11-24-10

Creationism vs. Evolution

There is no harmony, and no middle ground here. Religion and science are opposite modes of thought, as I have shown elsewhere. Religion takes a preconception, such as that God created all of life in six days, and either denies any evidence to the contrary, or else tries to bend the evidence to fit the preconception. Science takes evidence, a large body of evidence, and makes a conclusion; and this conclusion is also subject to revision or even refutation by new evidence.

In short, if ideas were fish, and reality were a ruler, science would measure the fish by the ruler. Religion would either ignore the ruler, or bend it to fit the fish. This is the inherent opposition between religion (or any faith-based ideology), and science (or any rationality).

Religion- the evidence must fit the preconceived idea:

Idea <- Evidence

Science- the idea must fit the evidence:

Evidence -> Idea

Changing, or pretending change in the evidence of nature, to make reality agree with one's preconceived notions: this is magical thinking. Priests and preachers are magicians, and the faithful are their credulous audience.

I am continually amazed at the infantile credulity and militant arrogance of the creationists, who insist not only that we all believe their primitive false teachings, but also insist on infecting children with creationist fallacies, even in the public schools. I have decided to respond in a manner they will recognize. I am going to give creationism, and its new intellectual poseur, Intelligent Design, an old fashioned Church of Christ treatment.

If this nation, the United States of America, allows teaching of creationism in our public schools, why not teach astrology or New Age healing also? If we will not teach these pseudo-sciences, which are based on witchcraft and sorcery, why are we even considering teaching creationism, which is based on a Bronze-Age myth?

Yet I find that the creation-evolution debate still rages, almost exclusively in the United States of America. Why creationism is fervently believed here, rather than in other developed nations is another matter. Possibly it reflects the recalcitrant bucolic nature of the US population. In any event, the US prefers creation mythology to science almost like the Islamic nations.

Now if the US has a much higher percentage of creationists than other developed nations, what does "developed" mean?

Does widespread and fervent creationism mean that the US is taken by the creationist myth? How ignorant and myth-taken would Americans have to be, before the US would be considered retarded in its development?

If over 50% of the US population rejecting science in favor of a Bronze Age myth about human origins, does not constitute retarded development, what would constitute retarded development? If 50% of Americans believed that Santa Claus delivered gifts around the world in one night, traveled through the sky with flying reindeer, and slithered down chimneys like a corpulent snake: if half of us believed that, would it not qualify as retarded development on a national scale?

If making life decisions based on magical thinking rather than reason is not retarded, what would be retarded? If every other person in the US prefers magical thinking to science and plain reason; and if many people insist on propagating their magical thinking in schools, what is the future of America?

For those who say, "Teach the controversy": there is no real controversy between creation and evolution. They are entirely different modes of thinking. One is magical and ideological; the other is rational and scientific. No credible scientist accepts creationism; on the other hand, modern biology, as well as ecology, anthropology, and many other sciences, is based on evolution,

Evolutionary science belongs in public schools; creationism is an "ism", a religious idea; it belongs in religious schools- if anywhere. Whether religion should be taught to children at all is a question for another time.