Young Earth Creationsm Vs Science

[karl 12]

Young Earth Creationism.

Cartoons usualy have the ability to encapsulate a thought or opinion pretty well.

Here are some quite perceptive ones:

Approriate Cartoons:

Conclusion:

On a serious note should we realy be allowing 'young earth creationists' to condition young,impressionable minds?

This museum video (below) is one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a while.

Don't children have a right 'not' to be indoctrinated by religious cultists?

Edited February 16, 2009 by karl 12

[Papagiorgio]

That's disturbing on many levels. It must drive the curator nuts when they show up. I applaude him for his patience and open mindedness. It's a shame we can't make people take a test before having children to make sure they are fit to be parents.

[Darklight]

Salaam (Peace)

If there are any Young Earth Creationists on here please message me, I've never had the chance to talk to one of those. As much I hear about it seems that they are all over the place, but when questioning Christians I've yet to find one.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Darklight

[churchanddestroy]

Salaam (Peace)

If there are any Young Earth Creationists on here please message me, I've never had the chance to talk to one of those. As much I hear about it seems that they are all over the place, but when questioning Christians I've yet to find one.

Its not so much that they are excessively common, its that they're very vocal. Realizing that the scientific community laughs at their "scientists" and their "theories" they petition schoolboards and government officials, people who really don't have the capacity, it would seem, to understand that truth is not a democracy and that whats taught in schools isn't about "fairness", its about the evidence.

[karl 12]

Salaam (Peace)

If there are any Young Earth Creationists on here please message me, I've never had the chance to talk to one of those.

You could try visiting the creationist museum...

..or going to Liberty University in California where students are taught abrahamic doctrine/mythology in a 'factual' context.

Edited February 17, 2009 by karl 12

[Darklight]

You could try visiting the creationist museum...

..or going to Liberty University in California where students are taught abrahamic doctrine/mythology in a 'factual' context.

Salaam (Peace)

Thank you very much!

[S2F]

This museum video (below) is one of the most disturbing things I've seen in a while.

Don't children have a right 'not' to be indoctrinated by religious cultists?

Two words. Willful Ignorance.

Hopefully some of those children wake up to the real world and begin thinking for themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone began a "evolution tour" through their church during services. Fair is fair.

[FurthurBB]

Two words. Willful Ignorance.

Hopefully some of those children wake up to the real world and begin thinking for themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone began a "evolution tour" through their church during services. Fair is fair.

I cannot believe that anyone would want someone to teach their children science who cannot even multiply.

[dsm_luck]

Salaam (Peace)

If there are any Young Earth Creationists on here please message me, I've never had the chance to talk to one of those. As much I hear about it seems that they are all over the place, but when questioning Christians I've yet to find one.

That's my museum here in Denver! Im there at least once a month. The museum has excellent evolutionary displays.

You will be hard pressed to find any YEC that will come out without an entourage of like minded believers backing them up. It takes a level intellectual dishonesty to willfully believe in a 6,000 year old earth.

[churchanddestroy]

That's my museum here in Denver! Im there at least once a month. The museum has excellent evolutionary displays.

You will be hard pressed to find any YEC that will come out without an entourage of like minded believers backing them up. It takes a level intellectual dishonesty to willfully believe in a 6,000 year old earth.

I agree. I think a lot of this whole debate stems from a belief that there is something bad about evolution. YEC Champions like Kent Hovind and Ken Ham spread lies about how believing in evolution makes you an evil person because evolution (as they claim) teaches us that only the strong will survive and that we should extend that philosophy into society itself, that believing in evolution automatically means that you cannot believe in God, that evolution is the road to despair, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Of course, all of that is nonsense.

Now a days, with the evidence of evolution mounting day by day, creationists of any kind seem to feel the squeeze that this evidence puts on them for their beliefs, and many modify their creationists beliefs to try to circumnavigate the huge problems YECs have. For instance, it seems to have become increasingly common for creationists types to admit that "micro" evolution takes place, but "macro" does not, in that they claim that yes, small changes do occur over time (undeniable), but "large" changes have yet to be observed and animals don't turn into different "kinds". Of course, the problem there in is that in the scientific community there is really no such thing as "micro" and "macro" evolution in the sense that these people claim it is. What they would need to do is propose a mechanism that would limit genetic variability within organisms, which, of course, none of them have been able to do.

