The Muncie Star Press has an editorial entitled “What’s So Bad About Creationism in Public Schools,” providing an apology for the Senate Education Committee in passing the creation science bill. It does its readers a disservice in a couple of respects:
First, it dances around the idea that this bill is about teaching creationism as science. “It depends how the subject is taught,” hedges the Star Press. The bill doesn’t speak to “creationism as philosophy” or “creationism as literature.” It speaks to “creation science.” The editorial’s disingenuous attitude also ignores the whole background of this debate — creation science purports to be a scientific competitor to evolution and was advanced for that purpose. As literature, Genesis serves without embellishment. As philosophy, religious scholars have done better than “creation science.”
Second, and less excusable, is that the Muncie Star Press either does not know or refuses to inform its readers about the distinction between a scientific theory and the more common use of the word.
We … note the bill stresses “theories” on the origins of life. . . . We think a thorough education exposes students to different theories . . . Presenting theories in an educational setting is not an endorsement of religion
By ignoring the critical distinction between scientific theory and the type of theory that can be no more than a wild-ass guess, the editorial gives cover to a convenient ambiguity whereby when challenged legally, defenders can say, “Whoah! Who said anything about science? No science here. Nope;” when, in practice, the idea is for “creation science” to present a challenge within the science class to evolution.
The only way this bill could be made remotely acceptable is if it specified that “creation science” can not be taught as a scientific theory. But then the bill itself would be useless because creationism can already be taught in non-scientific classes – history, humanities, epistemology, literature, mythology, religion, etc.
The Star Press’s insistence on muddling scientific theory with non-scientific theories underscores the potential for confusion; intentional, I think, on the part of creationism proponents. But, for our kids to have an understanding of science, they have to have a clear idea of what scientific theory is and what it is not (in my last post, I explained in some detail how “creation science” fails as scientific theory) — allowing “creation science” to be confused with scientific theory fundamentally undermines that understanding. By kicking dust in the air on this issue, the Muncie Star Press has now played its part in undermining a clear understanding of what constitutes a scientific theory.
Doug — you have made some excellent points about the absurdities of the science creation legislation; I have long been appalled at the likes of Senator Dennis Kruse and others of his ilk who pander to the religious right with such blatantly offensive legislation. Your posts are outstanding in pointing out just how bad this bill — and others like it — are.
What I don’t understand about the latest errant Kruse missile is this: the religious right and other doubters of evolution have long moved away from creation science into “intelligent design.” Having lost just about every court battle on measures that speak about creation as a science or as the movement was known in the late 1980’s and 1990’s as “scientific creationism” these idiots have moved into calling their movement “intelligent design” in an attempt to overcome various judicial objections.
What I don’t understand is why wouldn’t Kruse write a bill that reflects “intelligent design” and not the long-abandoned “creation science” which would obviously not withstand judicial scrutiny? (Not that intelligent design is faring any better in the courts) Is this a cynical ploy by the Senator to appease his religious right constituents, knowing that the bill will never become law? Or is Kruse ignorant about the movement toward intelligent design. I mean, creation science is so 1990’s! I guess I would want the lunatic fringe to be current and up-to-date in their various anti-science musings so that I too am current as I lampoon and ridicule these fools and their latest attempts to impose their brand of religion on the Hoosier public. Any thoughts?
No idea. Evidence that we’re even behind the times on being behind the times?
Board meeting somewhere in the world. “where should we Build the new facility?” “how about Indiana? They’re business friendly, good universities, strong talent pool, reasonable cost of living.” “wow, why haven’t we considered Indiana before?” “whoa, I just googled the state and they teach creationism as science!” “Ah Hahahahaha ha ha!” “ok folks lets weed out states that think eclipses are caused by giant beetles eating the sun.”
!!!
