Scientist, what do you think should be done regarding the crisis of creationism?

Question

Scientists and scholars, especially those who are religious, what do you think should be done to address the crisis of the attack on the theory of evolution by religious fundamentalists and creationsist pseudoscientists?

I understand those who would answer "education", but I have tried that and have noticed that most creationists lack precursury education inorder be properly argued against regarding evolution. Most people lack the knowledge to understand even just basic genetics and biogeography, and so creationist find it easy to pursue popaganda since they have with them "common sense".

Answer 1

I have to disagree with Labsci.
>"Understanding evolution requires some science education beyond secondary. "

Not true at all. Evolution is extremely simple. It is simpler than atomic theory in chemistry. It is simpler than any theory of gravity. It requires no math (no more than understanding what a percentage means), no memorization, no complex formulas or reasoning, no lab experiments, no long chapters (it could be explained in a single page of a textbook. Heck, we have high school kids memorizing the Kreb's cycle, or the phases of mitosis, which are *far* more complex.

Evolution ... including the theory of natural selection ... is teachable at the 6th or 7th grade level.

I also contend that evolution is simpler to understand than creationism. Evolution explains so many things in terms of a few basic principles that make iminent sense. Creationism explains complex things in terms of something far *more* complex and mysterious ... a supernatural agent with no known mechanism, motive, or design plan. It leaves so many questions unanswered (why do dolphins have hip bones, embryos have gill folds, mammal embryos have tails? How did those kangaroos get to Australia and *only* Australia? Why are there genetic similarities in certain patterns? Why would the creator give the same DNA errors ... letter-by-letter ... to different organisms including junk DNA that has no function? Why would a perfect creator create imperfect eyes so that I'm wearing glasses in 7th grade? Question after unanswered question.)

While the *evidence* for evolution is HUGE, and sometimes complex. The *understanding* of evolution is incredibly simple.

... IF (huge IF) kids have the right *science* foundation.

I don't think that the teaching of evolution is the problem. It's the teaching of basic SCIENCE! Why do we have kids reciting the Krebs cycle, or drawing pictures of anaphase, metaphase, and prophase ... while they don't know what the word "theory" means, or the difference between evidence and proof.

Every time I read someone on here use the phrase "just a theory", or insist on using the word "proof" instead of "evidence", that person doesn't just misunderstand evolution ... they misunderstand the basics of SCIENCE that somebody should have taught them in 4th grade.

So to answer your question ... the main answer *IS* education. The battle ground is over education. Most adult creationists are lost. But we must fix the teaching of basic science education ... right from the kindergarten level up. Knowledge of what words like "theory", "law", "fact", "evidence", "scientific method", etc. should be taught in 4th grade, repeated in 5th, 6th, 7th ... and every year in High School. It should be on every exam, every quiz. All the rest ... all the Krebs cycles, all the periodic tables of elements, all the evolution ... all of that is secondary to basic science.

The second important thing is to battle what I call the BIG LIE ... the idea that science is anti-God. That is the BIG LIE that hard-core creationists drill into well-meaning Christians and their children. It is the BIG LIE that causes these well-meaning people, and their children, to (understandably) oppose evolution with every fiber of their being.

The BIG LIE is what causes otherwise intelligent people to shut down in a self-preservation mode whenever they hear the e-word. It is why the same kid that can master titration and know the atomic weight of Beryllium, can still think that evolution is some atheist named Darwin telling me I came from a monkey. The BIG LIE is why my daughter's chemistry teacher is a YE creationist. Because the BIG LIE is what allows the curtain come down when the e-word is uttered.

And the third thing, once the first two are established (basic science, and countering the BIG LIE) and we are finally ready to actually teach evolution, we need to be careful to separate *understanding* from *belief*. In religion, belief can come without understanding. But in science it can't. I am always amazed when I hear someone say "Evolution makes no sense, and I reject it completely." If if doesn't make sense, then how can you decide to reject it?? Personally, I don't care if a student *believes* evolution. But they should at least understand what it says first. Forget the evidence at first. Forget the fossils. Forget the DNA evidence, and morphology, and embryological evidence ... all of it. Does the theory *make sense*?? If not, then all that evidence is just confusion. If we can't *explain* evolution properly, then let's not get into the evidence. The evidence is important of course (that is the backbone of science) ... but it does need to make sense first.

The reason I say this is that creationists have strategically targeted not the *evidence* for evolution, but the *understanding* of it. They do all they can to make sure it is presented in as confusing a manner as possible. That's why we have kids on here asking "why are there still monkeys?" When someone is THAT confused, all the evidence in the world is just water under the bridge.

Sorry that was so long ... this is just something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

Answer 2

Most scientists that believe in creationism believe in old earth creationism, where god only influences or causes evolution - they don't deny evolution. Others were scientists who lived in the dark ages or earlier, before the theory of evolution existed and it was very dangerous to go against religious dogma. One or two others lived in the 19th century or so when it was simply socially unacceptable. Most scientists that deny evolution are religious dentists who call themselves scientists because they have a PHD. Other scientists that deny evolution got their degrees from religious institutions and they got their degrees specifically so that they could sound credible when they continued to deny evolution (something they were doing long before they got their degrees). Where are the atheist scientists who are creationists? If there were any evidence for young earth creation, even non religious scientists would have to accept it, even if they thought the creator was someone other than a god. There is simply no evidence for creation, and there are libraries full of evidence for evolution. And furthermore, you are arguing from the appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. Naming a few people who deny evolution does not erase all the evidence for it or change the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists in the world do accept evolution as a fact. Haha! The list included the bionic man, a fictional character!

Answer 3

Some good answers here. So, what can I add?

Well, I think "education" is the answer, but we have to be patient (it will take many generations to weed out the ignorance).

We need to have a specific plan. We need to come up with some clever new teaching methods. We need to educate children from a very young age that science is not that hard - it's just based on logic, and our brains are perfectly capable of logical, rational thought.

We need to teach people not to be mentally lazy, and to think critically about things, ask questions and be skeptical of knowledge derived from authority.

I would argue with Labsci on a couple of points:
It's true that, "Creationism is popular because anyone can believe it. It is very simple, you do not need a degree to understand it..." However, one could make the same case for science. There is no reason that science has to be considered to be so hard, or that you need a degree in science to understand it. In fact, if we teach simple science principles (including evolution) to K-6th graders, they can and will begin to understand it.

A basic understanding of science can be taught to anyone - even the brainwashed. We just need to keep trying, come up with new ways and new educational ideas, never give up and be patient.

Answer 4

I propose management.

These notions are never going to go away. So, my proposition is active management of the people who are both vocal and aggressive in these matters. Through legislation and public relations, a society should be able to keep unfounded conjecture out of education, science, and government, and hopefully minimize the belief in the population at large by advertising the idea that such ideas, while protected by the second amendment, are unfit for a good citizen of the country. Treat bad science the same as racism and general bigotry.

Answer 5

Just give it time. Creationism will automatically die away over time. Take a look at our past...

Remember that theory about the Earth being flat? It was so popular at the time. Now it's dead.
Remember that theory about the Earth being at the centre of the universe? Few people even dared to challenge it back then. Now, it too is dead.
So what will happen to creationism? Just sit back, relax, and let history repeat itself ... again.

Answer 6

Scientist need to steep back from the evolution paradigm.
If it was a strong fact, like gravity. It would never be in doubt.
Darwinian evolution, (all life evolving from common ancestry)
is not an observable fact.
The theory is conflicted and not empirically provable!
Darwin evolution, supports the Godless (secular) world view.
That is the only reason that it has life.
Scientist are both hired to support the evolution paradigm, and
oppressed against any hypothesis that doesn't support it.

Answer 7

Intelligence does not rest exclusively with scientific knowledge. There are many levels of thought which do not require a scientific background or training. Many highly educated people promote Creationism. It is from these schools of thought that Creationism is getting support, and champions. Creationism is popular because anyone can believe it. It is very simple, you do not need a degree to understand it, and you can go through life not actually needing to know how we got where we are today. It does not matter whether we were created or evolved to be what we are. To most people, even intelligent people, what they care about is normal, everyday things, like working in offices or feeding the family and paying the mortgage - not what religious people or scientists are thinking about. So, to begin with, most people don't care either way.

