6 ms·

To play devil's advocate, can anyone provide a clear, concrete example of how it hurts science if the man in the street believes in creationism? This doesn't s

To play devil's advocate, can anyone provide a clear, concrete example of how it hurts science if the man in the street believes in creationism? This doesn't seem like an issue that it makes rational sense to get up in arms about. It seems emotion-driven to me, ironically.

scott_s 14y ago
Because that man's taxes fund scientific research.
- cli 14y ago
  Also, that man has some say in the direction of science policy through his (congressman? representative? What is the correct US term?).
  - jff 14y ago
    Both terms are correct, based on the 2-house model we have.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > congressman? representative? What is the correct US term? We have Senators in the Senate and Representatives in the House of Representatives; both can be called Congressmen or Congresswomen, but that term is more usually reserved for Representatives.
siglesias 14y ago
Perhaps the idea that God gave us the planet to exploit for its resources and animals to treat however we want, thus we shouldn't care about overtaxing the oceans and gas supply, granting animals rights, or concern ourselves with global warming, which God wouldn't let happen.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  A lot of Christian churches actually support a type of environmentalism under the idea that God gave man stewardship over the earth, which comes with the responsibility to keep it up. It's His creation, after all (under this belief).
  - siglesias 14y ago
    Undoubtedly. I didn't intend to generalize.
davidism 14y ago
The "man on the street" has a kid, a potential scientist. But instead of fostering curiosity about the way things work, instead of promoting the use of logic to understand his surroundings, the parent teaches the child "the Bible says so, and that's enough." Now we have one less potential scientist.
- kazoolist 14y ago
  ... or the kid's parents believe in creation but don't fit some ignoramus stereotype, and the kid comes to believe that the creation reveals the glory of a Creator (eg. Psalm 19), and accordingly this fosters curiosity about the way things work, and the kid becomes a scientist.
Shenglong 14y ago
It hurts science because it's wrong. I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but believing in creationism is the same as saying "I believe acceleration at the Earth's surface is exactly 10 km/s^2 because it says so in the Bible." (it doesn't... I hope) It discourages scientific criticism of ideas. When you are taught a scientific fact or theory, you are always welcomed to, and often encouraged to question it. "Why is acceleration 9.81m/s^2? How do I know that it is true as of right now? If I carry out my own experiment, will I see this?" When you listen to the "word of god", this is no longer the case. You know it's right because someone, thousands of years ago, apparently said it is. Yes, it can waste tax dollars - but we can always make more dollars. An innovative generation that can carry on mankind's survival? That's a little more important.
- waterlesscloud 14y ago
  How many discoveries in the past (and even in the present) were made by people who believed in Creationism? Why didn't that belief stop them from advancing science? Why would it now do so?
  - ako 14y ago
    Back ten, there wasn't a good scientific explanation for evolution. Now there is. Back then, believing in creationism, didn't mean rejecting science. These days, If you still believe in creationism, it means that you reject science.
  - famoreira 14y ago
    This is a list of famous thinkers/scientists who were also christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...
    - Alex3917 14y ago
      Science has practically been a branch of Christianity for the last 1,000 years. It's only since Reagan that science has essentially been hijacked by new atheism and private industry.
Pkeod 14y ago
Emotions are not in conflict with rational behavior; they cause rational behavior. It hurts because it is not just one man out there who is willfully ignorant about reality. There are a very large number of people in the US who believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, that everything is going to end any day now, that the environment isn't really worth protecting because of that, and by extension that it's not really worth doing anything meaningful. The religious people still vote, and their votes shape our policy. If their churches tell them to vote one way, and they do, the authority of the religiously fueled motivations highly define the results.
gareim 14y ago
Because sometimes the man in the street has an effect on others. Consider textbooks. Sometimes (like in Kansas 1999), creationists can control enough of the governing body for state textbooks that they can eliminate core ideas of evolution. I don't care what someone believes, but they shouldn't push unverifiable beliefs on impressionable kids.
AJ007 14y ago
As a child I went to private schools that taught creationism. I can't speak for how creationism is taught in other schools, but in the schools I attended it was nothing but a complete denial of science. It took me a while to figure that one out. Science fits together. When you deny the existence of biological evolution, decide the earth is under 10,000 years old, and say there is no such thing as the big bang, you end up with huge gaps in the scientific explanation of the universe. Once you do this, the world and the universe it sits in transforms from a place of logic and explainable order to one of superstition and chaos. If the earth is 10,000 years old, how is the Milky Way galaxy 100,000 light years in diameter? If there is no biological evolution, is genetic science a pseudo-science? Creationism taught in others ways is little better. This type of thinking destroys IQs.
patio11 14y ago
