't that a bit arrogant for a so-called "scientist"?

Not all Darwin critics are idiots.

That's true, but what does attempting to hide, instead of explain away, contradictory evidence say about the solidity of your beliefs?

I guess embracing this idea might require the contributors on this seed to open their minds and give up their open bigotry in relation to anyone who dares to either believe in God or disagree with Charles Darwin's findings and theories(heaven-forbid).

For someone who thinks it fitting to educate the bigoted evolutionist masses, it's astounding that you fail to realize that modern evolutionary theory is rather different from that laid down in the Origin of the Species.

Yes... arguing that "it is so complex thus there is a god and god created us" is a stupid enough statement to warrant the removal of his Doctoral degree.

Jack Huang:

That's true, but what does attempting to hide, instead of explain away, contradictory evidence say about the solidity of your beliefs?

Ironically, good scientists like Darwin, do exactly the opposite: If you are aware of evidence, that appear to contradict your theory, you mention it.

Darwin himself admitted in his "Origin of Species..." that social insects (ants) show altruistic behavior, and that this is in conflict with his theory.

After science have discovered much more about inheritance (DNA) it turns out, that the special characteristics of ants not only explain this, but actually indicate that the theory of evolution is correct.

So, trying to hide evidence is not only "bad" - but can also be unproductive for yourself.

mogmich, I'm not sure whether you were just pointing out something that bolsters my point or misunderstanding my comment and explaining why it's wrong. Either way, I entirely agree.

Science follows the philosophy of skepticism. This is why science is so malleable and makes so much progress. If it seems dogmatic at times, that is only because no solid contradictory evidence has been presented. Science aims to prove itself wrong, and in doing so, make itself better.

Oh, and as a afterthought:

@Matt274: As to your parenthetical "heaven-forbid." There are some "believers" who would have you believe that heaven does forbid it. Quaint, isn't it? ;-)

I'm pretty sure we have yet to uncover any part of reality that is incongruent with radical atheism.

Killfile said:

but they must find Him though their church, their parents, or through their own experiences, friendships, and meditations outside of the state supported curricula.

Actually, if a student finds God through the beauty of nature, as many scientists do, it would be entirely permissible to find God within the state-supported curricula. You can keep public education separate from the church, or from a religion, but you cannot keep it separate from religion in general.

Kristine, thanks for a refreshing comment. As one who believes in a Creator, I deplore any attempt to act in a dishonest way (like the one mentioned in this article). Not everyone that believes in a Creator agrees with what every Creationist does.

Looking at the pics you describe, gtownky, I can confirm that Killfile is right, at least in part. I have a cast of Mrs Ples (the top middle pic on that page), and it certainly has more bone fragment than shown here.

Pascal's Wager is very poor logic. You don't choose to believe in God, you either do, or you don't. You can think on why you believe or don't believe, and attempt to further refine your beliefs, but presumably, an all-powerful God knows damn well whether you genuinely believe, or just go through the motions, presuming it'll save you from his wrath, just in case.

Actually Pascal's Wager is even worse than the previous poster implied as it presents a false dichotomy. It assumes that the only possible choices are:

1. There is a Christian God who will grant you eternal life if you have faith in him
2. There is no such God and when you die, it's all over.

What if there is a God who grants eternal life, but is not the Christian or even the Muslim one? Odin might be pissed and deny you Vahalla for refusing to worship him in life!

AdipicAcid brings up a good point there. Even given the assumption that there is a god (for the purpose of this statement at least), there is no viable way to determine which of the many many historical varieties of god is correct...or even more then one. So to believe in one of the possibilities and not the others is actually riskier then believing in none. I'd say it would make more sense to piss off all gods equally due to an honest lack of evidence then take my chances picking the wrong one on a hunch. And even that is assuming there's a god or god's to pick from no matter what. When you add in the possibility of "no god at all", the odds are far in the favour of none-believers aren't they?

And to top it all off, none of that really matters in the long run. I mean, you believe what you believe and you die. If it happens that what you believed is true, you win.....if it's not, you couldn't have faked it and gotten away with it in the afterlife anyway. All you can do is take everything you know (and think you know) and based your beliefs on that...for better or worse. Playing the odds won't help you either way.

I wouldn't mind Norse beliefs being right...I bet fighting in Ragnarok would be pretty cool.

Now, what would be really crazy would be if the God who created our Universe was only one of a whole host of God-like beings who live in a higher society than ours, each being having created his/her own universe. And their universe is one of many created by beings in an even higher universe. And so on and so forth. If that's true (and that's a huge assumption), then I want to know when we get to create universes.

Slartibartfast, have you been watching the end of Men in Black over and over or something? I agree with Sam, where do you get your stash? :P

Interesting thoughts mind you, philosophy is fun :)

Before "Finding" Leviticus in the Royal Palace in Jerusalem, The jews of antiquity did in fact worship other gods. The one worshiped the most was a female goddess that was supposed to be Yahweh's wife.

Leviticus put an end to this practice thou because it made sacrifice only acceptable at the temple in Jerusalem. This centralized and strengthened the Hebrew religion and allowed the high priests of the temple to exert a much greater amount of control over the Hebrews that were spread out over many hundreds of square miles.

I want to know when we get to create universes.

Soon.
http://stevetherobot.newsvine.com/_news/2006/08/08/317023-physicists-in-japan-plan-to-create-new-universe-in-lab

Remember all the hubbub over "Lucy"? She was (supposedly) a link to the apes and was all over the news. But when it was discovered to be a hoax and that bones (not hers) were thrown into the skeletal mix, how well was that info promulgated?

Do you have a reference for this? As far as I know, Lucy is still considered to be very much a part of our family tree.

Or how long did the Smithsonian bury evidence that life began on earth far sooner than could be possible for it to be an accidental product of the rolling of primordial dice?

Again, a source for this info would be welcomed.

Methinks he has confused Lucy and the Piltdown Man, which was most definitely a hoax.

And a well-publicised one at that.