[DanielStraight]

I really think both sides get this issue very wrong.

Creationism is not valid science, obviously. But that's because it isn't science at all. It is a religious belief, which is by definition non-scientific.

Here is where the science side gets things wrong. Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief. It's not anti-intellectual or stupid or backward either. It's a choice to believe in the supernatural. Lots of people, even non-religious people, believe things on grounds other than science. Science is an excellent way of explaining the world, but it isn't the only way. People have the right to inform their beliefs with a source other than science.

Here is where the creationism side gets things wrong. Same basic principle, creationism is not a scientific belief. Christians, even those who accept evolution, believe a lot of things which are clearly not scientifically sound. Bodily resurrection from the dead is perhaps the most obvious and most fundamental. It's absurd to accept the resurrection of a deity without seeking scientific evidence and then try to make scientific evidence support creationism. Even if you convince someone that creationism is scientific, you aren't going to convince them that a deity being bodily resurrected from the dead is scientific. Given that Jesus' resurrection is the fundamental belief of Christianity, it's silly to make such a big deal of something that is comparatively non-important.

So my suggestion, teach evolution in science class without mentioning creationism at all. But require at least one class in religion/philosophy so students understand that there are other ways of understanding the world. I'm not saying to teach the beliefs of any particular religion, just to explain some of the ways other than science that people have historically and continue today to understand their world.

The overwhelming majority of people on Earth today are at least nominally religious. Schools shouldn't teach students to be religious, but they should teach them to understand religion... and not just as a cute, prehistoric way of explaining things that science now has exclusive domain over. Religious beliefs, as non-scientific beliefs, are non-falsifiable. Students need to understand this. Modern science does not falsify religious beliefs. It provides an alternative based on empirical evidence. But there is no requirement that everyone on Earth only accept things based on empirical evidence. It may seem odd to you to deliberately choose to believe something which isn't based on empirical evidence, but many people do (knowingly at that) and that is their right. Students should understand that science is not a tool for disproving religion, it is a tool for explaining the world in a different way than religion does.

[cpher]

I'll add that there are many Christians who are "evolutionists", and understand what science (and religion) can explain about the world. Some of us even attended Christian colleges with professors who taught evolution and actual science, and we had lengthy discussions about this entire topic. AND THIS WAS 20 YEARS AGO.

[vezzy-fnord]

No one is denying your right to believe in unfalsifiable and unjustified theology.

Of course creationism itself isn't anti-scientific, but the majority of people who deeply believe it do have anti-scientific agendas.

Is it stupid and backward? I'm not going to conclusively comment on this, but you seem to think that just because it's a choice, it has to be legitimate. No, it can be a wrong choice.

Schools shouldn't teach students to be religious, but they should teach them to understand religion... and not just as a cute, prehistoric way of explaining things that science now has exclusive domain over. Religious beliefs, as non-scientific beliefs, are non-falsifiable. Students need to understand this. Modern science does not falsify religious beliefs. It provides an alternative based on empirical evidence. But there is no requirement that everyone on Earth only accept things based on empirical evidence. It may seem odd to you to deliberately choose to believe something which isn't based on empirical evidence, but many people do (knowingly at that) and that is their right.

Argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people resort to superstition to explain natural events does not mean it is legitimate or correct.

The right to believe in unsubstantiated claims doesn't shield you from criticism on the illegitimacy of your claims.

[DanielStraight]

Obviously it can be wrong... but it isn't scientifically falsifiable. This is entire crux of what I'm trying to say. You can no more use science to disprove creationism than creationists can to prove it. It isn't a claim which is subject to scientific inquiry. Science has nothing to say on the subject of supernatural events with apparent natural causes. Science is a tool for providing natural, empirical explanations. Supernatural events are by definition invisible to science, because science chooses not to accept supernatural explanations. That's what makes it science.

You are free to criticize the legitimacy of religious beliefs, but science will not help you. Science cannot disprove what it does not accept or examine (namely, supernatural events). Science simply says that a natural explanation exists. Whether that explanation is "true", science cannot say. If gravity is really caused by an invisible flying spaghetti monster pulling everything with his noodly appendages, science will never see it. It cannot. Science refuses supernatural explanations.

I am not saying that popularity makes supernatural beliefs correct. I'm saying it makes them important. The concept that science is one way, but not the only way, people choose to understand the world is important. Whether science is "true", no one can say. Untestable, supernatural phenomena are just that: untestable. It could be that the flying spaghetti monster really controls everything in universe. All we can know is that if he/she/it does, he/she/it does it in such a way that natural explanations still work. There's no way to actually test the theory of a supernatural spaghetti monster. The distinction is subtle, but I think it's important.

[thirdtruck]

Non-scientific explanations do have to account for the neurological research that can explain the causes behind those very idea themselves, though.

We're dealing with faulty analysis software (our brains), one with documented bugs and all kinds of premature optimizations. We have to account for that.

A developer can convince his teammates, QA, management, and even the customer that a given bug is a feature. When that "feature" causes the plane guided by that software to go crashing into a mountain, however, we can't declare the mountain a "moral hazard" or "something beyond the understanding of requirements gathering". Instead, we fix the bug to account for the mountain, tell the developer to stop making that mistake, and try again.

[figglesonrails]

+1 Popular = important in dealing with other humans, whether you like it or not.

We're not going to convert the whole world to atheism tomorrow, so being able to understand why Buddhists don't drink alcohol or why Muslims say "إن شاء الله" when using the future tense will probably only help you co-exist. A little understanding goes a long way, whether you agree with their beliefs or not.