I have no idea of the Senator’s personal views, but there are hardline Creationists who consider Intelligent Design a version of evolutionism, not of creationism, and most of the proponents of Intelligent Design do accept the great age of the earth and the occurrence of evolution, and reject the “creationist” label as a matter of principle — quite apart from any desire to get their views in the public schools. So although you can probably find courts who say there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between the two, those courts are mistaken about the facts if not about the relevant legal principles. (Everyone’s entitled to his own view. Nobody’s entitled to his own facts.)
I would concede that Intelligent Design may be bad science (I am in no position to judge that really), but it is science of a sort because it attempts to explain why, in principle, certain observed facts of nature or anatomical structures could not have evolved gradually. In this effort, they are taking up a gauntlet thrown down by Darwin himself, attempting to identify anatomical phenomena that are “irreducibly complex” (Michael Behe) or arguing from information theory that the information content of DNA, for instance, exhibits a high degree of “specified complexity” (William Dembski).
Unless you wish merely to be a partisan, you might do well to familiarize yourself with Behe and Dembski. What you will not find in those books is any effort whatever to reconcile “science” with the book of Genesis, which you’ll find all over Creationist telling of things. Neither closes with any invitation to drop to your knees and “pray the sinner’s prayer.” Of course, there have been many efforts to debunk Behe in particular.
Having said that, I nevertheless think that the Senator’s Bill is some kind of foolishness. Just as there has long been an” abortion distortion factor,” whereby normal rules of law fly out the window in order to strike down legislation that would restrict abortion in any way (Gonzalez v. Carhart may have turned a corner), so too is there a “creationism distortion factor” whereby creationists lose in federal court when they are wrong, when they are right, and when they are anywhere in between. If it signed into law, there will be a legal challenge and if legally challenged,the state will unnecessarily spend a lot of attorney general time losing the case.
I regret having written something so long. I didn’t have time to write anything shorter.
ID is no more scientific than Creation Science; it just uses the trappings of science more effectively to disguise itself. Behe’s own testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover is sufficient to disprove irreducible and specified complexity, and the decision in that case takes ID to task for the same reasons that creationism was taken to task in Edwards v. Aguillard.
What’s most incomprehensible about this “creation science” nonsense is that its proponents, by insisting it be taught as a science, seem to have implicitly accepted that science has a monopoly on Truth, to the exclusion even of faith.
Even I don’t accept that proposition–there is Truth to be found in philosophy, literature, music, history, and a host of other non-scientific fields. I’m stunned that creationists apparently do.
That definitely seems like they’re fighting on the other guy’s battle field.
Good point.
It’s as if the scholastic tendencies of Western Christianity that have been around since the time of Thomas Aquinas if not before have found their culmination in Evangelical Protestantism.
The whole point of this bill is to force religion on students. All the other more suitable courses mentioned in previous posts (philosophy, literature) are often elective courses, basic science is mandatory. A saner course may to legislate an ethics course that touches upon various religious beliefs and religious tolerance.
Oh, please! Don’t make ethics just another course to be endured!
And–hopefully ethics and being ethical does not have to have a religious basis.
“…touches upon…”
Which known scientific principle does creation science usurp? WARNING!!! I am one of those stupid creationist so you should be able to greatly dominate me with your responses. Further, which known fact of science is dependent on the theory of evolution? I’m not asking for the reasonable 2 or 3 pieces of evidence but only a single instance in which a known fact of science would crumble without evolution (please cite a specific example, not a general.) In fact, Mr. Masson, when a scientist says there is no creator to interpret into creation, is he not stepping outside the realm of scientific discovery principles in even suggesting it?
It’s completely untestable. There is literally no way to run an experiment to see if there is a divine creator. Thus, it’s not a scientific claim.
What scientist is saying, as a matter of science, that there is no creator? Because science concerns itself with natural explanations for natural phenomena, it simply has nothing to say on matters of the supernatural. That’s why creationism has no business in the science classroom. Your stupidity, such as it is, isn’t that you believe that God created the world; it’s that you and those like you seem grimly determined not to understand what the scientific method can and cannot help us understand.
