Why 'Creationism/ID vs Evolution' should not be discussed at ATS anymore (or anywhere else)

The main issue I have, with creationism/intelligent design being presented as though they are in opposition to evolution, is that the latter can be disproved (which has not happened yet) or proved with research/evidence/knowledge/etc, while the former cannot.

Creationism & Intelligent design share the fundamental idea of an omni-present being as their reason for all existence, which currently, cannot be proved or disproved scientifically. Because of this, it cannot yet be considered an area for scientific debate.

Evolution, on the otherhand, has been widely accepted (by the scientific community, at least) as the most reasonable explanation of how the natural world today came about. This has been given credence via fossil records spanning millions of years, the study of living animals and their simularities to others and most recently, with verification at a cellular level through the mapping of genes via DNA sequencing.

You should also remember that science, at any point in history, merely offers up the best explanation we have for something at that time. It is by no means the final word and is never considered such because the scientific fraternity is always open to better theories, as long as they are verifiable through further independent tests, experiments and research. Fortunately for science, it can continue to modify its established explainations for reality (or replace them completely) depending on what new convincing evidence presents itself. Religion doesn't need to as it has a single 'answer' for everything.

Please understand that I have no objection to people following the religious explainations as to humanity's and everything elses origins, just their continued and pointless opposition to evolution or any other scientific theory or facts. One can neither prove or disprove the other.

I also do not oppose these ideas/beliefs being taught in schools, however, I do oppose them being taught in the wrong subject. They belong in the realm of religious education not biology.

Of course, it is possible to discuss a more general subject such as "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" (As is discussed here: templeton.org My simple answer to this is (as I said before) "No, because science cannot actually prove or disprove the existence of God even if it could prove the origin of all religions was actually human".)

So, no more Creationism/ID vs Evolution threads please (unless of course, you like going around and around in circles getting absolutely nowhere...).

To moderators: If this thread does become another laboured C/ID vs EVO thread, you have my blessing to lock it immediately (and any subsequent ones!)
-----------------
Definitions of terms (as there seems to be confusion amongst some boards):-

Source: Wikipedia.org articles of the same name

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity.

Intelligent_design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

Evolution (

Intelligent design is the assertion that everything was magically created by a sky fairy. Nothing could be more idiotic.

Originally posted by redmotion

I also do not oppose these ideas/beliefs being taught in schools, however, I do oppose them being taught in the wrong subject. They belong in the realm of religious education not biology.

Well I agree with that.
Religious Education is the place for simple statements that aren’t backed up by either fact, or reason other than their own reason.

Here is a typical example...
Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

Intelligent design is the assertion that everything was magically created by a sky fairy. Nothing could be more idiotic.

The author makes zero effort to do anything than tell us his attitude which is an attitude everyone (but hermits) would have heard before.

I do however question whether state schools are the right place for religious education at all. I mean I would prefer it if it was just a voluntary after work type club, for those who are interested.
This is because history-politics, cooking, electrics-mechanics or just plain old science and a maths seems to be far better remembered (or at least used) than RE. Extra buisness studies, rather than bible-koran study seems to have more to do more for understanding your staffs motivations.

However if we are to have RE, then why not to warn people about the danger of religion, as well as the dangers of atheism making you completely immoral (because frankly if there is no God the only thing that's stopping you is you're luck or guts (or maybe both).
This could be demonstrated by teaching students how many criminals have little or no religious beliefs (against the overall population as a whole). Or Islam could be marked out for special attention by making us aware of how many of the worlds suicide bombers terrorists claim to be Islamic. This could help point out how in the modern age we have little to (at least) directly fear from religion, because the problems caused by some are more equal than others.

This arguement should go on, and will. And ATS and its users should encourage and accept it. this is the third thread complaining about this topic from an anti-religious perspective. here are the othr two threads
www.abovetopsecret.com...'
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

And here is a good arguement for why your thread should be ignored.www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Thanks for your post atlas, but you seem to have missed the point of my post, which I thought was pretty clear: there is no argument for I/C vs EVO.

Science seeks an answer, Religion gives an answer.

With all due respect, this is not an anti-religious thread, I've chosen the words in the opening post carefully to ensure that was clear. Your reply contradicts the one in your own thread. I actually agree with some of the points in your thread (by you) but I feel the need to explain that science and religion only cover similar subjects at a very basic level and they cover them differently for different reasons. eg: there was a moment of creation, we came from somewhere, why do we have a sun?, etc. etc.

