Friday, February 4, 2011

On creationism, with me and @DarkBlondAngel

Deborah Hanscombe tweeted this today:
DarkBlondAngel
What a surprise @DrEvanHarris whining about religion again, if a God exists, can he smite this man down?. lol. Please RT lol.

In reply to these:

DrEvanHarris
Proposed Free School plans to teach creationism. http://bit.ly/dECVrj More here: http://bit.ly/gKxCuO via @BHAnews

DrEvanHarris
Pastor in comments at http://bit.ly/dECVrj "Creationism will be embodied as a belief" at the schl but won't be taught in the sciences" but..

DrEvanHarris
Also "Similarly, evolution will be taught as a theory". Doesn't understand what a scientific theory actually is (Show him Gravity someone!)

We then had a wee conversation on the merits of creationism in school. There was a little misunderstanding, and I had to sign off of twitter before the conversation was concluded, so, in answer to the tweets using more than 140 characters, here's where I was coming from, and this also serves as my tweeted promise "Gotta go now, will reply to anything else later".


I was talking about Creationism as I see it - something to replace the teaching of evolution in schools, even if, as Deborah points out, evolution and the origins of life are different things. However, in the context of the tweets from Dr Evan Harris, it was originally in the context of the old creationism vs evolution battle, so I think my misconception was fair. For example, in Dr Harris' links:
According to the church, the Everyday Champions Academy will possess a "Christian ethos that permeates everything that happens throughout the school".
The church states that it believes the Bible is an "accurate" depiction of God's word, and that God is the "creator of all things".
Pastor Gareth Morgan, the church leader and the driving force behind the free school bid, confirmed that creationism would be taught across the curriculum, should the school be given the green light.
"Creationism will be taught as the belief of the leadership of the school," Pastor Morgan said. "It will not be taught exclusively in the sciences, for example. At the same time, evolution will be taught as a theory."
The word "theory" is abused by creationists as the word is misunderstood. Evolution is "just a theory", but a theory in science means our best understanding of how something works, given the available data, not, as is often used colloquially, "just a hunch". Likewise, the idea that disease is caused by germs is "just a theory" (indeed, there are still people who dispute that viruses, bacteria and fungi etc cause disease. Never get health advice from these people!).

I am all for children having religious education (this is true everywhere, but this is in the context of the UK) - it is important to understand the Bible, as it has had a massive impact on our culture, and is needed to understand many common phrases eg "Doubting Thomas" (Richard Dawkins lists many in The God Delusion, but a friend is borrowing my copy, so can't reference I'm afraid). It is also important to have knowledge of other's beliefs. Funnily enough, some of the best religious knowledge comes from atheists. However, religion should be taught in a secular fashion - "This is what so and so believe, however this and that believe something else". They are, after all, all myths (if you are religious and reading this, how would you define the beliefs of other religions?). Even if you're not happy with your religion being taught as such, you must remember that the others will feel the same about their religion.

Creationism, and indeed other religious ideas should stay out of the science class room. Time is limited. Showing the huge wealth of evidence for evoulution should suffice - for example, radio metric dating can be taught to show the age of the Earth. It's not then needed to have a comparison with the Young Age Creationists, and their method of added up the ages of the various genealogies.

All ideas are not equally valid. How does this idea for car repair compare to a qualified mechanic?


When an idea has been tested for over 150 years,  with lots of people trying to disprove it; when it has made predictions that have all been shown to be true; and when every single item of evidence ever found fits the idea beautifully, then you can give it more weight as an idea from some nomadic goat herders thousands of years ago who thought bats were birds (Leviticus 11:13, 19)


Here's the full conversation, with a few notes:


EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Goodness me! Think you'll find @DrEvanHarris is campaigning for good education, something you evidently missed out on
 (I regret starting off insulting Deborah's education. No way to have a discussion. Sorry Deborah)


DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist @DrEvanHarris You're for cleansing the education system of religious content. Creation is part of Religion, get over it.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel No, I'm *for* religious education, just not in science lessons. Also, creationism should be taught as myth, not fact

