Reason #1: It interferes with the proper education of young people, both in terms of rational thinking and in terms of scientific literacy.
It might help if you had some statistics to support your claim that creationism is bad for American education rather than your own opinions about the Flood and other Creationist arguments.
There is no evidence whatever that rational thinking is adversely affected by being taught creationism.
I know some Christian families homeschool because they don't want evolution taught to their children, but homeschooling generally produces high achievement and successful people contrary to what those of your opinions would expect. How many of the homeschooled are Christians who insist on Creationism I didn't research, but I do know personally of homeschooling families whose offspring were taught creationism and are doing extremely well in college.
I also don't know exactly how Creationism is taught in those contexts unfortunately, but apparently neither do you. What you get here at EvC is a lot of us who like to think about the issues and you clearly find our reasoning deficient in this context, but our views are not what is taught.
My guess is that good general science is taught to Christian homeschoolers, because despite the false idea that is so popular here, science and evolution are NOT synonymous. And these students do well with it when they leave home.
This next story on the other hand suggests that there's a lot that's wrong with American education that has nothing to do with creationism: Boy with D and C on report card is "honor" student, the sort of thing that must be attributed to "liberal" stupidity that wants everybody to FEEL they do well without regard to how well they actually do. THAT has been a HUGE and growing problem with American education over the last five or so decades.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
2Cr 10:4-5 (For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
Well, produce some evidence then. I did. You didn't like it but it wasn't just my own opinion, it gave supposedly objective assessments. I suspect they are quite accurate but of course you don't like them. So get your own. I also gave an illustration of what I think really IS wrong with American education. Not just my opinion, a news report. Again, come up with your own source of statistics to buttress your opinion.
Another example is ID/creationists expecting one modern species to evolve into another modern species.
Furthermore, their misconceptions about evolution have them expecting a member of one species to give birth to young of an entirely different genus or other higher taxon -- eg, dogs giving birth to kittens, "a snake laid an egg and a bird hatched out".
That's how they think that evolution works even though it is completely contrary to evolution. And I have yet to see any creationist even begin to try to explain why they expect that.
I also see a lot of creationist statements to the effect that they expect a new species to arise instantaneously when a member of the ancestral species (100% of that ancestral species) gives birth to a single member of the new species (100% of that new species). Of course, that is not at all how evolution works, but again no creationist will even begin to try to explain why they expect that.
I can't imagine where you are seeing such stuff. Creationists here come up with some odd ideas, but I don't think I've seen anything that wrong here.
My problem is that mutations aren't going to occur in a coherent enough way to produce anything you could call a species that evolved from another species. Even taking millions of years.
Don't think as an individual. Think as a population. How many genes are there? How many different alleles are there for each gene?
Each gene NORMALLY has TWO alleles. If there are more in a population for a particular gene, those are mutations. In some cases such as the genes in the Immune System that is a decided disadvantage for the species. As I recall there are few hundred genes in the Immune System, and most, or all, of them have many alleles. That means many alleles scattered throughout the population since an individual will have only two per gene. Where are all the other alleles for that gene? Scattered throughout the population in different individuals.
So what started out as a system to protect against a few hundred diseases is now scattered so that any given individual may have protection for that collection of diseases, while another individual has protection against a different collection. While you may be protected against a particular immune-deficient disease your neighbor may have no protection at all against that disease but could have protection against a disease for which you have no protection. That's what happens when you get lots of alleles for a particular gene scattered through the population. Many alleles for many genes just compounds the problem if we're talking about the immune system. Of course MOST of them won't alter the function of the gene, and that's a mercy, but over time with the proliferation of mutations the situation I describe above is only going to increase, which amounts to a form of Russian roulette for individual inheritance of disease protections. Some get a particular protection, some don't.
For some genes it may not be a particular problem of course even if the mutated "alleles" get fixed in an individual, or a subpopulation.
Eye color is a good example. How many different eye colors are there. Every shade of blue, brown, and everything in between. Eye color is the result of multiple proteins from multiple genes. So there are literally thousands of alleles all of differing proteins scattered among the population gene pool just affecting eye color.
Yes I've had in mind that there are many genes for eye color in order to explain the great range of eye color. Each gene normally has two alleles but many genes each with two alleles should be able to create many shades of eye color. That would be the normal situation, but if there are also multiple alleles for some or all of those genes they may not create a problem similar to that for the immune system but it's hard to see how they would contribute anything new or useful anyway. Since most will be neutral those aren't any problem, but if the original system provides for all the shades of eye color needed then we don't need the additional alleles, and I'm not sure how to imagine what they might do. I guess some could change the eye color, but probably just changing it to a color that's already available in the system anyway. But there is no need for all those thousands that I can see, because the combination of possibilities just from those genes should be enough to bring about all the possible shades of color. If you get a mutation that destroys the function of the allele altogether what would happen to the eye? What would that destroyed protein do? And could you even get something unique and new, say a uniquely new eye color? A brand new protein for a brand new eye color?
