Creationism

[franceslievens]

I was doing the procrastination job and reading my daily dose of blogs when I tripped over an entry by Maud Newton on creationism. The warning sticker for biology textbooks in Cobb County, outside Atlanta seems so sensible:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

I'm not the one for saying facts exist in a realm somewhere outside this world and we can't contest them, but there is a general consensus about what a scientific fact is. Namely a theory that finds its proof through research, and Darwin's theory has proof. You don't have to "believe" in evolution, you have to know. This isn't faith we're talking about, it's science.

Shouldn't we put stickers like that on bibles as well, then?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

It is quite odd that we* grant religious people the right to assert the truth of their beliefs whereas creationists refuse to provide scientists with the same right to assert the truth of their theories.

Obviously truth should be read as putative truth, that is what we hold to be true given our best available theories/knowledge.

And as for the obvious conclusion: evolution is based on our best available knowledge about the world, and hence true.

(*) we= a society which takes plurality and tolerance seriously.

[frances-lievens.livejournal.com]

I have the feeling creationists simply don't understand what open-mindedness and critical research mean. They wish to tell kids evolution is a theory that can be overthrown (like every theory), but they can't stand the critical voice that studies their beliefs, puts them aside as false and decides to take evolution as her "truth".

[(Anonymous)]

Some further bloggin' stuff on the topic, this time from William Gibson (http://www.williamgibsonbooks.com/blog/2004_11_01_archive.asp#110073710621996499):

Re Creationism, I must point out an unfortunate subtext that's no longer quite so obvious. Having grown up in the previous iteration of the rural American south, I know that what *really* smarted about Darwin, down there, was the logical implication that blacks and whites are descended from a common ancestor. Butt-ugly, but there it is. That was the first objection to evolutionary theory that I ever heard, and it was a very common one, in fact the most common. That it was counter to Genesis seemed merely convenient, in the face of an anthropoid grand-uncle in the woodpile.

Like the man says: Look at those cavemen go.

P (http://homepages.vub.ac.be/~paallo/blog/)