[vezzy-fnord]

You're really stretching the definition of "truth" here, much like a Pyrrhonist would in that nothing can be 100% certain.

Of course it can't. Classic example: I can't prove the entire universe isn't just a brain in a vat.

However, we have to draw some lines and reasonable expectations. If a belief cannot be tested and has no evidence backing it, we discount it until we find supporting evidence for it.

Science can't say something is absolutely and undeniably true, but it can say that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt. You're setting very philosophically pretentious standards about truth here.

Science is certainly not the only way. Yet it has consistently shown itself to be the most reliable and effective way.

In fact, the scientific method is such a fundamental way of reasoning that if a supernatural realm is ever discovered, it will be likely thanks to the scientific method, even though science by default discounts supernatural explanations.

Science has unearthed a lot of observable, tested and verified counterexplanations to supposedly supernatural occurrences, which no one has been able to refute other than setting higher and vaguer standards.

Ultimately, the burden of the proof lies on the person making the large claims. If they cannot back them, by default we exclude their claims until conclusive evidence is found to support otherwise. Just because there are alternate ways of interpreting the world does not mean they are legitimate or that they should be given respect or credence automatically.

[thedufer]

> Here is where the science side gets things wrong. Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief.

Creationism isn't fundamentally anti-scientific, but it teaching it as science is definitely anti-scientific. "Creationism" is usually, in this context, used as shorthand for "creationism taught as science", because that's the only kind of creationism that matters (in this context).

[DanielStraight]

I agree with you that creationism shouldn't be taught as science. That's what I was trying to get at. I was not using creationism to mean creationism taught as science. Sorry if I've caused confusion to anyone.

[MartinCron]

Creationism is a NON-scientific belief, not an ANTI-scientific belief. It's not anti-intellectual or stupid or backward either. It's a choice to believe in the supernatural

Choosing to believe in the supernatural IS fundamentally anti-science. That's what the word "supernatural" means.

[thirdtruck]

I'm not clear on what is left to know that falls outside the reach of science.

We can trace the very sense of "I am me" to the brain, as seen when it and other anthropocentric systems fail, which leaves the idea of a "soul" in doubt.

We can ask "why" something exists instead of nothing, but advances in quantum physics suggests that "nothing" lacks a correlate at that level. If we want to ask "why" the quantum foam exists, in turn, the non-scientific inquirer must explain how this potential for infinite regress is anything more than a shortcoming of language.

If any "big" questions exist that physics or neuroscience can't explain, let us know. If not, the burden lies with the non-scientific explanations to offer more complete, repeatable, and actionable insights.

[DanielStraight]

I'm not really talking about things outside the reach of science. I'm talking about choosing to believe differently about things for which science does have an answer, or at least a strong suggestion.

There's a subtle distinction I'm trying to make between "true" and "scientifically proven". Equating the two requires a belief that what science discovers is absolute truth, but that meta-claim cannot be analyzed by the underlying tool of science.

One can easily conceive of example theories which are not scientifically testable. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the universe was supernaturally created out of nothing. Not 6000 years ago, but at UNIX timestamp 0. But everyone was created with memories. Objects were created in motion. Everything is exactly as we see it, with cause and effect stretching back for countless million years, but it actually was just all created looking that way. As absurd as this sounds, it isn't scientifically falsifiable. It can't be disproven.

Assuming the above scenario is true, it is still scientifically proven that the universe is unfathomably old. The natural, empirical explanation does not change. It simply becomes false while remaining scientifically valid. The science is still sound. (And assuming the universe was not in fact created at UNIX timestamp 0, the belief that it was is still false even if it isn't disprovable.)

The rationalist believes that the findings of science are absolute truth. That if the universe appears billions of years old, it's because it is billions of years old. But whether observation is proof of absolute truth is not a testable question in science. Science can't assert absolute truth in that way. It can only assert a sound, natural explanation of cause and effect. And just because everything has a sound, natural explanation of cause and effect doesn't mean those are explanations are true. We simply have no way of knowing whether the entire universe was created at UNIX timestamp 0 with everything exactly as it should have been to make it appear billions of years old.

[fnordfnordfnord]

>I'm not clear on what is left to know that falls outside the reach of science.

Ethics. Morality. Art. History. Politics. Philosophy.

[thirdtruck]

All covered by anthropology, psychology, neuroscience, etc.

On that same point, I've never encountered a claim for "subjective" that amounted to more than "the decision requires information not consciously available to the specific individuals in the example."

[fnordfnordfnord]

Well, you found a scientific discipline that mentions "art" and I agree that one may do so for any subject, but I don't agree that the scientific approach is adequate to answer all important or interesting questions.

[cpher]

I think you need to read more about Ethics. Morality. Art. History. Politics. Philosophy. I'm being snarky, but I'm sure you're a joy at parties.

[gress]

Ray Kurzweil believes in bodily resurrection, as do the customers of Alcor.

[cpher]

But what about Ray Catsweil? http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HSFWWZQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UT...

[dllthomas]

Some contingents, which I expect have some overlap with customers of Alcor, have a stronger expectation of resurrection through scanning and emulation, which isn't exactly "bodily".

[gress]

True, but many believe the nanites will save them.

[dllthomas]

I certainly agree that many believe in some form of bodily resurrection.

[Xdes]

>But there is no requirement that everyone on Earth only accept things based on empirical evidence.

You'd get laughed out of the left wing political sphere if you went around saying that.