Why do you believe in Creationism or Evolution?

[emmy27sf]

so why do u believe in evolution or creationism???

[Jose]

Anyway, a while back my dad had a big cerebral hemmorage ... First it made me really question God

Yikes! I imagine that it really must be hard to imagine a loving God doing that to someone who really matters to you. The same question has arisen concerning the Sumatra tsunami--would a loving God really do this?

I suspect that having a molecular biologist in the family helped. Judging from my son's experience, even trying very hard to stay away from Dad's field (molecular biology), he found that science just made sense, while humanities didn't. It must be something about genetically-coded brain wiring, or something. He ended up following the best path--culinary school, which is basically semi-quantitative biochemistry. The point of the digression is that growing up with scientists may provide one with a bit of a scientific perspective, the focus of which is How Do We Know? What's the data?

I think eventually it just became apparent to me that evolution was the only logical course of events; my later schooling really made it so I can't see anything else.

Those nasty scientists--once they get ahold of you, they contaminate you! I guess this underlies much of the evolution/creation debate. If learning science has the possible outcome of driving people from their faith, then the self-appointed Faith Police see it as their duty to stamp out science teaching. The ID movement is not just about evolution vs some ill-defined "intelligent designer." It's about basic scientific thinking. According to their Wedge Document, they want all of science to be done from a "design perspective." Evolution is simply where they are starting.

When I got into biochem I understood it all so much better...

I would say that the main reason many people stick with creationism/intelligent design or whatever is simply a lack of knowledge.

This is what my wife tells me repeatedly. It's easy to say "god did it." It's incredibly complex to work through the biochemistry and genetics (not to mention the geology) to the point where the science is equally easy to understand. She basically thinks I'm nuts to try to teach people about this, because it's just so darned complex. We might even call it "irreducibly complex."

It's interesting, though, that it is the biochemistry that really drives it home. I'll add genetics and embryology as important factors as well, since the interface of genetics and biochemistry is genomics, and since the way that genotype causes phenotype is (mostly) through embryology. With the whole collection of these bits of information, there really is no escape. Evolution is it, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The question is: how do we make the essential information accessible to non-scientists? My dad could make science accessible to non-scientists, but that was in the 50's and 60's, when everyone really cared about science because of Sputnik. We've lost that enthusiasm...I suspect because people tend to consider science to be Truth rather than the best answer available so far, and therefore they think we've "lied to them" when we get new data and must change the interpretation. So now, we have a non-receptive audience, but vastly-increased need to impart an understanding of science. Evolution is not necessarily the most important field of scientific endeavor, but it's the best, in my opinion, for understanding what science really is.

It felt really good to move to evolution.

I imagine that it did--I just makes so much sense (at least to science geeks like me). Again, the question remains: how to make this elegant theory and its vast array of supporting evidence accessible to non-scientists.

[Euglenas]

I suspect that having a molecular biologist in the family helped. Judging from my son's experience, even trying very hard to stay away from Dad's field (molecular biology), he found that science just made sense, while humanities didn't.

Having my mom helped more than anything else I think. I can definitely sympathize with your son on the humanities issue; I'm not graduating on time because I still don't have the 1000 lever humanities I need. On the plus side I can get some more technical electives in.

More to the point:

The question is: how do we make the essential information accessible to non-scientists?

Well there are several reasons that I can think of-there are probably hundreds I can't even imagine-as to why this is very hard to do. As you mentioned, this isn't the 60's, there isn't the huge national campaign to advance beyond the Russians(the Cold War, pointless as it may have been, greatly advanced technologies in many areas.)

Second, I think that there has been a movement away from science in the more recent years. Not just from religious pressure either, from secular sources who feel that english classes are more important than science. Even between me and my little sister, who is six years younger, I could see a noticeable change in the curriculum. I can't say this applies to all schools, but at least at my high school there has been a significant weakening of the sciences in favor of the arts. Maybe people were too employable...

What this does is first to make people less well informed of science in general, which in turn makes it more difficult for higher concepts, evolution, comparative embryology and the like, to become accepted in the average person. Come to think of it, my anatomy teacher in 12th grade used to espouse creationism...not sure how he got away with that.

Third, science isn't what it used to be. We don't have Wattson and Crick; science isn't as exciting for most people as it was back then. People have known of the importance and DNA and the genetic code far longer than I have been alive; it's not news anymore. Further, with time some aspects of science, molecular level biology in particular, have come to the point where people may need to have taken AP bio to appreciate what we know.

Third, science has become almost routine to the point where anybody could do it. I use plasmid isolation kits, gel clean up kits, pre-ordered primers, etc. all the time. Sometimes I don't really know how they work. This really takes away a lot of the romance of science as it was in the middle of the 20th century. Few discoveries are anywhere as big as they used to be. All of this lack or knowledge or inattention from the public leaves huge gaps where creationism/ID or other can situate itself.

The simplest way I can see to increase general science awareness would be to increase funding for the sciences. This would increase awareness of science which would in turn decrease support for creationism in the average person. The current administration, however, and many of its close allies would not so much appreciate this. So I think were stuck.

[Jose]

The question is: how do we make the essential information accessible to non-scientists?

As you mentioned, this isn't the 60's, there isn't the huge national campaign to advance beyond the Russians(the Cold War, pointless as it may have been, greatly advanced technologies in many areas.)

Second, I think that there has been a movement away from science in the more recent years. Not just from religious pressure either, from secular sources who feel that english classes are more important than science....

What this does is first to make people less well informed of science in general, which in turn makes it more difficult for higher concepts, evolution, comparative embryology and the like, to become accepted in the average person...

Third, science isn't what it used to be. We don't have Watson and Crick; science isn't as exciting for most people as it was back then....Further, with time some aspects of science, molecular level biology in particular, have come to the point where people may need to have taken AP bio to appreciate what we know.

Third, science has become almost routine to the point where anybody could do it. I use plasmid isolation kits, gel clean up kits, pre-ordered primers, etc. all the time. Sometimes I don't really know how they work.

The simplest way I can see to increase general science awareness would be to increase funding for the sciences. This would increase awareness of science which would in turn decrease support for creationism in the average person. The current administration, however, and many of its close allies would not so much appreciate this. So I think were stuck.

Indeed, we are stuck. With the Bushies in control, and the demise of public education one of their major goals (and the replacement of public education with vouchers), there is little likelihood of governmental support for educational improvement. This is especially true in science, where NSF's Education Directorate took the biggest hit in the latest budget.

The things you have said are probably the reasons that we have come to this particular state of affairs since the 50's. The question is, what can we do to change things? There is essential information that everyone needs to know. It's not that hard, really, yet somehow, we make it inaccessible and boring. People really think that YEC/ID actually is a valid alternative to evolution, and that it is equally scientific. This indicates that things are completely out of whack.

Science is taught, and written about in the textbooks, as junk to memorize. There is relatively little about actual data, or even the basic concept that science is a process of investigation that requires the acquisition of data, and the formulation of the best possible interpretation of those data. It is simply taught as Facts. One of our graduate students told me recently that she didn't know that science was an ongoing, active field until late in her third year in college! Since many people don't get that far, they obviously come out with no clue as to what science really is. They seem to assume that what is in the high school textbook is all there is, and all there ever will be.

The reasons for this state of affairs are important for us, as educators, to recognize. We must find ways to overcome them, or to make science accessible even in the face of them. Therein lies the problem. I've started a couple of threads here, hoping to get at these issues--How can we teach evolution better? and How can creationism be taught scientifically? The former is a plea for advice on ways to change what we do. The latter is an attempt to get creationists to think about creationism, and come up with any way at all to think of it as science. ID is the best they have, and it is patently absurd because it assumes that "evolution" is entirely different from what it really is. There hasn't been much activity on these threads; I think people would rather argue about who's right than think deeply about how to support their creationist views scientifically, or even why they didn't like what was taught to them about evolution. (Having said this, I assure you that I don't include all of our colleagues in this caricature, since many really do think deeply about these things. It is the others, who would force us to teach ID in the schools, and who would remove evolution from the state science standards, to whom I refer.)

It's hard to come up with solutions to the basic question if there's no feedback.

[Dilettante]

Jose wrote:

Judging from my son's experience, even trying very hard to stay away from Dad's field (molecular biology), he found that science just made sense, while humanities didn't.

Those of us who are not scientists but spent more time with the humanities can, and should, appreciate science too. Another sad thing about today's education both in my country and in the US is the drastic separation between the "two cultures". Scientists are (and if they aren't they should be) perfectly capable of appreciating a good work of art, and critical thinking and a certain scientific approach are equally useful to a historian. Why isn't this the norm? Among the general public right-wing Biblical fundamentalism may be the culprit, but it was left-wing postmodernism that wrecked it for the humanities. In certain academic circles it's fashionable to be scientifically ignorant, or to believe that science is just a social or cultural construct, a changing paradigm with no connection with reality. What happened to the Renaissance man (and woman)? Is the concept of a well-rounded education out of date?

