Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 30 April 2008 | 453, 15 (2008) | doi:10.1038/453015e
News in Brief
Creationists fail in bid to offer 'science' degrees
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
This is yet another reference mark concerning policies towards such religious groups which take scientific knowledge as a direct offense towards their myths. One fair example from USA to be followed worldwide.
I suppose this means schools in Texas can continue to avoid the teachings of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/). Pastafarians of the World Unite!
"Religious belief is not science" This is right and religion has nothing to do with operational science.Your world view dictates where you hang your facts. Historical science does depend on your religion affecting your worldview and assuptions. The fact is and no one can deny....we werent there at the beginning of the world....
1. Man's ultimate origin is from the non-material. Matter is not eternal, but we are here. Since SOMETHING cannot come from NOTHING. SOMETHING must be eternal, but the 2nd law of Thermodynamics says it can't be matter, so a non-material SOMETHING exists. 2. Man's ultimate origin if from something LIVING, but no scientist or others can create a living thing from a non-living thing, so LIFE can't be tested (be science related). NOTHING living today comes from the NON-LIVING. God alone created life in the beginning. The "missing links" are still "missing". How many centuries do you need to find them???? Open your eyes!
In response to the prior post, which uses God as the answer for everything, I feel that an honest "I don't know" is far more appropriate, moral, and meaningful than any pretense that a three letter word explains anything.
And of course this argument (of Mr. Morris) is a very old Medieval one purporting to prove the existence of the Catholic God, which has been thoroughly refuted, as a bit of research will show. The pseudoscientific use of the term "2nd law of Thermodynamics" is perhaps more alarming, as it reflects the mind-set of the creationist movement, which appropriates scientific terms willy-nilly for its own purposes.
Our Creator, within the Trinity, is the only logical answer for our existence. There is no logic in thinking that life on earth arose from inorganic matter or, as one famous Nobel Laureate claimed, from "directed panspermia." If however, we accept the latter we enter an infinite regress and must ultimately conclude that God is creator since God is infinite. God is the answer and the proof is as plain as day. The 2007 Dawkins-Lennox debate might assist those who think otherwise.
What are Creationists doing reading "Nature"? Don't they have their own journal now?
For more information about this issue, please visit these documents by Texas Citizens for Science, the organization in Texas that opposes organized Creationism. http://www.texscience.org/releases/tcs-icr-2008april29.htm http://www.texscience.org/documents/thecb-april2008-testimony.htm http://www.texscience.org/documents/thecb-april2008-news-articles.htm
Beleive it or not, there are creationists who also read Science, Cell, and PNAS, who carry multiple grants, and oh yes, occasionally publish.
Everyone is entitled to their own view. Mine is you can't currently prove or disprove the existence of God. Another view of mine is that it is unfair to make a sweeping statement that the Trinity (a Christian-only doctrine) is the only logical answer to our existence. My knee-jerk reaction to that is another sweeping statement that Creationists don't tend to read Nature. I think at least my first view is fairly accurate - if it weren't, would we even be submitting these comments?
It beggars belief to me that an apparently learned reader could state: Our Creator, within the Trinity, is the only logical answer for our existence. (Joe Miano). To hold this view is to reject the precepts and rationale thinking characteristic of science and, as Dawkins would say, the mutually buttressing evidence. Craig Smith
Spiritual devotion and scientific investigations are two separate paths to the same Truth. Either path will lead the disciple out of the ego cage of arrogance and false pride to humility. Science itself has this spiritual basis: "Truth is victorious, never untruth." [Qur'an 17.85; Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6] - Oliver K. Manuel, www.omatumr.com
Personally, I have always held the view of Mr. Morris, although I do not necessarily think that this "proves" the existence of God as Mr. Brown states (it would be nice to have a reference to the research that Mr. Brown speaks of). But I do think that this gets us out of this infinite regression that Joe Miano speaks of (what comes first, the chicken or the egg?). However, this line of thinking requires Kierkegaard's belief based on the strength of the absurd (that which is humanly impossible, but for God is; i.e. faith). Through science, we seek the things that are humanly possible; the things that we can understand; the things by which we can make hypotheses and through rigorous experimentation, test. Evolution is one of these. Creationism (and for that matter, the beginning of all things physical and temporal) on the other hand, requires a belief in the absurd and for that reason has no place in scientific teaching.
From a non-creationist viewpoint, eggs came first, since dinosaurs were around for a long time before chickens.
Why science (here, evolutionism) and intelligent-design can't be compatible...since evolution is "included in the design"!! In other words, the only thruth is science, nothing unscientific is acceptable; but science is already a subset of the design itself.
