Creationism is all around us.

nozzferrahhtoo

So while the DUP up North have been hammering away with their Creationist Ideals and our own Science Minister has been launching Anti Evolution Texts using his elected office title to do so.... a group in Scotland have now joined the fray.

Headed by "a Northern Irish professor of genetics" the group has already been asked to speak in schools in Scotland.

Their geneticist leader believes Adam was “a real historical person” among other claims such as "the universe is created in six days, God makes Eve out of Adam’s rib, and Noah saves the Earth by building an ark."

Even more incredibly however, they claim that the theory of intelligent design is not religious in nature... a true leap of faith if ever I heard one.

Turtwig

Retitle thread please : "Ignorance is all around us".

Time and again, regardless of pseudoscience or not, we see scientists that step outside of their bounds of expertise and claim something in a unrelated but sometimes similar discipline to be completely inaccurate. It is if a Nephrologist started provided advice on someone's heart condition. Sure, some of the stuff he says will be a little accurate, but when he delves in the cutting edge or even core stuff he will most definitely be found wanting. This guy denies cosmology, geology etc. Subjects of which he has no expertise in and I am willing to bet has a tonne of misconceptions formed about the content in those fields and many others.

Humanity, you really test me sometimes.

nozzferrahhtoo

I fell your pain but I think I will stick with the title because at this time there is a surge in creationism around us that is somewhat worrying. The DUP hammering on the doors of schools and museums, our own Science Minister launching creationist books in our name (by proxy of his use of his title of office) and now an organised heavily qualified group in Scotland.

I have seen what this “debate” has done in the US. It has been defeated time and time again in school after school and in high level court cases. It loses every time, yet it does not do so without leaving casualties in it’s wake. School boards have been bankrupted, jobs have been lost, reputations destroyed.

And in the last months I see the UK and Ireland going down the same route and I see little to assure me that the same results will not be achieved but at the same costs to both careers, finances and education of children.

Turtwig

It's dirty but it's the way pseudoscience works and there's no question that there are more and more anti-science movement that are becoming vocal, dirty and political. It is such an amazing scientific experiment that we a living in right but also truly terrifying. People fear new technology and science, they don't know why either. Ask the people around you for coffee this morning to name at least 4 internationally renowned scientists from the Isle of Ireland...just four. Is it our fault that we have not educated them, or is it their fault for thinking matters are two complicated.

To be perfectly honest I don't worry about creationism that much as most Irish folks accept it with it ease. It's other anti science movements I don't like. Anti Vax. Anti Climate science etc. Even though the tactics are identical because people don't see understand these issues or the what the actual consensus in science means they are more than vulnerable for falling for them.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Retitle thread please : "Ignorance is all around us".

Available from Scott Adams:

sensibleken

Why the hell would anyone want a united Ireland :eek:

Ickle Magoo

Top scientists? Pffft. I guess vice-president of the royal college of physicians and surgeons glasgow, school inspector and retired geneticist just doesn't have the same ring to it...

jayzusb.christ

Retitle thread please : "Ignorance is all around us"

Yes, it saddens me that the word 'Creationism' has become accepted into general parlance over the last few years. Such a pseudo-scientific term somehow gives an illusion of credibility to what is essentially systematic stupidity and an absurd denial of undeniable facts.

Galvasean

That's it seal off the borders. No visit from the Queen. She might be infected.

Marcus.Aurelius

Galvasean wrote: »

That's it seal off the borders. No visit from the Queen. She might be infected.

I was for a minute imagining the walls around the North from the Resident Evil series. With automatic machine gun turrets. And cameras.

Just because.

PeterIanStaker

These people are frighteningly stupid and have too much influence. Sometimes I think humanity is regressing rather than moving forward.

sensibleken

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

I was for a minute imagining the walls around the North from the Resident Evil series. With automatic machine gun turrets. And cameras.

Just because.

So, a bit like it was 15 years ago then

Marcus.Aurelius

sensibleken wrote: »

So, a bit like it was 15 years ago then

But now we have Youtube to upload said videos to.

Scarinae

I've been living in England for the last year and I definitely notice more creationism over here - I don't know if it is because there are more people, or if the creationists are more vocal or what, but it is quite concerning. There is even a creationist zoo in Bristol! People like to bring their kids there because they have tigers and rhinos and things, but they also have signs like this and this. Worryingly enough, were given an Excellence Award which means thy are recommended to schools for trips People are crazy

ColmDawson

Fishie wrote: »

Worryingly enough, were given an Excellence Award which means thy are recommended to schools for trips People are crazy

...

aidan24326

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Their geneticist leader believes Adam was “a real historical person” among other claims such as "the universe is created in six days, God makes Eve out of Adam’s rib, and Noah saves the Earth by building an ark."

