Creationism and science

18May08

Some random news stories and articles discussing creationism and science. These come pretty much exclusively from the US where such a topic is big news. I fervently hope the same thinking never spreads into Australia and when I cover ‘creationism’ please don’t expect a fair and balanced appraisal because I think it’s total bollocks.

I’ll kick off with a well balanced article that probably summarises best what I believe. There should be room in religion for science and a realistic view of our world. If some sections of society wish to believe in stuff like creationism that’s fine, but they should restrict their sermons to like-minded or curious people and not foist it upon everyone.

Creationism and science

Creationism is fine, just don’t call it science 

Questioning evolution in schools – I have no problem with people questioning evolution, as long as it’s not a smokescreen to sneak wild, unsupported speculation onto the curriculum.

Creationism – Wikipedia

Advertisements


5 Responses to “Creationism and science”

  1. 1 mike00000000001

    I too agree that views should not be forced on people. It is one of the reasons why multiculturalism does not work. But not every creationist is unreasonable. I believe reason has good arguments for creation. Check out my blog if you are as curious as me.

  2. There’s a HUGE chasm between the beginning of life as we know it (molecules coming together to form complex chains then on to creating proteins which in turn etc etc) and a Virgin birth. I get that your blog is a bit of light entertainment but I couldn’t quite get the feel for your sincerity. If you really are trying to suggest that the two are analogous, it’s dishonest and childish.

    Here’s a little light reading to help you get over this Virgin cell thing. I know it’s from Wikipedia, so do please go and research the topic further from more reputable sources.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

    Thanks for reading!

  3. Gavor: Nice essay on tests conducted in the 1950’s. Apparently there hasn’t been nearly as much interest since then? Wait, it goes on to say, “More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography (in La Jolla, CA) were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N2) create nitrites, WHICH DESTROY AMINO ACIDS AS FAST AS THEY FORM…”

    I can just hear the ‘but’… wait for it…

    “However, the early Earth may have had significant amounts of iron and carbonate minerals able to neutralize the effects of the nitrites. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.”

    So, since it doesn’t seem plausible that early earth would have sustained life, adjustments in the assumed conditions are needed in order to flesh out the theory.

    If someone came up to you and said: “There is a planet on the other side of the galaxy that is an exact replica of pre-biotic Earth. I am going to give you a chance to live FOREVER. Tell me what life form you want me to put there, and I will put it on the planet. You will live as long as life exists on the planet, and you can choose any form of life you want.”

    If this were not a hypothetical, what would you choose? How long would you live?

  4. Thanks for the response. I must admit to being a little confused about the angle you’re taking. You’ve proven my point perfectly, which I’m not sure you meant to do. Though maybe you did. Sorry, but I’m not really into playing games so I’m going to ignore your thing about living on a distant planet. It doesn’t make a lot of sense or prove anything.

    In a nutshell, what you have presented is two pieces of research, one that says the amino acids would be destroyed by nitrates under currently modelled conditions, and another that says the nitrates would be negated. Atmospheric conditions would also not apply as transparently when you talk about oceanic conditions, and since it is generally supposed that life began in the water this is another area of research to ponder. There is interest in the idea also of life evolving around deep sea vents (hydrothermal vents – http://www.seasky.org/deep-sea/hydrothermal-vents.html and http://www.teachersdomain.org/resource/tdc02.sci.life.eco.deepseavents/)

    Ultimately though, the fact that we’re here means we evolved somehow from something and the process that kicked this off is a long and complex one…but not one that is unknowable or that has to be put down to ‘it just happened and we dont know how right now, ergo God’. I can present you with reams of evidence for how life probably started off, half of which I won’t understand because I am not a scientist. You can’t present me with a single piece of evidence that life was started by a supernatural source. If you try we’ll only end up in an argument about non-provable or disprovable claims and I’ll trot out stupid strategies such as orbiting teapots and original makers.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: