Creationism - Pseudo-science that lingers

According to Science Magazine, the United States ranks 33rd out of 34 countries in its acceptance of evolution, just ahead of Turkey and behind such enlightened nations as Latvia and Romania.  It's hard to believe that in the 21st century so many Americans are unwilling to accept the scientific theory of evolution.  Followers of Creationism sneer at the word "theory" as if that somehow buttresses their argument for a 7-day Divine Design - Quick! More ferns in the Northern Hemisphere! - ignoring the accepted scientific definition of the word,  which is, a reasoned explanation of why things occur in the natural world, brought about by observable facts.  (Just like gravity is a scientific theory.)  Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents have no such facts at their disposal.

The New York Times has a fascinating in-depth report about a Florida educator's struggle to teach evolution to students who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible.  Amy Harmon writes:  "Some come armed with 'Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,' a document circulated on the Internet that highlights supposed weaknesses in evolutionary theory.  Others scrawl their opposition on homework assignments.  Many just tune out.  With a mandate to teach evolution but little guidance as to how, science teachers are contriving their own ways to turn a culture war into a lesson plan.  How they fare may bear on whether a new generation of Americans embraces scientific evidence alongside religious belief."  David Campbell's efforts to enlighten an unreceptive biology class provide a fascinating glimpse at an educational system still cowed by the Religious Right.  (There's more after the jump...)

Nathan Schneider at AlterNet places the debate in historical perspective:  "Evolution's biggest gains in public schools happened in the late 1950s, free from courtroom drama.  When Russia scared the United States half to death by launching the Sputnik satellite into space, everyone agreed that there was no time for funny business.  We couldn't risk getting behind the Reds in science education.  The Biological Sciences Curriculum Study was launched and generously funded, setting forth a scientist-approved, evolution-based curriculum that schools eagerly adopted. In the spirit of nationalism, Christians began folding evolution snugly into their faith, at least until the young-earth creationist Henry Morris called them back to task in the sixties and seventies." 

Jason Rosenhouse has been covering the so-called Sixth International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh.  He says that while he's been impressed with the temperament and personalities of those attending the conference, "the fact remains that they are hopelessly ignorant of science.  This ignorance is exacerbated by the annoying fact that so many of them fancy themselves highly knowledgeable indeed."  After one Creation "scientist" cites the lack of fossil evidence to support evolution, Rosenhouse says, "Look, the fossil record is the most obvious place to look for evidence of evolution.  If it were really the embarrassment creationists say it is, how do you explain that virtually every paleontologist in the world is an evolutionist?  And if geneticists really could not explain how genetic information can grow over time, one of the fundamental questions any theory of evolution has to explain, why would evolution be so overwhelmingly dominant among scientists?"  Rosenhouse is correct.  But arguments with Biblical literalists, no matter how reasoned, invariably fall on deaf ears.

There's an excellent 2-hour Nova special, Judgment Day - Intelligent Design on Trial, that documents the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District court case.  The 2005 case was the first direct challenge brought in a U.S. federal court against a public school district that required the presentation of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in explaining the origin of life.  The PBS program can be viewed online, in its entirety, here.  It's divided into twelve segments, for user-friendly access.  Highly recommended.

Or, if science isn't your cup of tea, surf over to the Creation Museum for a few chuckles.  (I realize these folks sincerely believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.  But take a look at this exhibit photo below.  That's a velociraptor.  Shouldn't the girl mannequin be placed in a running-and-screaming pose?  I'm just sayin'...)

Comments

[Bruce Meeder]

Nice article, it is unfortunate that you don't base a scientific discussion on science. Intelligent Design has more credence than evolution which defies the basic laws of nature. It is a shame that you haven't looked into the scientific evidence behind Intelligent Design. You can only quote others and state that most Paleontologist still support Evolution. How about Micobiologists do most of them support Evolution. The answer to that is no. For complex DNA strands and Chromosomes to have been created at by chance is absurd.

[Samuel Thomas]

There are billions of planets. It was almost certain to happen by chance somewhere. Denying the possibility of chance creating life after it has happened is like winning the lottery and then saying, "Oh no. It was so unlikely to win the lottery, so I didn't." We have a planet being bombarded by energy from the Sun for its whole existence, and chance threw up some proteins, phospholipids, ribonucleic acids, deoxribonucleic acids, and such. The likelihood was inarguably low, but with billions of planets over billions of years, it was nearly certain to happen, and it happened here.

[Samuel Thomas]

There are billions of planets. It was almost certain to happen by chance somewhere. Denying the possibility of chance creating life after it has happened is like winning the lottery and then saying, "Oh no. It was so unlikely to win the lottery, so I didn't." We have a planet being bombarded by energy from the Sun for its whole existence, and chance threw up some proteins, phospholipids, ribonucleic acids, deoxribonucleic acids, and such. The likelihood was inarguably low, but with billions of planets over billions of years, it was nearly certain to happen, and it happened here.

[Dylan Cerling]

Whether or not you believe in a higher power, and whether or not you believe that higher power created Earth and all its denizens, Intelligent Design can never be a scientific theory by the mere fact that it is impossible to disprove - an essential component of any scientific theory.

The fact that there is no evidence for Intelligent Design is just icing on the cake. Intelligent Design proponents are limited to attacking Darwinian theory, saying that because they can't imagine such a complicated system arising from mere chance, there must be a creator. Even supposing that such a complicated system cannot arise from mere chance (though there is evidence that this is possible), saying that "therefore there is a creator" is a logical fallacy - an argument from ignorance.

Even Intelligent Design proponents agree with the fact that a) science has a recognized definition (observation, disprovable hypothesis, experimentation/supporting evidence) and that b) Intelligent Design does not work inside that definition. Their response? To try and change the definition of science.

[Amanda]

Creationists need to read a book besides the Bible.

[Mark G.]

Creationists believe the earth was created in 6 days and then God "rested" on the 7th day. Since an earth day is one revolution of the planet and nightime is really just the shadow of the earth, I can`t help wonder why God would be confined to such a time frame. And since day and night are at different locations on earth at the same time, God would also have to be located in one spot on the planet. The sun is always shining in outer space and there is no day and night. Why would God use earth "days" to create the universe? Also, if God rested on the seventh day does that mean God gets tired, like a human or animal that has evolved with this night and day cycle?

[Carl]

Perhaps we should furnish the creationists and intelligent designers with chemistry and geology texts, and ask them to pray the prayers in the chem and geo texts.

Perhaps ... after a while ... they will figure out that there are no prayers in the science texts - just as there is no science in the bible.

The fundamental problem here is one of philosophy, that is, understanding how to ask meaningful questions of your discipline.
If you ask stupid questions - you get stupid answers. Philosophy does not give us the answers - it lets us understand the questions.
___

[Marina]

Why can one not believe in God and Evolution? If one believes in Divine creation, is it so unfathomable to think that God would have not had the ability or the forethought to set up a system where life could basically adapt to its environment and survive? And, if one does take the Bible literally, would it not be true to at least admit that the world has changed since it was written? If Divine inspiration was given to the men who wrote the stories of the Bible to help a confused world make sense of their surroundings based on their ability to understand it; is it impossible to believe that perhaps scientific discovery and the discovery of evolution is yet another gift from God – the next step if you will -- to help us further make sense of our world? Or did God stop inspiring people after the Bible was written?

Either way, this is not science – it’s an interesting discussion for a religion or philosophy class. But one can not reconcile science and faith unless one has a clear understanding what each is. Ignorance isn’t faith… It’s willful blindness. If one’s faith can’t withstand discovery and the seeking of truth, then perhaps rather than trying to inflict those beliefs on others, one should instead look within.

[GenV]

Although it is not yet well understood, dark matter appears to account for around 90% of the mass of most galaxies. Observational data suggests that supermassive black holes may exist at the center of many, if not all, galaxies. They are proposed to be the primary cause of active galactic nuclei found at the core of some galaxies. The Milky Way galaxy appears to harbor at least one such object within its nucleusAlthough it is not yet well understood, dark matter appears to account for around 90% of the mass of most galaxies. Observational data suggests that supermassive black holes may exist at the center of many, if not all, galaxies. They are proposed to be the primary cause of active galactic nuclei found at the core of some galaxies. The Milky Way galaxy appears to harbor at least one such object within its nucleusAlthough it is not yet well understood, dark matter appears to account for around 90% of the mass of most galaxies. Observational data suggests that supermassive black holes may exist at the center of many, if not all, galaxies. They are proposed to be the primary cause of active galactic nuclei found at the core of some galaxies. The Milky Way galaxy appears to harbor at least one such object within its nucleus

[ClubPenguin]

The sun is always shining in outer space and there is no day and night. Why would God use earth "days" to create the universe? Also, if God rested on the seventh day does that mean God gets tired, like a human or animal that has evolved with this night and day cycle?