The fact that "micro" evolution occurs is simply undeniable (for more info I have a good paper on the rapid evolution of cichlid fishes in L. Victoria over 20 years sitting right in front of me, if any of you care to hear more about that), and the lack of any sort of mechanism that limits genetic variability between organisms (among 10s of thousands of other evidences) makes a very convincing case for evolution. Most of these people's disagreements with "Evilution" stems from a simple lack of education. As the Catholic Church (of all the churches to do so, the Catholics? C'mon Protestants, they're making you look bad) has shown us, its perfectly possible to reconcile Theistic beliefs with science. Hell, it was a Catholic Priest (Georges Lemaître) who first came up with the idea behind the Big Bang. All this debate shows is that there are a lot of people out there who have not really educated themselves about science, and they're preconceived notions and willingness to follow religious leaders without question is only doing themselves a disservice.

There's a quote by someone where he talks about how geology explains the age of the earth, archaeology explains the fossils found in the earth, taxonomy explains how the fossils are related and evolution ties the whole thing together, while creationism (sans Theistic Evolution, of course) is the practice of closing your eyes shut and screaming "does not!" There is another one, which I love, that says that Young Earth Creationists would have us believe that the foremost scientists of the world are really just a bunch of bumbling idiots, which I find amusing whenever I run across a video or audio recording of Kent Hovind.

Really, this debate should not be going on. There should not be a conflict between religion and science. If you choose to believe in the Bible, then fine. The Bible is the why, science is the how. Even if you take Genesis to a somewhat literal interpretation, you should keep in mind that even though God made such and such animals/plants/humans on whatever day, the Bible never says how God did it (with the exception of Man, of course). Furthermore, creation "science" and ID should not be taught in schools simply because they have not passed the rigorous test that every other scientific theory that is taught has. For some reason or another, IDers and Creationists kick and scream about how "its not fair" that their theories aren't allowed in schools, yet they themselves refuse to test their own theories, placing their ideas up for scrutiny via peer review and exposure to the scientific community. I don't understand why they don't. If they really think they have the answer themselves, they should submit papers to scientific journals. If someone managed to overturn the Theory of Evolution, I guarantee you that person would receive a Nobel Prize. Science does not have vested interest in any of its theories, in that we aren't rigorously and dogmatically bound to those Theories. For all we know, there might be a better idea out there than Evolution and Gravity. Unfortunately, as for now, the evidence suggests that we do not.

There is no reason why you cannot reconcile scientific theories with your religion. And the dishonest tactics of men like Kent Hovind, who use outright lies to try to move people away from the light of knowledge and back into dark age superstition, or the men who were behind the Wedge Strategy, is deplorable, especially coming from people who, as far as I'm supposed to understand, have the "moral high ground". I suppose that's one of the big reasons that I'm a Deist, because as a Deist I don't have to hide behind any dogma, I'm free to accept scientific theories without worrying about their implications with regards towards my faith. A lot of Christians, (Catholic, Protestant, and otherwise) and other Theists are able to do the same, once they recognize that not everything in the Bible (or Qu'ran, or Book of Mormon, etc.) has to be 100% literally true. For many Christians the theories behind evolution and abiogenesis, the big bang, quantum physics, parallel universes etc. are simply not a problem. Why? Because they are intellectually honest with themselves, and for that I commend them. I admire that they recognize that God being a being infinitely more complex than any of us is not likely to have methods that can be simply understood via bronze age literature from any religion. For them, the message is the truth behind the Bible, not the literal history. I applaud that. I only wish all Christendom was like that.