1. Quoted from Joe Miano "Our Creator, within the Trinity, is the only logical answer for our existence." Even if you were right (which you are not) that evolution cannot explain life on earth, how would it follow from this that "our creator" would be the answer - with which I suppose you mean the Christian God. There are hundreds of religions assuming a creator - what is it that makes the Christian God the correct one? ------- 2. Quoted again from Joe Miano "[we] must ultimately conclude that God is creator since God is infinite." So even if there were an infinite regress required (which there isn't), why is calling it "God" any more logical than assuming an infinity as in panspermia (which is most probably a wrong theory, but I use it just for the sake of the argument here)? -------- 3. Quoted from Dan Morris "The "missing links" are still "missing". How many centuries do you need to find them???? " Just compare the state of our knowledge of evolution now and 150 years ago. How much more missing links would you need? We have found archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, a detailed sequence of proto-humans, an evolutionary chain of horses, walking whales etc. etc.. Whenever a new missing link C is found that fits exactly where it should, between ancestor a and descnedant B, creationists demand two more links A-C and C-B, and so on and so on. ----- 4. Finally, something that seems to be never understood by creationists: There is *NO* reason why evolution and religion should be incompatible. Does God cause every stone to fall by "intelligent falling"? No - if there is a God, God created the law of gravitation to let this happen. So why should God create every single lifeform on earth separately, arranging them in a pattern that so closely resembles an evolutionary one, if instead God could just create the universe in such a way as to contain the laws of evolution and have us arise as a consequence?
"Creationists fail in bid to offer 'science' degrees" If I believed in god, I would thank her.
Do scientists tell the Pope (or any other religious authority) how to rule their congregations, teach mass, etc? NO, so why are religious groups looking to teach in science? Temples are for religious thought, schools are for learning. Are religious groups worried to see more people interested in science, or are the new generations avoiding the temples? OK. There are missing links, so what? There will always be missing links and that’s something exciting about science. We are limited in part by the advancement in technology. In due time we will solve the missing links, but we have to survive our society immaturity first. Sorry to hear all is written in a book for God’s will.
Oliver Manuel writes "Spiritual devotion and scientific investigations are two separate paths to the same Truth" - what utter, unmitigated hogwash. Has "spiritual devotion" led the discovery of the theory of gravity or evolution or indeed any scientific discovery ever? All religions start off with dogmatic beliefs which they then try to defend against all evidence to the contrary.
Mr. Dawson, I think you completely misunderstood Oliver Manuel: he said "Either path will lead the disciple out of the ego cage of arrogance and false pride to humility". Obviously, the Truth he talks about is a truth about the human condition, not a scientific fact. You may believe it or not, but surely the idea that being devoted to science and being devoted to piritualism may both help your mental (spiritual) development is a thought worth contemplating, not "hogwash".
Almost 95% of the world population believes in one or various gods who rule and create the world (and by expansion, the universe). And we called that behavior "Religion". But science (evolutionism is a part of science) is experimentation based on pure evidence, and theories trying to explain that evidences. Creationism is not science, is a belief with no evidence to contrast. Evolution, on the other hand, it is the result of a great accumulation of data pointing in consistent direction. In other words: "Biologists believe in evolution not because of any religious commitment to it but because of overwhelming evidence for it" (Biol. Res. 40, 2007, 113-122). People got beliefs, and there's nothing wrong with that, but mix beliefs with science is not to think at all.
In my opinion, spirituality is a human condition, as Martin Baeker notes. It is compatible with group activities such as religion and science. Organized science and organized religion seem incompatible because many participants of both groups are still dogmatic and closed-minded. After 48 years of analysis and study of material in various parts of the solar system, I am convinced that the "Big Bang" is no more rational than the Biblical story of Genesis, and the "Standard Solar Model" is no more factual than the Biblical story of virgin birth. Oliver K. Manuel, http://www.ballofiron.com or http://www.omatumr.com
Although I partly agree with your observartions concerning spirituality, I could not disagree more with the second half of your statement. Yes, the Big Bang theory seems very remote from everyday experience, but the evidence for it is the same type of evidence that allows us to create all of our technology - whereas the Biblical story of Genesis is a nice story, trying to explain the world and our role in it, but cannot be used to actually *do* something with it. There is no observable, testable consequence of the theory of virgin birth - that's what makes it different from a scientific theory. Current scientific understanding is not a menu - you cannot pick one part and say "I choose to believe that" and refuse to pick another part that has equally good evidence for it because you don't like it. You either accept the scientific method as a method and take whatever it gets you, or you don't.
