2007-07-25 05:46:18 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
The idea starts with an emotional belief system. People can get emotionally tied to their beliefs and refuse to let go of them, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they should change the belief. The basic problem stems from the series of logical steps: 1) the Bible is the word of God, 2) therefore, the Bible is infallible, 3) therefore, the creation story in Genesis must be taken literally, 4) everything that doesn't agree with this must be wrong. This is the type of inflexible thinking that closes minds. The idea that the creation story in Genesis is a story and full of metaphors requires flexible thinking. It will be difficult to shake the inflexible thinking since it is based on a strong, emotional belief system. However, it can be done and needs to be done, little by little, piece by piece.
The second part of creationism is partly political and is the thinking that religion should be taught in schools. So, creationism is held up as an idea that should be taught in school as an alternative to evolution. The problem with that is that creationism is simply a conjecture, not even a testable hypothesis, while evolution is a full-blown theory with lots of testable hypotheses to back it up. I don't have a major problem with teaching the creation story in Genesis, along with all the other creation stories from various cultures, in a social sciences or literature class, just not in a science or biology class.
2007-07-25 09:31:22 · answer #1 · answered by N E 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it does. If they see fossils and know the dates then it is obvious that a progression of form has occurred. That would stretch the credibly of any bizarre theory they could come up with to account for that. It requires burying the head in the sand or somewhere else.
2007-07-25 15:01:31 · answer #2 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think the real problem is that people don't understand the difference between religion and science.
Religion has the answers and sets out to find evidence to support the answers.
Science takes observations and evidence and then interprets forms theories based on what is ACTUALLY OBSERVED.
I get so annoyed when I hear ignorant people call evolution a religion.
2007-07-25 12:57:32 · answer #3 · answered by Gwenilynd 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Not at all. Let me explain my "Dumb-down" theory.
Back in the days of the Isrealites, they had no concept of "million" or "billion", nor did they understand the process of mutation. Do you think they would believe a prophet who showed up saying "millions of years ago, God created the universe, caused chemical reactions to form life forms against the gradient of probability, and formed them in ways that they might reproduce, perfect themselves, and become what we see today"?
The most likely response would be for everybody to pick up a rock.
Same deal with the endtime prophecies and the "sun stopping" deal. These revelations were placed in context so that the people at that time could understand them.
2007-07-25 14:38:52 · answer #4 · answered by morph_888 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course ! This is the last ditch attempt of religion. If it loses this battle, it will lose every last hold it has on humanity.
That is why they are going to absurd lengths to disprove Evolution, its like shutting your eyes and saying I cannot see the light.
2007-07-25 12:52:32 · answer #5 · answered by ag_iitkgp 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I'm afraid this doesn't belong in any discussion of biology or science.
2007-07-25 13:47:06 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Cancer 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
only a preacher would believe that the two beliefs (theories?) are mutually exclusive.
2007-07-25 23:56:22 · answer #7 · answered by sheepherder 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