I don't see how you're even going to get a really new and different eye color no matter how many mutations you've got in alleles for genes for eye color. I know it SEEMS **** all those mutations MUST do something but when you think about it it's really not clear if that could happen at all.
[aside]The proteins in the eye are produced for various reasons, eye color not being one of them. The physics of light frequencies absorbed/reflected off the structures in the eye made by those proteins, **** the iris, determine the outward appearing color. The color is of no importance.
It's often difficult to figure out what's essential and what's superfluous but since we're focused on eye color at the moment, whatever affects that is what's essential at the moment.
However, if you want to say the proteins produced by the genes affect the eye in many other ways, making the iris color an accidental byproduct, OK, then now we are talking about other properties of the eye. Llke what? And what happens to Mendel's observations about how BB, Bb and bb are the formula for blue and brown eyes?
Only the structure and operation. It takes a lot of different proteins to build and operate an eye. That means a lot of different genes.
So now you're saying the genes aren't particularly for eye color at all, but are all involved in forming all the eye functions? Is this known for sure?
Each one of those genes with thousands of alleles in the pool to give it expression.
But those thousands of alleles are scattered through the population, so the expression you say they give the gene are available only to separate individuals. Is that a good thing? Is that what you have in mind? So an individual here gets one kind of expression and an individual there gets a different kind? But again most of them won't do anything, being neutral. Hard to see how this situation is beneficial at all to any population.
Only a few will be available within the parents to pass to a specific offspring.
Not clear what you have in mind here. "Within the parent?" "pass to a specific offspring?" For any given gene only one allele per parent will be available to pass along. If you're talking about many genes, then only one allele per each of the many genes will be available to pass along. And if there are thousands of alleles in the population, any given parent will have just one per gene to pass along anyway. The other thousands-- most of which would be neutral, and probably those possessed by our parent here too for that matter -- will be scattered among thousands of other individuals. I really doubt this is a good thing, or a normal thing, or even if it really is the actual situation.
But in a gene pool of billions of individuals there are, quite literally, several million alleles all doing the same thing ... but different ... any one of which the offspring can pick up from the general population in the form of a mate.
But all those mutations aren't really doing anything "different." Why should they? Most, again, are neutral anyway, not changing the protein or the protein's function. And just because you've got thousands or millions of them why should any of them, even a very few of them, do something really different? And what sort of difference do you have in mind? HOW different? IN WHAT WAY different? And why should it be different in a good way? And if only a few have this difference it's a very few individuals that have it.
Any single allele for a single gene would just do what mutations do: mostly nothing, since most mutations are "neutral" and don't affect the phenotype.
So what. In a population of billions that still leaves many millions of new alleles each generation that may be beneficial now or in some future phenotype. You have no way of knowing. Yes, the various phenotypes resulting from a future gene pool will differ significantly to the phenotypes producible from the present pool.
First, as I've saying, this idea that new alleles per gene just keep accumulating is either not happening as you think it is, or it's so abnormal it can only cause problems as it does in the immune system. Or do nothing at all despite so many of them. To get new phenotypes, even really dramatically new phenotypes, all you need is an isolated gene pool, the smaller the better, and the more isolated the better. It won't take many generations in a small gene pool to produce a whole new population of something completely new and different in a given species. It will be obviously that same species, but maybe smaller or larger, a different color or range of colors, different behaviorally, whatever, lots of differences. You guys make much too much of mutations. They really aren't necessary and they don't do what you think they do.
This makes me slck. I already understand all of that. All you are doing is misreading my words. The only thing you are saying that's different is about the immune system, but others said during that discussion a long time ago that the different genes of that system WERE changed by the mutations that put so many different alleles into the population, and that they DID protect against different diseases as a result of those mutations so that individuals now had different kinds of protection against diseases. I know that the alleles circulating in the population do not "accumulate" on the gene as you interpreted it. I have no reason to give up the idea that all those "alleles" which are mutations, are mistakes, they do not further anything the genome does, they interfere with it. This is not worth discussing any more. Stop "correcting" me and try to figure out what I'm saying. Oh never mind.
Bible believers do not worship the Bible, we treat it as the source of information about God and His doings on this Earth, having no other source of information about any of that. And Creationism takes many forms, especially since the Bible doesn't give much information, but there is no violation of anything about Christ or His ministry in following out what we are able to grasp of what information is available to us.
I do try to keep up with your churlish and pharisaical misrepresentations so I can answer them.