They describe that a "profesor of genetics' said such and such but from reading the article I can't see how any of them is a professor of anything.

And it's mind-boggling that anyone could still claim to believe in the story of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark etc. You wonder how someone's brain could be that broken!

Even more incredibly however, they claim that the theory of intelligent design is not religious in nature... a true leap of faith if ever I heard one.

'Intelligent Design' in itself doesn't have to be religious in nature though. The problem is that it and intelligent design and creationism have more or less become synonomous with each other, even though creationism in the biblical sense is obviously nonsense whereas the possibility of life having been somehow seeded (by an alien lifeform or some such*) is something that can't be dismissed outright, since we don't know how it got started. (Though I know of course that when these people reference 'intelligent design' they're almost invariably talking about full-on religious creationism and all the crap that goes with it)

*Not suggesting that I believe that myself, just that it isn't impossible.

Mark Hamill

aidan24326 wrote: »

'Intelligent Design' in itself doesn't have to be religious in nature though. The problem is that it and intelligent design and creationism have more or less become synonomous with each other, even though creationism in the biblical sense is obviously nonsense whereas the possibility of life having been somehow seeded (by an alien lifeform or some such*) is something that can't be dismissed outright, since we don't know how it got started. (Though I know of course that when these people reference 'intelligent design' they're almost invariably talking about full-on religious creationism and all the crap that goes with it)

*Not suggesting that I believe that myself, just that it isn't impossible.

The way I see it ID has to be either entirely religious or entire moot, depending on the reason for it being put forward:

1) Those arguing that nothing complex can evolve from something simple (the most common form of argument of ID, suprisingly similar to that of creationism btw), therefore life must have been put on earth as is, are left with the problem of whether the thing that did put life on earth was more or less complex than the life itself. If it was less complex then they have the same problem as those in 2) below. If it was more complex, then this thing must itself have been made by something more complex and that thing too and so on until you are left with something infinitely complex and existing all be itself forever, ie god.

2) Those just arguing that its not impossible that life was put on earth (or that the thing that put life on earth was simpler than the life it put on earth) are just arguing moot points, because they never offer any evidence. Yes its technologically possible, but no, there is no reason to entertain it with any evidence.

Besides that, its fairly well known at this stage that ID is for a fact, just creationism relabeled, the Kitzmiller vs Dover court case in America (the one about teaching ID in schools) even came to the same conclusions.

aidan24326

Mark Hamill wrote: »

2) Those just arguing that its not impossible that life was put on earth (or that the thing that put life on earth was simpler than the life it put on earth) are just arguing moot points, because they never offer any evidence. Yes its technologically possible, but no, there is no reason to entertain it with any evidence.

I agree there's no reason to entertain it without evidence, I was just saying that it's theoretically possible, that's all. (that life here was intelligently designed - I don't believe it was though). Whereas outright biblical creationism is entirely not possible. And I'm aware that ID and creationism have come to mean pretty much one and the same thing at this stage, as none of them ever seem to offer any plauible theories on the origin of life on earth other than the usual 'god did it', which whatever science or pseudoscience they dress it up in tends to be their default position.

Mark Hamill

aidan24326 wrote: »

And I'm aware that ID and creationism have come to mean pretty much one and the same thing at this stage, as none of them ever seem to offer any plauible theories on the origin of life on earth other than the usual 'god did it', which whatever science or pseudoscience they dress it up in tends to be their default position.

Maybe I'm just nitpicking on your language, but ID and creationism have not come to mean the same thing, they always have meant the same thing, from wikipedia:

Intelligent design was developed by a group of American creationists who revised their argument in the creation–evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.

robindch

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe I'm just nitpicking on your language, but ID and creationism have not come to mean the same thing, they always have meant the same thing

During the Dover trial when ID went on trial to assess whether it constituted an instrument of religion or not, the science-side produced two editions of the "Darwin's Black Box" book which was the "biology" book recommended by the local religious nutters. The first (earlier) book talked exclusively about creationism, while the later book talked about intelligent design. And the guys had clearly (coz they'd made mistakes) just done a careless global search-n-replace from one phrase to the other.