Honestly, I wouldn't be involved in this debate were it not for the fact that Creationists are trying to push their pseudo-science into our classes. Plenty of other groups have goofy "theories" (read: ideas without empirical backing), but I don't jump into the debate with them, whether they are advocates of a flat earth, hollow earth, lizard-men aliens, etc. etc. etc. Why? Is it because I hate Christians? No! Certainly not, I don't mind Christians that much, I just don't believe it. I don't debate those people because they aren't trying to push their hollow/flat earth ideas into our schools. I take part in this debate because of the threat that Creationism poses on our already abysmal education system. Its important to teach our children how to think, and I don't see Creationism as a science as doing so. As a philosophy or a religious idea? Sure, far be it from me to tell a person not to teach their kids that Jesus loves them. But teaching kids scientific lies... I cannot abide by that. The other funny thing that I (and others) regularly bring up with the whole "not fair to not teach both" part of this debate is if we must teach both Evolution and Creationism as scientific theories, then what Creation should we teach? Christianity isn't the only religion with a creation story... almost all religions have a creation story, so why would we only include the Judeo Christian creation story? Shouldn't we also include the Old Norse creation story? And the Ancient Greeks? What about the Zoroastrian? If we have to be "fair" about it, we should teach everything. We should teach alchemy as an alternative to chemistry, prayer healing as an alternative to modern medicine, astrology alongside astronomy, hollow earth theories with modern geology. But we don't, for obvious reasons, and for that same reason (zero credence in those alternatives) we do not teach creationism alongside evolution. It gives me an ironic smile when I see creationists whining about "fairness", when what they mean is be "fair" to my theory and give it the easy way in, but not any others.

You want creationism taught in schools? Fine, be a good and honest Christian like you are supposed to be, and instead of trying to use the backdoor via elected officials without backgrounds in science, actually test your idea. If you come up with empirical evidence of your idea, great! Publish it. If your evidence holds water there will likely be a Nobel Prize waiting around the corner for you. And if you aren't willing to do that, I suggest that you either pipe down, or educate your children yourself/send them to a school that teaches that. See what medical school accepts prospective students who have zero understanding of evolutionary theory and its application towards modern medicine. Creationism, being a religious based belief, does not belong in any public school science class. And as a student of Biology, I'm going to fight the good fight for the sake of the acquisition of the truth and knowledge until this debate is brushed under the rug along with the myriad of other embarrassing debates we should have never had, like slavery, woman's rights, minorities right to vote, interracial marriage, the idiocy of segregation etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

[karl 12]

As a student of Biology, I'm going to fight the good fight for the sake of the acquisition of the truth and knowledge until this debate is brushed under the rug along with the myriad of other embarrassing debates we should have never had, like slavery, woman's rights, minorities right to vote, interracial marriage, the idiocy of segregation etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.[/b]

Good post,I think this cartoon sums it up quite well:

[churchanddestroy]

Good post,I think this cartoon sums it up quite well:

I've seen that one floating around the interwebs before. I think that the IDers/Creationists don't really grasp that their "its only fair to teach both" argument, if it would pass, would set a precedent that would pseudo-scientific theories that have long been relegated to the past to be taught alongside their modern, evidence based disciplines. Astrology and astronomy? Alchemy and chemistry? I can hardly think that any of the people who advocate creation 'science' being taught along side modern science would approve of alchemy and astrology being taught along side with those modern disciplines, and furthermore being presented as just as accurate and not a bunch of hocus pocus.

Edited February 18, 2009 by churchanddestroy

[Guyver]

You want creationism taught in schools? Fine, be a good and honest Christian like you are supposed to be, and instead of trying to use the backdoor via elected officials without backgrounds in science, actually test your idea. If you come up with empirical evidence of your idea, great! Publish it. If your evidence holds water there will likely be a Nobel Prize waiting around the corner for you. And if you aren't willing to do that, I suggest that you either pipe down, or educate your children yourself/send them to a school that teaches that. See what medical school accepts prospective students who have zero understanding of evolutionary theory and its application towards modern medicine. Creationism, being a religious based belief, does not belong in any public school science class. And as a student of Biology, I'm going to fight the good fight for the sake of the acquisition of the truth and knowledge until this debate is brushed under the rug along with the myriad of other embarrassing debates we should have never had, like slavery, woman's rights, minorities right to vote, interracial marriage, the idiocy of segregation etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Wow! That's quite a mouthful. Are you trying to get some extra credit in one of your biology classes?

[ambelamba]

Wow! That's quite a mouthful. Are you trying to get some extra credit in one of your biology classes?

You have the most ironic username in here. Have you actually read the whole manga, not just the anime series? The recent part of the manga series has a subtle maltheistic theme. (Creators wanting to wipe out mankind for being 'failures'.)

