is the current debate of evolution vscreationism will bring a good or bad effect to science?

Question

i am afraid that science will become inflexible if the debate goes on.

thanks for all of your reply

Answer 1

It will have absolutely *NO* effect on science.

It only has an effect on the PUBLIC understanding of science.

I.e. it widens the gap between scientists and laypeople.

Scientists care about only three things: evidence, evidence, and evidence.

Science has stopped caring what religious forces have been saying ever since the Church launched its disastrous campaign against Galileo. The Church won its battle (they forced Galileo to "recant"), but lost the long-term war (the Church became associated with anti-intellectualism, and as the truth of Galileo's science became more and more evident, the less people trusted the Church to give them accurate information). The modern Church (now called the Catholic Church) is not making the same mistake ... the Vatican is quite clear that it sees no conflict between evolution and the teachings of the Catholic church. But modern fundamentalists did not learn the same lesson, and are quite determined to relive the same mistake. Religion suffered a devastating blow by attacking Galileo ... it may suffer an equally devastating blow with its equally misguided and unnecessary attack on Darwin.

Science is, and always will be, as flexible as possible in considering new evidence, or new theories that explain the old evidence in a better way. Science *never* declares itself to know anything for certain ... that is why they use words like "evidence" (rather than "proof") and "theory" in even the most certain of issues (like the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of matter, the heliocentric theory of the solar system, and the evolution theory of the origin of species) ... all of these accepted with HIGH degree of certainty ... but all are called, and always will be called, "theory" despite the fact that creationists love to exploit the word in the phrase "just a theory" as if it means that scientists are completely *uncertain*.

No. The debate between evolution vs. creationism is not raging in the science journals. Really ... it isn't even a blip. And the debate isn't really happening much elsewhere in the world. The "debate" is happening almost entirely in the U.S., and entirely in the non-scientific world.

Answer 2

Well the purpose of the debate, is to demonize Science. The evangelical groups in America desire to make Science seem evil. The religous members who despise science are trying to infuse God into places where he does not belong. The evangelicals are willing to trash science so to get there way. Evangelicals have put forth "junk science" in Intelligent Design and Bible Studies in Creationism. None of these things have a place in the classroom.

However the debate, although it constantly shows Sciences superiority, is harmful to science. Little Children are highly impressionable. When all they here during Sermons is Science is Bad, Man came from Adam and Eve they will not give Science a try. This debate, or evangelical brainwashing of young children, is taking away great minds from Science. The science community must have lost future scientists due to the evangelicals forced debate.

The upside of the debate is that more Open-Minded students are being educated about the facts. Hopefully more students will see the facts, then fall victum of evangelical brainwashing.

The Debate will not change science but public opinion. Public opinion however is needed to advance Science. If the public sees Science as evil, where will our next scientists come from. So the debate could be detrimental if it cause public opinion of science to become unfavorable. If this happens we may lose future scientists. Science itself will not change but the number of scientists may.

Answer 3

No, science won't become inflexible. But, the creationism "debate" can have no good effect for anyone, scientist or lay person or creationist. It also is having a bad effect on the standing of the U.S. scientific community in the world as fewer high school students are interested in pursuing science in college.

It is going to be harder to get funding for science projects. Stem cell research is a good example of that.

Answer 4

In science there is no debate. Evolution is a theory. Creation is speculation. It's not science that is inflexible. Religion is the inflexible dogmatic one here. New science books are written all the time. New religious books generally refer back to old texts, or are bogus. For examples of "Bogus," refer to the "Book of Mormon" and "Dianetics."

Answer 5

mmmmm....
If you consider the nature of science.... or the basic standing of sciences in general... it is realy standing on gaps (I'm telling you this being studend on hard sciences: biotechnology, genomics, proteomics, metabolomics.. etc.. molecular biology and genetic engeenering)

Just try to find the meaning for the concept 'number'... matematics from a lot of areas of mats has each one an opinion or a definition.. and there is not a real or valid consensus to it...

Worst yet. What is it 'life'?.... biology studies something (and has gave a lot of knowledge) that we can not even define nor either understand... or at least I don't do completely.

Modern phisics design hipotesis and theories out of other hipotesis (postulates that has not been proved yet)... and from data they can not directly prove or test... many times phisics has not an estatistical model proving the postulates.... and so on for other siences that support evolusionism...

It is that everithing we know is based on subjective apearences from our senses, so everithing is subjective including -more than sciences- the religious dogmas all over the world (well, at least those i've thought about)...

In my opinion, it's much more ignorant to criticize evolutionism being based on something told generation by generation (suffering modifying), something mistical, obviosly product of human wonders and human yearnings.. and needs (trascendence), such as most of the religious beliefs - such as creasionism... when at least - evolutionism- being based on subjective , is however supported and coherent on it's own subjective. On the other hand, creationism besides the whole dogmas and beliefs from religions, is contradictory.

By the way... jajajajajaj.. what do you refer to exactly when you say 'science will become inflexible'... ? inflexible for what? for an opinion or position?

Answer 6

bads.