It seems emotion-driven to me, ironically. It is entirely a signaling/tribalism question. For example, I get asked whether I'm a creationist on a fairly regular basis by people who a) are aware that I'm religious and b) want to figure out whether that means I should be on the Enemies List. I'm not creationist, so I get marked down as Whee You're A Fellow Scientist (TM). It is not obvious to me that my views on, e.g., the Resurrection would merit that conclusion, but that is not the issue the two tribes picked to wage ultimately meaningless squabbles over. (Ironically, actual creationists have been pretty tolerant of me not being creationist. My guess is this is because I do not go out of my way to soulcrush them while screaming "I am a threat to your entire way of life.")
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
ChuckMcM 14y ago
I believe it is more nuanced than that, if you understand how science works, then you cannot believe a literal interpretation of genesis, thus if you do believe in a an earth that is less than 10,000 years old and humans appearing 10,000 years ago, then you didn't learn science correctly. Then based on that reasoning, (and this is the nuanced part), you may find your self opposed to things which are based on scientific investigation and a risk to the community. The most popular example is vaccination risks and benefits. One of the problems is that people are told that to believe in science means you cannot believe in God, and they have a strong belief in God so of the two they toss science rather than God out of their life. Its a poor choice. EDIT: I, like patio11 apparently, believe in both God and science. So its possible :-).
- patio11 14y ago
  Observe: you have constructed a tribe out of whole cloth, described them as The Other, and made anyone who carries an arbitrary signifier of membership into that tribe into your automatic enemy. Rationally speaking, if you're very vexed about vaccinations, you should ask whether someone is in favor of vaccinations, rather than attempting to guess their opinion on vaccinations by asking something orthogonal. If someone is opposed to vaccinations, it matters to you little whether that is because they're in the Tribe of UnScience (as evidenced by being biblical literalists) or if they're, e.g., against vaccinations because they're strict vegans and morally opposed to anything which might, at any point, involve an animal protein.
  - ChuckMcM 14y ago
    Fair point, attempting to respond to the parent question which was specifically "How it hurts science." My claim is that science is at its heart reasoned debate, and that belief in creationism is a rejection of reasoned debate, so it hurts science's ability to inform. Typically a counter example in creationism is to question dating methods, but without any reasoning as to how the dating methods are inaccurate (beyond the inaccuracies recognized by the community). Your counter example of animal proteins based on a preference for Veganism is fine, but if I showed you that the vaccination process never came close to an animal protein would you still reject it? And in rejecting it would you reject the entire herd immunity thesis or are you limiting to rejecting a belief in the efficacy of the vaccine on your personal health? Understanding reasoned debate is critical to understanding science and the process by which it comes to hold its beliefs. If you reject that then you both reject learning something new and the ability of science to be strengthened by your doubts.
thaumaturgy 14y ago
I think I can provide a strong argument for it. Will that be OK? First, can we agree that creationism is a religious doctrine, and thus it's OK to frame this roughly as a debate over the role of religion in science? Because, within that frame, Greta Christina has already made a more articulate argument against religion than I could [1]. The short of her argument is that because religion requires belief in improvable things, that makes it "uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction". And what are some of the most basic principles of science? Criticism, questioning, and self-correction. If the man on the street were to believe, say, that relativity was wrong, that the world was flat, and that it was actually supported on the back of a giant tortoise, what would that imply about their ability to reason on other topics? Is it wrong to conclude that, for example, they would believe similar fairy tales in fields like economics, politics, social justice, and environmentalism? The one thing that all of those fields have in common, which makes them more vulnerable to religious principles than other fields of science, is that their support is controlled almost entirely by a democratic population. So, if you have a large population which believes in creationism -- and therefore can easily ignore all of the overwhelming evidence for evolution in a field of concrete scientific study -- then you likely also will have a large population which believes that the country should close its borders and wage wars against people of other faiths. The default response to such policies is to try to overwhelm it with facts. You say, "these economic policies haven't worked in X, Y, or Z countries in time periods A, B, or C" ... but the problem is that you're dealing with people who place no stock in things like facts. (If you're jumping to argue that I'm wrong to draw this correlation, you should be prepared to handle the example of Romney and one of the most fact-challenged campaigns in the history of U.S. politics.) I think there are lots of other good arguments too, like the fact that it's hard to attract the world's top scientific and engineering talent to a country full of crazy people, which means that you can probably kiss your industrial leadership goodbye. But, honestly, that's not my argument. For me, widespread belief in creationism is bad for society because it's a gateway belief system to lots of other really bad things. (Aside: it looks like I get to take up the mantle of Science Evangelist this evening on HN; how much the poorer HN is for it.) [1]: http://www.alternet.org/print/story/143912/the_top_one_reason_religion_is_harmful http://www.alternet.org/print/story/143912/the_top_one_reaso... -- by the way, I am not at all a militant atheist. In fact, I don't even describe myself as an atheist any more due to the current religious-like fervor of New Atheism. I have no problem with people who hold religious beliefs. However, she makes a compelling point that is appropriate as a reference here.