DarkBlondAngel

.@EnglishAtheist None of the theories on creation; Scientific or otherwise, are factual. We don't know how life arose. Idiot.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Easy there hot head. I said creationism should be taught as a myth. I'm well aware evolution is a theory...
(See, I started off with an insult, and it carried on. I should know better)

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel ...a theory as well supported as the theory that germs cause disease

DarkBlondAngel

.@EnglishAtheist We know how life evolved.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel And our theories of abiogeneisis are coming along just dandy too youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDd…

DarkBlondAngel

The only Atheists to engage with me, are brainless. Only one Atheist I know, has actually agreed with what I was saying. Others can't read.

DarkBlondAngel

@EnglishAtheist And what @DrEvanHarris knows about Science, can be written on a postcard (a small one).

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Probably using techniques that Feynman talked about. You can read them in "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out"
Great book, highly recommend it. Th passage I refered to was Feynman talking about putting all the books of the world in space three square yards in size.


DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist Creationism, in the sense of "The Universe" should be taught as a religious theory, not excluded altogether.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel I've not said exclude all together, I've said keep out of science lessons, and teach as a myth, like other religions

@ This conversation might be better via email where we have more than 140 characters englishatheist@gmail.com
Deborah chose not to engage in a conversation with more than 140 characters, but did retweet this. UPDATE: I have either made a mistake and thought I saw it retweeted' or the retweet has been undone, as it is no longer there.


DarkBlondAngel
Its a theory, not a myth. Creation is as likely as "The Big Bang". Both are theorys. Granted one is less likely. That is the point though.
Which is it? The tweet starts "Creation is as likely as "The Big Bang", but finishes "Granted one is less likely". Both statements can't be true.


DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist Wait, a God creating a Universe, is a religious theory, should be compared alongside others. Not different lesson.

DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist That is a matter of opinion, there is no evidence to give one; a higher validity than the next. #Fact
No, it is a matter of fact. Evoultion has a wealth of evidence. Creationism, none.


EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Erm, yes there is. Start with On The Origin of Species by Darwin, then read Why Evolution Is True by Coyne

DarkBlondAngel
@EnglishAtheist That is evolution, I am talking about creation.

EnglishAtheist
.@ Yes, but it is almost certain that evolutionary principles will be needed in our understanding of abiogenesis



DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist There is no reason why a lesson couldn't compare and discuss the various theories. Religious ones included.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Also, you know full well creationism is trying to be taught instead of evolution (well, I assume you do)

DarkBlondAngel
I'm not even religious. It is however wrong to ignore the tiny possibility of a "higher being" having created everything that we percieve.


DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Surely that is the lesson, Evolution has proven elements of creation to be wrong. Yet there are elements yet to dissprove.
I assume that the "elements yet to disprove" referred to creationism. Hence my reply later.

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel But time is limited, best not waste it on nonsense

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel What about pots of gold at the end of rainbows? Should that be taught in physics, along with light defraction?

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Not the same, we can prove Rainbows have no end as such, are atmospheric phenomena. 

EnglishAtheist 
.@DarkBlondAngel What elements are there to disprove? (Excluding the fact you can't prove a negative)

EnglishAtheist
.@DarkBlondAngel Creationist type logic: But you've never been to the end of a rainbow to find out

DarkBlondAngel
.@EnglishAtheist Creation of the Universe? Errrm whats Matter? Errrm how does life start? Etc. We know how it works, I grant you.

@DarkBlondAngel Gotta go now, will reply to anything else later

DarkBlondAngel
Oh sure, Run Away! Atheists, attention seekers! Talk about Science, an then know nothing about it. lol.


DarkBlondAngel
. @EnglishAtheist I think you're brain is at an end of a Rainbow. I think you should have paid closer attention in Science class yourself.

Care to comment Deborah?

1 comment:

  1. God she's an idiot. How can she not even be religious when she thinks creation is as likely as evolution?? *headdesk*

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...