[churchanddestroy]

Wow! That's quite a mouthful. Are you trying to get some extra credit in one of your biology classes?

Uh, no, actually I'm not. My bio professors, as far as I know, don't debate on UM. Even if they did its not like they would know it was my. This is, after all, the interwebs Guyver.

But to answer that further, basically I think this debate is stupid. I feel like I'm basically arguing with conspiracy theorists who constantly are trying to push their conspiracies into our schools. They just won't back down.

You have the most ironic username in here. Have you actually read the whole manga, not just the anime series? The recent part of the manga series has a subtle maltheistic theme. (Creators wanting to wipe out mankind for being 'failures'.)

I've always understood Guyver's nickname to be more of a reference towards the McGuyver TV show, not anime. I could be wrong though.

Added: I assume then, Guyver, that if I'm right on the nickname part that you have a penchant for making useful things out of unexpected items, yes?

Edited February 19, 2009 by churchanddestroy

[raphnix]

This is what I believe, whoever created all the things in the universe should know the answer which make Him too powerful that we don't have any percentage to question Him.

[Mrs V]

This is what I believe, whoever created all the things in the universe should know the answer which make Him too powerful that we don't have any percentage to question Him.

You are assuming that there was a "whoever" (i.e a SOMEONE) who created the universe. That is too much of an assumption to begin with...

For that reason, asking questions is important. We have a brain. Is it really too much of a stretch for you to believe that we are supposed to use it by asking questions and seeking answers?

[karl 12]

For that reason, asking questions is important. We have a brain. Is it really too much of a stretch for you to believe that we are supposed to use it by asking questions and seeking answers?

"I do not feel obliged to beleive that the same God who has endowed us with senses,reason and intellect has intended us to forgoe their use".

Galileo Galilei

"Question with boldness even the existance of God;because,if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason,than that of blind-folded fear"

U.S. President Thomas Jefferson - Third president of the United States

[Repoman]

Here we see the ignorance of the next generation being perpetuated.

Poor kids. Those creationist adults need to be euthanised.

[karl 12]

Here we see the ignorance of the next generation being perpetuated.

Poor kids. Those creationist adults need to be euthanised.

Yes, to me this video is like a diluted form of child abuse:

These adults should not be allowed anywhere near children as they are purposefully misrepresenting 'agenda driven religious cultist opinion' with objective reality.

At their age,young children instinctively trust adults to tell them the truth - for these extremists to be indoctrinating them with stories of 6000 year old vegetable eating dinosaurs and talking snakes as 'factual in context' is wholly irresponsible,unhealthy and wrong.

Cheers.

[Manszilla]

Personally, the neolithic age and how it can relate to the bible definitely stirs my imagination. Incredible uniformity begans at the neolithic age on towards today.

[Mr Walker]

No comment on the debate. Just wanted to comment on the brilliance and effectiveness of the cartoonists. I use cartoons in my senior english classes as a study in media and communication because they often encapsulate, so brilliantly, social mores and divisions.

Seeing that crafted cartoon of oliphants, in particular, brought back memories. He actually gave me a set of his original cartoons, that were published decades ago in the adelaide advertiser ( He always gave most of his original sketches away.) These were related to education and political opinions on it in south australia at the time.)

Unfortunately these were destroyed, along with our other possessions, in a bushfire. I actually had a greater emotional attachment to them than some of the lithographs of south australia in 1838, by george french angus, which we bought for 30 dollars, and at the time of the fire, were valued at about $20,000 each. But both were irreplaceable historical artefacts, illustrative of times gone by.

[karl 12]

No comment on the debate. Just wanted to comment on the brilliance and effectiveness of the cartoonists. I use cartoons in my senior english classes as a study in media and communication because they often encapsulate, so brilliantly, social mores and divisions.

Mr Walker-you're not wrong there, some cartoons do a wonderful job of summing things up -heres another interesting one:

[Agent. Mulder]

good god, that was dsiturbing and sad that we live in a world where people believe that, and decide to pollute the minds of future generations with it.

[digitalartist]

Good post,I think this cartoon sums it up quite well:

Both sides of the Holocaust? You mean those that mass murdered and those that were mass murdered?