Is science trying to replace religion? No, although some people mistakenly think so.
Does religion challenge science? Not in the original works (science was extremely basic then).
Does science openly criticise and say it is an alternative to religion? No. (Individuals may - there are crackpot scientists too.)
Do we see major religious figureheads criticising science on the world stage? Yes. With good reason.
Do they criticise the technical aspects/explanations of science? No.
Is evolution a technical aspect/explanation of science? Yes.
Do they criticise the moral aspects and consequences of science? Yes. Thankfully. (recent example would be human embryonic research).
Does religion save lives? Yes.
Does science save lives? Yes. For completely different reasons.
Does religion take lives? Yes.
Does science take lives? Yes.

Example 1:
Someone is despairing of life and cannot shake the effects of the memories that brought them to this point. They have taken a drive out to the suspension bridge outside of town and now stand at edge...
Could science save them? Not directly. Perhaps a councillor or psychologist could provide them with hope ...
Could religion save them? Yes, if they chose to listen or believe (If they already believed they probably wouldn't despair so much).

Example 2:
Someone is lying on the ground having been shot or hit by a car. They are bleeding and will perhaps die in under an hour.
Could science save them? Not always, but it would try.
Could religion save them? No, (again, with respect; there is no medical advice in any of the good books), but it could give comfort to their family and give them an inner strength to cope with the situation.

Again, neither provide the same "service" so why are we discussing them like they are?

@Liberal1984:

We need RE in all schools because people need to understand the different faiths and have mutual respect for them. Lack of respect for other religions usually stems from insecurity about ones own faith.

Again, openmindedness and respect is best.

Originally posted by Liberal1984
The author makes zero effort to do anything than tell us his attitude which is an attitude everyone (but hermits) would have heard before.

True, but at the very least a hermit would know why that attitude is there in the first place.

OP: So, what're you saying, you want to go up against both ID and Evolution Camps at the same time?

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


No. There is no "up against".

Calling for an end to the debate between ID and evolution is an attempt at CENSORSHIP.

The exchange of ideas between these two opposing points of view is something that can and should continue, regardless of whether or not a particular group of whining crybabies has grown sick of it.

If you are sick of the the ID vs evolution threads, then don't read them. And don't give me any of that crap about it has taken over the forums. There are PLENTY of topics on these forums where ID and evolution do not even get mentioned.



[edit on 6/1/2008 by Lightmare]

But that is how they are going to perceive it.

To all eyes it looks like an attack on both sides of the argument, you just can't see it because you're trying to stop the discussion from turning into some sort of mass debate on the values and vices of Religion AND/OR Science.

I applaud the ruthlessness you've taken in this endeavour, but don't forget you are talking about living, feeling human beings who are just as capable of perceiving an attack on their values as you are.

The implications of your words.... many people may see that as rather extreme, and ultimately people reject such extremities because of the simple fact that it represents violent change - i.e; the one where people are forced to agree with one antagonist or the other.

You've made a very valid point, i'll give you that.

@Lightmare:

The exchange of ideas between these two opposing points of view is something that can and should continue

Yep, if they actually opposed each other. My point is that fundamentally, evolution and C/ID barely cross paths and where they do there is still no deep intellectual debate to be had. One is scientific and one is religious. The arguements for both exist in entirely seperate realms and therefore
cannot actually counter each others arguements to any useful degree.

Any counter arguement directed at science/evolution by ID/Creationists will be a religious one (one without proof) and will always bounce harmlessly off the sheild of science. And in turn, science cannot and will not prove that Evolution isn't God-made. DNA itself could be the voice or words of God made flesh on Earth. But again, we won't ever get "hard proof" of that either way.

Because of this, the arguement is eternal (or a non-starter) and neither side will ever win. So save your fingers.

(I don't believe anything I am saying constitutes censorship.)

@Anti-Tyrant:
Fair point, but I'm trying my best to avoid this being an 'attack' on peoples values, it's just a call for an end to pointless (perpetual) arguements!

[edit on 1-6-2008 by redmotion]

Originally posted by redmotion

@Anti-Tyrant:
Fair point, but I'm trying my best to avoid this being an 'attack' on peoples values, it's just a call for an end to pointless (perpetual) arguements!

[edit on 1-6-2008 by redmotion]

I can see why you would do that.

Try not to beat about the bush though, because then we really would be going around in circles!