One thing is sure: Darwin’s theory that life has evolved from lower mentality to higher mentality in no way applies to the Indiana General Assembly.
I know people like me are stupid, but please answer the questions that I asked. You sort of answered one of them but in a very vague manner. The sense in which you are applying “creation science” is equally applicable to evolution. You’re an attorney, I know you understand and appreciate laying foundations for arguments. If you have no interest that’s fine, but it’s hard to proceed without having my questions answered (at least on this micro topic).
Your questions are non-sequiturs. The legislation in question and the Muncie Star’s editorial are about whether creation science should be taught as science. It shouldn’t because it posits untestable supernatural causes for creation of the earth and humans. Because its hypotheses can’t be tested and because it invokes the supernatural, “creation science” could conceivably be correct, but it cannot possibly be science. Your questions and concerns do nothing to address that issue.
Then allow me to be direct. You state:
“By ignoring the critical distinction between scientific theory and the type of theory that can be no more than a wild-ass guess”
Evolution is at best itself a wild-ass guess. Evolution as well as creationism are both models of interpretation. They are not, however, models of discovery and neither are strictly “scientific”. Both of these models of interpretation are predicated on presupposition. Evolution presupposes no supernatural and creationism presupposes God.
You and other anti-creationist grossly overstate the importance and necessity of the supposed “science” of evolution. This is why I asked you to identify and explain a single known fact of science dependent on the wild-ass guess of evolution. It does not exist and you will never be able to articulate that known fact that I requested from you. Remove evolution from the equation and you still have science.
A scientific fact is one that has been observationally confirmed and repeated. The tenants of evolution do not meet this requirement. Therefore, many want a weighty, alternate model of interpretation. Creationism provides this and it is falsifiable. I will explain this in more detail on another blog in the coming weeks.
The idea behind the inclusion of creation science is not provide an alternate model of scientific discovery. Rather it is to allow for an alternate model of interpretation. The science that you acknowledge today is science built on the foundation of the scientist of the past. Not scientists like von Helmont who believed and convince the world for nearly 2100 years that mice came from the mixing of dirty underwear and wheat (experiment conducted with a jar), but scientist that presupposed God and expected order through observable and repeatable laws. The latter is creationism.
I don’t think creation science is a good term, nor do I think intelligent design is a good term. But regardless of the semantics, the meaning is the same no matter what it is called. Both evolution and creationism belong in the philosophy department because neither meet the criteria for strict scientific tools of discovery.
I will not bother you any longer on this topic since you have other things to write about. But, if you are really dedicated to the opposition of the wild-ass guess of creationism please correct me at thePoliPit.com throughout 2012.
Also, I, like you do not think creationism should be taught in school; but certainly for different reasons.
Strangely, we are polar opposites but I do enjoy your blog.
Take care.
*tenets
So does the PoliticoMonk think amoxicillin is effective because it contains fairy dust?
If the Monk believes there is “no fact dependent on evolution” then the Monk may as well swallow some ampicillin with prayers next time an infection sets in. The Monk will need the prayers because ampicillin is likely to be ineffective in staving off infection. Bacteria and viruses have become immune to its antibiotic effects. They have lkely evolved through genetic mutation.
Evolution is not supportive of facts. It is a fact. It is observed in nature every day. Darwin’s research continues to be supported by our ever increasing understanding of genetics, and the fossil record continues to establish proof of shared physical traits between humans nd our quadrupedal ancestors.
I don’t know if any of this means that a certain young lady did not have a conversation with a serpent 6000 years ago, and I really don’t care. What I care about is a law permitting an educator to lie to his or her students. It’s unconscionable and so is this ridiculous law that seeks to enshrine the acceptance of theological snake oil.
“Bacteria and viruses have become immune to its antibiotic effects. They have lkely evolved through genetic mutation.”
The Monk sayeth: And genetically they are what after the mutation? You guessed it, bacteria and viruses. Creationists do not reject considerable variation within genetic perimeters. What we do reject is genetic alteration outside of the designed perimeters. Micro v. Macro evolution?
“Evolution is not supportive of facts. It is a fact.”
The Monk sayeth: I will stop blogging altogether if you can develop this sentence into a coherent thought. Really, I would take this one back. Ok, I won’t stop blogging but this one makes no sense at all.
” proof of shared physical traits between humans nd our quadrupedal ancestors”
The Monk sayeth: I understand our shared physical traits to be a result of the creativity by one God creating all things from the same substance. A painter’s works, a musician’s compositions, a writer’s novels are all unique to their workmanship and bear their signature. There is no mistaking Eddie Van Halen for Stevie Ray Vaughan. You may not agree with me that God created everything and that His workmanship as a whole bears His signature, but it is neither unreasonable nor illogical.
The Monk sayeth: The Monk must now go and drink his poison with prayer, not amoxicillin.
and about that fossil record…wow…I am surprised an evolutionist would even want to go down that road.
The idea that there even is such a thing as so-called “macroevolution” that is distinct in any meaningful way other than the time span over which it occurs from so-called “microevolution” is nonsense and something invented by reason-hating creationists to manufacture a dispute where none actually exists among those who know what they’re talking about.
If you accept so-called “microevolution,” then you cannot at the same time, while remaining consistent, refuse to accept so-called “macroevolution” since the latter is literally nothing more than the cumulative effect of the former over a longer time span. The distinction is an artificial one created out of nothing more than rank intellectual dishonesty.
If you were a Christian, you’d realize this. Instead, you seem to be an acolyte of the false prophet anti-Christ Paul of Tarsus, who founded a movement that to this day (through its various incarnations–Assyrian, Protestant, Roman Catholic, Byzantine Orthodox, Syriac, etc.) persists in nothing more than utter renunciation of the teachings of the Christ, teachings that include intellectual honesty and a rational rather than theistic approach to the world.
And yes, evolution is an easily-observable fact even on human time spans. Diseases change forms over time. We’ve seen evolution over human time spans in insects such as fruit flies and mosquitoes. “Evolution” is simply the fact of these changes occurring, and there’s no way to deny that these changes have in fact occurred short of flat-out lying. There are a number of ideas as to the mechanisms by which these changes occur and how they manifest themselves in broader ecology–one of those ideas being “natural selection”–some of which are better supported by evidence than others. But that evolution occurs at all is simply not something that can be denied without denying reality altogether.
Was not expecting a digression into the Pauline heresy. I love the commenters here!
Macro-evolution deals with cross gene pools whereas Micro-evolution deals with intra-gene pools (if that misrepresents the terms please correct it and cite the source but I am certain of my understanding). I placed a question mark earlier by those terms because these are terms created by anti-creationists, not people like me. The cumulative effect of intra-genetic change will never, ever, ever, effect cross genetic changes resulting in speciation outside of its genetic perimeter. Your prized fruit flies and mosquitoes are still fruit flies and mosquitoes after their “evolution”.
Evolution is not “just simply the fact of these changes occurring”. This is too general of a statement because evolution is much more than that.
Now concerning the Pauline heresy. I normally do not discuss ecclesiastical only theology because it doesn’t touch on daily living in our culture (but thanks for checking out thePoliPit.com to deduce your analysis because you didn’t get that from anything posted so far). Romans chapters 9-11 lay out the plot twist that most Christians do not get (and surprisingly you do get it, but instead of understanding you pervert it). All of Jesus’ disciples acknowledge that Paul was the new pattern. That no longer would things be as Jesus taught during His life. About a year after Israel rejected Christ as The Messiah (as you do) God turned from Israel directly to everyone (for a reason). The writers of the documents did not say “this heretic Paul is screwing things up”. Instead, they sadly acknowledge that Israel was no longer the the guidon carrier of the message of God. You say its heresy, but the 12 apostles said it was God; my money is on God, not you.
Hmm. Out of the debate a few days. Looks like that was a good place to be.