I have not "misunderstood" Oliver Manuel. He wrote "Spiritual devotion and scientific investigations are two separate paths to the same Truth." Scientific investigations have lead to the discovery of many "Truths" Newtons Laws, Relativity, Quantum Physics, The Standard Model, The theory of Evolution, The Genetic Code – to name but a few. In contrast "Spiritual devotion" has led to the discovery of absolutely no "truths" – zero, zilch. Science has accomplished much, the Industrial Revolution, The Green revolution, the electrification of the World, the Internet - to name but a few. "Spiritual devotion" in contrast, besides being a monumental waste of time, has accomplished absolutely nothing – zero, zilch. Thus the statement is hogwash, as is spiritualism itself. It is understandable that proponents of a field that has no accomplishments to its credit should try to gain respectability by trying to associate with a field that has accomplished much, like a Witch Doctor trying to associate himself with a Brain Surgeon, but alas there is nothing in common. Statements like "organised science" betrays a colossal ignorance of science. Maybe going to a spiritualistic site (using of course the fruits of Scientific Investigations – a Computer and The Internet, and not "Spiritual Devotion") you will find mantras like "transcendental understanding" and "cosmic energy" which cause their followers to nod their heads in resonant agreement and phrases with the word "quantum" coupled with "consciousness" which sends them into a catatonic swoon. Trying to hide the nakedness of hogwash behind verbose but vacuous phrases like "Either path will lead the disciple out of the ego cage of arrogance and false pride to humility", like the Emperors New Clothes, is quite futile. The Hogwash remains hogwash, and I remain, yours truly - Richard
Obviously, if you restrict the meaning of "Truth" to "scientific truth", then spirituality is not an option. However, are there not truths that are not scientific? As Feynman said: "Love is not a science". Although I am a scientist myself, I know people whose spiritual contemplations have made them wiser - why would or should I deny that this is possible. I can understand you anger at most of the current esoteric hogwash - but spirituality can lead people to deep (non-scientific) truths and wisdom, as can science. And finally, science (or the scientific method) is a tool - you need something beyond science to decide how and where to apply it.
Perhaps the readers will want to consider whether or not the spiritual "truths" discovered in our time by Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahamata Ghandi are as lasting and as beneficial to mankind as the scientific "truths" cited by Richard Dawson. The MEASUREMENTS reviewed in this 4-page paper show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Sun is made of the same elements that make-up rocky planets and ordinary meteorites - Iron (Fe), Oxygen (O), Silicon (Si), Nickel (Ni), and Sulfur (S). http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/LunarAbstract.pdf "The Standard Model" itself appears to be "hogwash." All is well, Oliver K. Manuel, http://www.omatumr.com
Sometimes it's as if we live in the the middle of the age of scholasticim in the 1200s: The existence or not of God is an unasnwerable question. Creationism provides no asnwers except psychological certainties. The arbitrary use of "Science" data, coupled with "revealed" truths by 3000 year old books by creationists is most illogical, as Spock would say, and a sign that sometimes we move backwards, not forwards. The court's decision has to be applauded.
Sometimes it's as if we live in the the middle of the age of scholasticim in the 1200s: The existence or not of God is an unasnwerable question. Creationism provides no asnwers except psychological certainties. The arbitrary use of "Science" data, coupled with "revealed" truths by 3000 year old books by creationists is most illogical, as Spock would say, and a sign that sometimes we move backwards, not forwards. The court's decision has to be applauded.
Scientific truths have to be falsifiable to be called as such. Religious dogma fails this test. Hence it is not science. It is as simple as that. That is not to say unfalisifiable beliefs are useless to society. Beliefs in myths and legends can have an inspirational value that might motivate scientists to do better science. Take Star Trek for example. It full of nonsense. But it really makes me want to become a scientist.
Quoted from Martin Backer"Just compare the state of our knowledge of evolution now and 150 years ago". Exactly, at that time when Darwin proposed this theory all biological systems are thought to be much more simple. Even Darwin was on the site of "Blending theory of inheritence". So at that time it was very easy to explain the world as a product of completely random events and by using infinite time constraints. But now things are much more different and it turned out that world is sustained by really complicated equations and engineering miracles which nobody can deny. I would use anyother objective term istead of miracle if there is one for describing them onjectively. Many systems are elucidated day by day, but what we see is that they are really complicated and tightly designed. We also see irreducibility and guaranteed by redundancies. But what evolution says is that this somehow turned to this about which we dont know and somehow gave rise to this. No mechanisms! But just interpretation of data and they cannot be test, if there is please post one except presence of various races, and domestication which are no more than change of allele frequencies! So from these point of view in immediate future evolution will change very much as it always does and will sound very similar to what Id's say today!
Just in case anyone was wondering, there are no entries for "Miano, Joe" in CRISP. I call shenanigans.
It might be nonsense for now to argue within the same context whether science or religion takes the essence of truth, since they respectively take different parts of perception of us about what the world looks like. I believe this debate will come to an clear end when some gradual change collects its overwhelming strength someday in the future. For example, if science sees every corner of the universe and renders philosophy only mental training with litte real sense, no one will bother to mention God then. So the point is time only which can tell.