Wednesday, October 5, 2011

Creationism Versus Evolution

FLG was just thinking -- Does it matter whether students learn Creationism versus Evolution?

What FLG means is, what does it matter to their lived lives? FLG's favorite example is that probably billions of people lived perfectly happy lives thinking the Sun revolved around the Earth. And as far as FLG can tell, his life would be perfectly fine if he believed that as well.

Don't get FLG wrong, he's in favor of teaching evolution and the heliocentric solar system. But he's in favor of it because of issues beyond the question at hand. Science is pretty damn certain of these things because they are empirically verifiable and FLG is in generally favor of teaching things that are empirically verifiable over things that aren't.

But FLG is less concerned about the impact of teaching either theory in and of itself. 99.999% of peoplecould live the exact same life they would thinking the Eden story literally true or that the Sun revolves around the Earth or the Truth. So, it's not really about those things, per se, but the larger implications of what Truth is.

This was probably all very obvious to most of you, but it takes FLG a while to figure things out sometimes.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

“Science is pretty damn certain of these things [evolution] because they are empirically verifiable” - FLG

"Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science." - Richard Dawkins

Well let's see the empirical evidence-scientific experiment that demonstrates that "fact"; and see it replicated three more times – you know, the scientific method. Evolution is a theory and, most probably, will always remain a theory.

Evolution is based not on science but on logic. The implication is - yes, the fossil records are desperately insufficient for a proof, the biological complexity is perplexing and beyond explanation (at this time), true there’s the Cambrian dilemma, but look at the diagram, see the tree, and the branches – isn’t it pretty – doesn’t it all make sense?

If intelligent design has only one leg to stand on – that leg supporting quite a few atheists’, non-believers’, and agnostics’ and their genuinely scientific approach - and creationism none, evolution theory has been swinging on its crutches and has made no progress in well over a century.

And why should belivers of any stripe fight creationism when their fight is with - not the theory of evolution per se - but militant atheist academics wishing to participate in a cultural war against religion. The only reason for the ‘incontrovertibility’ of evolution is to fight this war; to abandon it would mean fighting empythanded and revealing oneself not scientifically opposed to God/religion, but idiosyncratically. 99.999% of people could live the exact same life they would thinking one way or the other about evolution but:

“A great many men and women have a dull, hurt, angry, sense of being oppressed by the scientists; they’re frustrated by endless scientific boasting, they suspect that the scientific community holds them in contempt – they are right to feel this way.” – David Berlinski


George Pal

Anonymous said...

Does it matter what books Presidents read to students?

http://static.deseretnews.com/images/article/midres/616137/616137.jpg

Mrs. P

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.