You couldn't have had a clearer example of what the creationism's cheerleaders felt about the differences.

amacachi

I was under the impression until recently the ID referred to the idea that evolution happened because God set things up to end up this way. My thoughts on it vary from "Oh, so close, you're almost there" to "Oh FFS, you're better than my mate's ex at stating a lie then twisting events and logic to fit it."

nozzferrahhtoo

jayzusb.christ wrote: »

Yes, it saddens me that the word 'Creationism' has become accepted into general parlance over the last few years.

I feel your pain, but I rather this occurs than "intelligent design" get accepted in its place given that it is demonstrably the exact same thing in every way but simply cynically re-branded for better marketing effect.

nozzferrahhtoo

aidan24326 wrote: »

They describe that a "profesor of genetics' said such and such but from reading the article I can't see how any of them is a professor of anything.

I posted this same post on politics.ie and some user over there did a bit of digging and found he is not a professor of genetics, but a retired teacher of chemistry or some such.

aidan24326 wrote: »

'Intelligent Design' in itself doesn't have to be religious in nature though.

Maybe it does not HAVE to be, but it demonstrably is and has been conclusively proved so in many places, most notably the relevant Dover trial. They have not "more or less become synonomous with each other" as you put it, but have proven to be 100% exactly the same thing in every way at that trial.

vinchick

There is a Creation soc in Queens!

Galvasean

aidan24326 wrote: »

They describe that a "profesor of genetics' said such and such but from reading the article I can't see how any of them is a professor of anything.

Creationists in telling bare-faced lies shocker!

Gary L

To my mind there's no doubt that the rise of militant athiesm and the persistence of full on biblical creationism will have a polarising effect on the more dogmatic from both sides.

Im hoping though that in the long term this conflict might dialectically produce a popular trend of skeptisicm and doubt.

Isn't it to be expected that religon will morph and rebrand itself as it struggles to pull down the next generation? Its always done it in the past. In fact its current attempt to appear scientific might be a sign of increasing weakness.

Mark Hamill

Gary L wrote: »

the rise of militant athiesm

What is "militant atheism"?

Gary L wrote: »

Im hoping though that in the long term this conflict might dialectically produce a popular trend of skeptisicm and doubt.

There is good skepticism and bad skepticism though. Questioning an assertion because you have yet to see valid evidence is good skepticism, as you are are being skeptical because you have yet to be convinced (see what happens whenever someone claims to have made a perpetual motion or a cold fusion machine - lots of skepticism with calls for empirical evidence over anecdotal evidence). Questioning an assertion simply because it disagrees with your idealogical world view is bad skepticism, as you are being skeptical simply because an answer isn't nice for you (see what happens when people are told that no, in fact mmr doesn't cause autism - lots of skepticism, because some ex-playboy model says it does) .

Gary L wrote: »

Isn't it to be expected that religon will morph and rebrand itself as it struggles to pull down the next generation? Its always done it in the past. In fact its current attempt to appear scientific might be a sign of increasing weakness.

The best thing to hope for is they keep crying louder and louder how scientific and logical they until eventually people just turn around and say "ok, show us" and then they implode in their bs claims. Of course this would require a very large portion of the populace being able to understand asic ideas about how science works and being able to counter (or even recognise) basic logical fallacies (which will not happen any time soon).

Galvasean

Gary L wrote: »

Isn't it to be expected that religon will morph and rebrand itself as it struggles to pull down the next generation? Its always done it in the past.

Indeed. Creationists used to say dinosaur fossils were planted by God to test our faith. Now, because they realise kids really like dinosaurs, they say they lived in Biblical times and put them in their Creation museums and books aimed at roping in kids.

mikhail

Mark, in her defense, she's also an ex-nursing student.

Fluffybums

Fishie wrote: »

I've been living in England for the last year and I definitely notice more creationism over here - I don't know if it is because there are more people, or if the creationists are more vocal or what, but it is quite concerning. There is even a creationist zoo in Bristol! People like to bring their kids there because they have tigers and rhinos and things, but they also have signs like this and this. Worryingly enough, were given an Excellence Award which means thy are recommended to schools for trips People are crazy

I wonder if this has co-incided with the increased number of state funded religious schools. In my opinion the state should not fund religious schools, if you want you children brought up in a specific faith pay for it or get off your a*se go to place of worship regularly and set up your lessons in your faith at your place of worship. State schools should teach an understanding of all religions. I do not want to pay tax to perpetrate sectarianism.