|
MARK L. BAKKE'S
  Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 Last Update: 23 Apr 99 Return to "Evolution vs. Creationism" essay Back to Philosophy page Please feel free to E-mail me with your own comments on this issue or on anything else included in my Philosophy of Life section. Debate is good!
Please report any problems with this page to the
Webmaster!
|
|
REPLY #30 TO
"EVOLUTION VS. CREATIONISM"
Boldfaced statements are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
 Italicized/emphasized comments prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited. My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text and are prefaced by my initials (MB). (R) 1. What is your position in the creationism vs evolutionism? (MB) My position is solidly on the side of evolution. Creationism is nothing more than an extension of Christian fundamentalism and Biblical literalism. Creationism is not science and has absolutely nothing to do either with science or with reality. (R) 2. Why Do you Believe this? Do you have facts to back yourself? (MB) I believe this because every single piece of available evidence supports it and since there is neither one single piece of reliable evidence nor one decent argument which opposes it. The evidence is contained in hundreds of thousands of libraries, laboratories and museums around the world and is freely available for anybody to see and to examine for themselves. (R) 3. Why do you think that almost 48% of the People in the US take the bible litterally (refering to them believing in Creationism)? (MB) There are several things that contribute to this. For example, the great majority of Americans are indoctrinated into religious beliefs almost from the very day they are born. If they grow up hearing little other than how wonderful the Bible is, they will naturally tend to accept that without a second thought. Also, science can be a difficult subject and one in which too many people do not wish to invest the required time and effort to understand. Consequently, these people do not become exposed to the evidence which would call their Bibles into question and provide real answers to their questions. Also, I believe that the percentage of people who actually take the Bible literally and who actually believe in Creationism is significantly less than the one you quoted. While over 80% of Americans are Christians, it is only the small percentage who have fundamentalist beliefs who consider the Bible to be literally true. The rest believe in the general story that is being told, but accept that it is not inerrant and that parts of the Bible are poetry, allegory and outright fiction which nobody should try to take literally. Finally, while the majority of Christians believe that Man was created by God, they accept that evolution could have been God's instrument of creation. Fundmentalists err when they try to claim that evolution and belief in God are mutually-exclusive. (R) 4. How do you think the world will react if creationism or evolutionism was proved correct? (MB) For the most part, the world pretty much accepts that evolution has been proved correct. Remember that Biblical literalism and Christian fundamentalism apply only to a small percentage of American Christians. Compared to the population of the world, Creationists are a very minor and insignificant lot. If Creationism was ever proved to be correct, the effects would be mind-boggling. Pretty much all of science, logic and philosophy would have to be either discarded or seriously reworked. All of the world's non-Christian religions would be thrown into utter turmoil. Fortunately, no thinking person is worried that there is any more than a 0% chance of Creationism being proven correct. In fact, after decades of dedicated efforts, Creationists have utterly failed to put a single dent into evolution theory or any other part of science and have been completely unable to show so much as one piece of solid evidence in favor of their own ideas. This calls into serious doubt their ability to do so at any time in the foreseeable future. (R) 5. Do you think that the Pope was truly meaning that the Roman Catholic religion doesn't interfere with the teachings of evolution? Or was he just trying to get evolutionists off of his back? Why? (MB) I rather doubt that the Pope is concerned the least little bit about whether or not evolutionists are on his back about anything. Therefore, there's little reason to think that his statements about the compatibility of evolution and Catholic doctrine are not his true beliefs. (R) 6. Do you think that the schools should be allowed to teach evolution without creationism? Or visa versa? Why? (MB) Creationism has no place in a science classroom since it is not science by any stretch of the imagination. Therefore, there is no reason not to allow the teaching of evolution unless it also includes Creationism. Creationism will be welcomed into science classrooms about the same time that Bibles start including sidebars or footnotes pointing out conflicts between its text and the facts of science and history. Schools are free to teach Creationism, of course, but would have to be honest and teach it as a religious subject rather than as science. This also would mean that it would have to be an elective course and not a mandatory part of the curriculum. Actually, I feel that a class that objectively teaches and contrasts Biblical creation myths along with the creation stories of other religions would be very interesting and useful. How many Creationists even acknowledge that there *are* other religions with their own creation myths?
Created with Allaire HomeSite 4.0 .......... Last Update: 23 Apr 99
E-mail: mlbakke1@bakkster.com Earthlink Network Home Page |