scott_s 14y ago

Because that man's taxes fund scientific research.

cli 14y ago
Also, that man has some say in the direction of science policy through his (congressman? representative? What is the correct US term?).
- jff 14y ago
  Both terms are correct, based on the 2-house model we have.
- derleth 14y ago
  > congressman? representative? What is the correct US term? We have Senators in the Senate and Representatives in the House of Representatives; both can be called Congressmen or Congresswomen, but that term is more usually reserved for Representatives.

siglesias 14y ago

Perhaps the idea that God gave us the planet to exploit for its resources and animals to treat however we want, thus we shouldn't care about overtaxing the oceans and gas supply, granting animals rights, or concern ourselves with global warming, which God wouldn't let happen.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
A lot of Christian churches actually support a type of environmentalism under the idea that God gave man stewardship over the earth, which comes with the responsibility to keep it up. It's His creation, after all (under this belief).
- siglesias 14y ago
  Undoubtedly. I didn't intend to generalize.

davidism 14y ago

The "man on the street" has a kid, a potential scientist. But instead of fostering curiosity about the way things work, instead of promoting the use of logic to understand his surroundings, the parent teaches the child "the Bible says so, and that's enough." Now we have one less potential scientist.

kazoolist 14y ago
... or the kid's parents believe in creation but don't fit some ignoramus stereotype, and the kid comes to believe that the creation reveals the glory of a Creator (eg. Psalm 19), and accordingly this fosters curiosity about the way things work, and the kid becomes a scientist.

Shenglong 14y ago

It hurts science because it's wrong. I'm not trying to be a jackass here, but believing in creationism is the same as saying "I believe acceleration at the Earth's surface is exactly 10 km/s^2 because it says so in the Bible." (it doesn't... I hope) It discourages scientific criticism of ideas. When you are taught a scientific fact or theory, you are always welcomed to, and often encouraged to question it. "Why is acceleration 9.81m/s^2? How do I know that it is true as of right now? If I carry out my own experiment, will I see this?" When you listen to the "word of god", this is no longer the case. You know it's right because someone, thousands of years ago, apparently said it is. Yes, it can waste tax dollars - but we can always make more dollars. An innovative generation that can carry on mankind's survival? That's a little more important.

waterlesscloud 14y ago
How many discoveries in the past (and even in the present) were made by people who believed in Creationism? Why didn't that belief stop them from advancing science? Why would it now do so?
- ako 14y ago
  Back ten, there wasn't a good scientific explanation for evolution. Now there is. Back then, believing in creationism, didn't mean rejecting science. These days, If you still believe in creationism, it means that you reject science.
- famoreira 14y ago
  This is a list of famous thinkers/scientists who were also christians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_s...
  - Alex3917 14y ago
    Science has practically been a branch of Christianity for the last 1,000 years. It's only since Reagan that science has essentially been hijacked by new atheism and private industry.

Pkeod 14y ago

Emotions are not in conflict with rational behavior; they cause rational behavior. It hurts because it is not just one man out there who is willfully ignorant about reality. There are a very large number of people in the US who believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, that everything is going to end any day now, that the environment isn't really worth protecting because of that, and by extension that it's not really worth doing anything meaningful. The religious people still vote, and their votes shape our policy. If their churches tell them to vote one way, and they do, the authority of the religiously fueled motivations highly define the results.

gareim 14y ago

Because sometimes the man in the street has an effect on others. Consider textbooks. Sometimes (like in Kansas 1999), creationists can control enough of the governing body for state textbooks that they can eliminate core ideas of evolution. I don't care what someone believes, but they shouldn't push unverifiable beliefs on impressionable kids.

AJ007 14y ago

As a child I went to private schools that taught creationism. I can't speak for how creationism is taught in other schools, but in the schools I attended it was nothing but a complete denial of science. It took me a while to figure that one out. Science fits together. When you deny the existence of biological evolution, decide the earth is under 10,000 years old, and say there is no such thing as the big bang, you end up with huge gaps in the scientific explanation of the universe. Once you do this, the world and the universe it sits in transforms from a place of logic and explainable order to one of superstition and chaos. If the earth is 10,000 years old, how is the Milky Way galaxy 100,000 light years in diameter? If there is no biological evolution, is genetic science a pseudo-science? Creationism taught in others ways is little better. This type of thinking destroys IQs.

patio11 14y ago

It seems emotion-driven to me, ironically. It is entirely a signaling/tribalism question. For example, I get asked whether I'm a creationist on a fairly regular basis by people who a) are aware that I'm religious and b) want to figure out whether that means I should be on the Enemies List. I'm not creationist, so I get marked down as Whee You're A Fellow Scientist (TM). It is not obvious to me that my views on, e.g., the Resurrection would merit that conclusion, but that is not the issue the two tribes picked to wage ultimately meaningless squabbles over. (Ironically, actual creationists have been pretty tolerant of me not being creationist. My guess is this is because I do not go out of my way to soulcrush them while screaming "I am a threat to your entire way of life.")