[Curious]

Just because something is not an apple does not mean it must be an orange.How many people doubt the existence of magnetism even though we have no adequate explanation of this phenomenon. If creationists had any real evidence that their theory was correct then they would cease their incessant attempt at debunking evolution. To assume that if they disprove evolution it proves creation is just foolishness. The TOE certainly weakens the position of the creationists but many people believe in evolution because it has a wealth of evidence SUPPORTING it. I have yet to see a single piece of compelling evidence supporting the biblical version of creation.

[Euglenas]

Sorry it has taken me so long to post any reply, but I had knee surgery which made it really hard to sit down in front of a computer. About the time that started getting better I stabbed my hand real good so I couldn't type. Back now though.

Scientists are (and if they aren't they should be) perfectly capable of appreciating a good work of art, and critical thinking and a certain scientific approach are equally useful to a historian. Why isn't this the norm? Among the general public right-wing Biblical fundamentalism may be the culprit, but it was left-wing postmodernism that wrecked it for the humanities.

I'll be the first to admit that I am very lacking when it comes to appreciating any kind of art. Maybe photography. I have to admit there are many art forms out there which require a large amount of talent, but otherwise when I see a huge ball of wire and somebody is calling it art, I have to shake my head.
I would agree that it isn't so much a good thing that artsy people don't appreciate science and the science people don't appreciate art. Art can help scientists, if only to make them get out of the lab some(spent 8 hours in front of a microscope yesterday.)

To assume that if they disprove evolution it proves creation is just foolishness. The TOE certainly weakens the position of the creationists but many people believe in evolution because it has a wealth of evidence SUPPORTING it. I have yet to see a single piece of compelling evidence supporting the biblical version of creation.

This is very much the case. I believe they see evolution as they enemy of everything they have been taught. When something like that comes along, it's only natural to try and fight it. If a new supportable theory were proposed that ran coutner to evolution, I know I would fight it. It would be nice to see some actual evidence for creationism though, to counter the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

[Jose]

Scientists are (and if they aren't they should be) perfectly capable of appreciating a good work of art, and critical thinking and a certain scientific approach are equally useful to a historian. Why isn't this the norm?

In my experience, it's not quite as bleak as it seems. Many scientists are, in their spare time, photographers, musicians, woodworkers, painters, etc. I've known quite a number of them, as well as many who go to art museums quite happily. And, having hung around some historians, I've developed a bit of an appreciation for how their methods of inquiry work. From what I understand, they follow similar rules regarding data and its interpretation--it's just that the data are so different, and the terminology so different from science that we don't understand each other.

Postmodernism did allow things to get out of hand, but there have been lots of movements over the years that have seemed good at the time, but that eventually proved to be pretty goofy. The challenge is to recover from them without killing the whole field or legislating anti-science teaching.

Among the general public right-wing Biblical fundamentalism may be the culprit,

It certainly has helped. However, we share some of the blame for the way we have taught science. The tradition is to "teach the way you were taught." But, what works for us science geeks isn't what works for normal people, so our teaching methods tend not to get the message across. Furthermore, the increase in knowledge has caused a parallel increase in the thickness of the textbooks. This, in turn, has driven a decrease in the depth to which any given topic is covered--and, consequently, the elimination of the data upon which our conclusions rest. I would say that, in general, people graduate from high school, and even college, with no real understanding of "the nature of science." Without this, it is hard to appreciate the fact that what is taught in school is not "The Truth," but rather our best understanding so far. It is hard to appreciate reasoning from the data, and the extent to which evidence underlies everything.

So, to many people, evolution and creation seem to be different answers to the same question (how did we get here?), both of which have the same degree of validity: both are Received Wisdom. It's just the source of the wisdom that differs, the school or the church. The only way to fix this is to get back to the data, and re-work the way we teach everything.

I have yet to see a single piece of compelling evidence supporting the biblical version of creation.

It would be nice to see some actual evidence for creationism though, to counter the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

One thing I have learned from hanging around these forums is that there seem to be different interpretations of the word, "evidence." Creationists insist that there is a great deal of evidence supporting the biblical creation story. This seems to come in the form of observations that it is possible to explain using a biblical model. What seems not to enter into it is consideration of alternative models or contradictory data. Those things seem not to matter. In other words, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science and the nature of evidence.

