The Creationism/Evolution Debate
I really like this post by adelie42 on reddit. Very important points are shared regarding the evolution/creationism debate. In case it gets removed for some reason, here it is:
Title: How "Human Action" changed my perspective on the "Creationism versus Evolution" debate.
Post: After reading Mises' Human Action, it occurred to be that the debate is nonsensical. Primarily, the philosophical framework each theory is operating under are not compatible with each other for the purpose of meaningful debate. It makes less sense than debating "Fried Chicken" versus "Gun Control".
In short, there is no "trade off value" between each theory, and technically the theories are completely compatible with each other (in contrast to creating cognitive dissonance if attempted) when it is considered that:
Evolution - as a model for the causal relationship between the observed variation in species alive, and in fossil record. Of note, investigation into the theory of evolution has determined thus far (to my understanding) that the sustainability of a specific species distinct from other species is an emergent property of the relationship between environment and genetics, and that such changes are demonstrated to be "punctual", and not "gradual". This more or less explains the great diversity of species with small variations within them, and periodic extinctions, for which there is observable evidence. The acceptance / solidarity of this theory exists without an even remotely conflicting explanation to date. Advances in the theory over the past few decades have generally been adopted as quickly as they have been presented.versus
Creation(ism) - as a component of the teleological relationship between man and the universe for helping individuals discover their purpose of being. The story of "Genesis" explains in part that the origins of your being come from from the will of a great creator. Without going into the specifics (of which I would not be the best person to try and abridge), there has been a long tradition of passing wisdom from generation to generation through story. This wisdom, not easily quantifiable, has proven itself to be communicated well in this form and valuable to people, as much as gold has proven itself to be a good money historically. In attempt to give this message a bit more credit, if one is struggling with the question of the purpose of existence and associated free will, an axiom / foundation of certain faith, as expressed through the story of Genesis, your existence is not accidental.In my view, the debate of whether either should be taught at all, in a public school, a private school, in which classroom under what name, or by what teacher is ENTIRELY POLITICAL, no matter how either side tries to frame it. Are there real issues to resolve in developing a quality egalitarian curriculum (the necessity of which being a completely different debate)? Sure, but not to some great controversial degree with this issue worth berating people over relative to any other subject.
As a "fan" of science and the rise in the standard of living it has brought us, I am disappointed in my fellow science fans for seemingly making it appear as though only causal knowledge has has any kind of validity; at times it seems everything else is dismissed as, "well, that's just like your opinion, man", when something can't be proven by the venerated "scientific method". I think it is arguably as narrow minded (separate from excusable) as believing the Bible is the only canon of absolute truth.
Want a real issue? Why the hell are Economics classes still explaining US Interventionist policy as "the unquestionably reasonable compromise between the extremist proposals of Market versus Command economies"? As if that can be said with any kind of intellectual honesty. When will that belief be relegated to the category of "religion / history"?