Understanding evolution requires some science education beyond secondary. Creationism requires the simple belief that a creator did it, and contentment. That is why debating evolution against creationism is so frustrating. People will listen up to their level of education and understanding. If you talk above that, you will lose them, and then creationism steps in with all the answers, simple and neat, and superficially correct. They will bring out the tired old arguments, like irreducible complexity (the eye), which is easily disproved with scientific proofs, but you have to go beyond the simple explanations to do it, so you lose them. Then they come out with "If we evolved from monkeys/apes, why are there still monkeys/apes around?" - again they get lost with simple scientific proofs. Even intelligent people need not understand simple science, let alone evolution by natural selection occurring over 3 billion years. The next argument rests with abiogenesis - something from nothing. Creationists will argue that this is not possible, even though it is the very pillar of their beliefs that Man was created from dust. The fact that the famous Urey-Miller experiments resulted in amino acids, the building blocks of organic life, means nothing to Creationists. They want nothing less than a fully grown lizard to pop out of a lab jar as proof that abiogenesis is possible. Belief in Creationism, however, does not require anything to actually be created to be deemed valid.

And therein lies the basis of the resistance to evolution. The burden of proof is so much less if you want to believe in Creationism.

Edit: Allow me to qualify my answer:

In response to asgspifs and secret sauce : I can see where they are coming from, perhaps I should have used the term "Deeper understanding of evolution".
Yes, you can teach science from an early age, but the reality is, you cannot force a student to do science beyond mid secondary (at least in Australia), even then, Biology is just one of the three major science subjects. Evolution is not covered in physics and chemistry. Although anyone who goes on to tertiary science, in any field would clearly have an ability, and exposure, to understand evolution better. So most students are not doing science at a level which would allow for serious counter arguments against creationism. As soon as they stop studying science, they are bombarded by fundamentalists on TV and in their lives telling them evolution is wrong, and that they are not related to pond slime. Richard Dawkins himself was asked to leave Ted Haggart's church because he dared to imply that the congregation were Apes. Such emotive argument makes evolution seem like an insult to one's humanity - another fallacious argument of creationists.
To secretsauce: I agree that evolution is simpler than gravity, but not to most, non-scientific, people. I would contend that to the masses gravity is "What goes up, must come down". It is not warping of space/time.
It is, unfortunately, a case of the simplest answer is not always the correct answer.

Thanks for the feedback.

Answer 8

this isnt the first battle the church has fought to preserve its conservative nature. after the initial publications of copernicus that pushed the beliefs of the people from a geocentric universe to a heliocentric solar system, the church fought the change for centuries. not until the mid 1800s (300 years later) did the vatican actually admit the truth of heliocentrism in the face of overwhelming evidence towards it.
eventually the masses that ensconce themselves in their myopic views on the nature of creationism will be overwhelmed by scientific evidence and force the church to adapt or risk losing their faithful to agnosticism/atheism.

i find that most people that completely and utterly deny all plausibility of evolution do not understand its true underlying elegance as a theory. they often shrug it off as 'statistically impossible chance-driven blather' (which it surely isnt), saying that science doesnt know everything (might I add that many a time will they turn and quote science to back other of their causes they deem worthy of their support.) sometimes they use the old "just a theory" (ooo i hate that one, really shows off ignorance quickly and effectively.) yet other times they use incredulity on the topic as a disproving factor "its hard for me to understand and thus it must not be true when god is so obvious." sorry, but your personal beliefs do not hold weight in science.

more than likely, the next phase in 'biblical reductionism' (by which i mean the ever decrease mysticism of the bible for people to pronounce their beliefs with) is for those that accept evolution to state that it is driven by the natural intelligence of the creator (in fact, the majority of americans that say they believe in evolution actually believe in this deity driven process). while you cant really disprove this, it doesnt necessarily get in the way of scientific progress. it may be a belief purely of convenience so as to minimize the conflict between one's religious beliefs with their scientific understanding, but it doesnt prevent them from accepting scientific evidence. what do I care if you believe that science is driven by god, so long as you dont impede my ability to further understanding of the natural universe (as opposed to the supernatural)

Answer 9

Ask Congress, "Do you disbelieve in evolution?"

Anyone who raises his hand gets fired. Do this at the state government level too. Stupid gits who slept through high school shouldn't be running the country.

Answer 10

I despair of an answer. Willful ignorance is not amenable to normal presentation of the evidence. Perhaps their hold on the generations will weaken when it is shown that their delusions are dangerous.