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

ChuckMcM 14y ago

I believe it is more nuanced than that, if you understand how science works, then you cannot believe a literal interpretation of genesis, thus if you do believe in a an earth that is less than 10,000 years old and humans appearing 10,000 years ago, then you didn't learn science correctly. Then based on that reasoning, (and this is the nuanced part), you may find your self opposed to things which are based on scientific investigation and a risk to the community. The most popular example is vaccination risks and benefits. One of the problems is that people are told that to believe in science means you cannot believe in God, and they have a strong belief in God so of the two they toss science rather than God out of their life. Its a poor choice. EDIT: I, like patio11 apparently, believe in both God and science. So its possible :-).

patio11 14y ago
Observe: you have constructed a tribe out of whole cloth, described them as The Other, and made anyone who carries an arbitrary signifier of membership into that tribe into your automatic enemy. Rationally speaking, if you're very vexed about vaccinations, you should ask whether someone is in favor of vaccinations, rather than attempting to guess their opinion on vaccinations by asking something orthogonal. If someone is opposed to vaccinations, it matters to you little whether that is because they're in the Tribe of UnScience (as evidenced by being biblical literalists) or if they're, e.g., against vaccinations because they're strict vegans and morally opposed to anything which might, at any point, involve an animal protein.
- ChuckMcM 14y ago
  Fair point, attempting to respond to the parent question which was specifically "How it hurts science." My claim is that science is at its heart reasoned debate, and that belief in creationism is a rejection of reasoned debate, so it hurts science's ability to inform. Typically a counter example in creationism is to question dating methods, but without any reasoning as to how the dating methods are inaccurate (beyond the inaccuracies recognized by the community). Your counter example of animal proteins based on a preference for Veganism is fine, but if I showed you that the vaccination process never came close to an animal protein would you still reject it? And in rejecting it would you reject the entire herd immunity thesis or are you limiting to rejecting a belief in the efficacy of the vaccine on your personal health? Understanding reasoned debate is critical to understanding science and the process by which it comes to hold its beliefs. If you reject that then you both reject learning something new and the ability of science to be strengthened by your doubts.

thaumaturgy 14y ago

I think I can provide a strong argument for it. Will that be OK? First, can we agree that creationism is a religious doctrine, and thus it's OK to frame this roughly as a debate over the role of religion in science? Because, within that frame, Greta Christina has already made a more articulate argument against religion than I could [1]. The short of her argument is that because religion requires belief in improvable things, that makes it "uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction". And what are some of the most basic principles of science? Criticism, questioning, and self-correction. If the man on the street were to believe, say, that relativity was wrong, that the world was flat, and that it was actually supported on the back of a giant tortoise, what would that imply about their ability to reason on other topics? Is it wrong to conclude that, for example, they would believe similar fairy tales in fields like economics, politics, social justice, and environmentalism? The one thing that all of those fields have in common, which makes them more vulnerable to religious principles than other fields of science, is that their support is controlled almost entirely by a democratic population. So, if you have a large population which believes in creationism -- and therefore can easily ignore all of the overwhelming evidence for evolution in a field of concrete scientific study -- then you likely also will have a large population which believes that the country should close its borders and wage wars against people of other faiths. The default response to such policies is to try to overwhelm it with facts. You say, "these economic policies haven't worked in X, Y, or Z countries in time periods A, B, or C" ... but the problem is that you're dealing with people who place no stock in things like facts. (If you're jumping to argue that I'm wrong to draw this correlation, you should be prepared to handle the example of Romney and one of the most fact-challenged campaigns in the history of U.S. politics.) I think there are lots of other good arguments too, like the fact that it's hard to attract the world's top scientific and engineering talent to a country full of crazy people, which means that you can probably kiss your industrial leadership goodbye. But, honestly, that's not my argument. For me, widespread belief in creationism is bad for society because it's a gateway belief system to lots of other really bad things. (Aside: it looks like I get to take up the mantle of Science Evangelist this evening on HN; how much the poorer HN is for it.) [1]: http://www.alternet.org/print/story/143912/the_top_one_reason_religion_is_harmful http://www.alternet.org/print/story/143912/the_top_one_reaso... -- by the way, I am not at all a militant atheist. In fact, I don't even describe myself as an atheist any more due to the current religious-like fervor of New Atheism. I have no problem with people who hold religious beliefs. However, she makes a compelling point that is appropriate as a reference here.