Just because something is not an apple does not mean it must be an orange.... To assume that if they disprove evolution it proves creation is just foolishness.

I agree. However, we have allowed the debate to coalesce into a distinction between two distinct models. In this context, the assumption is that if we disprove one, then the other is what remains. Again, though, it's a matter of understanding what science is. In this case, we have a bazillion facts/observations, and we need to put together a theory to explain them. Evolution happens to be that theory. Because there are so many facts involved, we know that an alternate explanation for one of those facts has no impact on the bazillion other facts. On the other hand, we also insist that evolution is a testable theory, and that it is inherently falsifiable. This drives the effort to falsify it. While we know that falsifying evolution would make us rethink the data and find another explanation (which would probably not be biblical creation), creationists don't see this as the logical next step--because, to them, their explanation is just as valid.

I believe they see evolution as they enemy of everything they have been taught.

They do. Their logic is straightforward, if wrong. They consider Morality to derive from the bible and only from the bible, and that it is the bible's moral code that is the only thing that keeps us from descending into licentious hedonism (to use AlAyeti's terminology). Therefore, civilized society depends entirely on the sanctity of the bible.

Since Genesis is different from evolution, the logic says that if evolution is true, then Genesis is not. If Genesis is not true, it cannot be the word of god. If Genesis is not god's word, then the entire bible is invalidated, and our moral code evaporates. Apparently, as individual people conclude that the bible is a fake (because they've been taught evolution), they give up on moral behavior. This is why American culture has become so disgusting in recent decades.

I find it interesting, in view of this logic, to compare my experience at UC Berkeley with my experience here in Indiana. Among the heathens in California, overall behavior was pretty good. There were certainly the rabble-rousers, but overall, the heathens showed moral behavior. Here among the Christians (you can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting a church), it is extremely hard not to be forced by peer pressure into the binge-drinking, overnight-hookup party scene. Generally, this happens in the first semester, before students have had time to be influenced by those nasty liberal professors.

I also note that evolution is generally avoided altogether in our schools. If it is covered at all, it is often at the end of the semester, and students are allowed to leave the room if they don't want to hear it. From this information, I conclude that traditional Christian teaching, and the failure to learn about evolution, are not preventatives against this immoral behavior. The converse is that teaching evolution cannot be the cause of said behavior.

But, the above reasoning is irrelevant, because it begins with information and derives its conclusions from it. It's far better to conclude at the outset that evolution is the culprit, and ignore the data.

[jerickson314]

I believe in Creationism because of many of the arguments presented at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.

This is a particularly good site for supporting creationism because it was written by evolutionists attempting to discredit creationism. It is easy to see how good an argument is by how well they rebut it.

I'll bet no one was expecting that!

[Ranmoth]

I believe in Creationism because of many of the arguments presented at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html.

This is a particularly good site for supporting creationism because it was written by evolutionists attempting to discredit creationism. It is easy to see how good an argument is by how well they rebut it.

I'll bet no one was expecting that!

Jerickson314, did you actually read the proofs? Or just the summary title thingies? Because those title thingies were actually the arguments the scientists argued against and refuted in the pages they link to. Those that were not refuted were reduced to a fifty-fifty or more(in favor of evolution), and the ones that were provide strong enough evidence to bring the probabilities down to nil in support of the popular version of Creationism(I do recognize that there are other versions than the literal Biblical account, but seeing as how that was the most popular, that was the one the scientists worked on).

[jerickson314]

Jerickson314, did you actually read the proofs?

Well, yeah. That's why I said

This is a particularly good site for supporting creationism because it was written by evolutionists attempting to discredit creationism. It is easy to see how good an argument is by how well they rebut it.

Because those title thingies were actually the arguments the scientists argued against and refuted in the pages they link to.

Duh. Although only some were refuted, the ones I would now consider the worst ones, after having gone through most of them.

Those that were not refuted were reduced to a fifty-fifty or more(in favor of evolution), and the ones that were provide strong enough evidence to bring the probabilities down to nil in support of the popular version of Creationism(I do recognize that there are other versions than the literal Biblical account, but seeing as how that was the most popular, that was the one the scientists worked on).

No, not really. I suggest you read them for yourself, to see how many are actually addressed quite weakly.

BTW, I am OEC rather than YEC. TO has one rebuttal directed specifically towards OEC, as well as quite a few others that apply to it.