There is a measurable, meaningful difference between evolution and creationism. This difference justifies excluding creationism (in any of its wedge or Trojan horse variations) from being inserted into the public school science classroom.
Evolution is a mainstay of scientific thought. 300,000+ articles have been published in science journals keyed to the word evolution in the last 15 years, in comparison to a handful of ID review articles (containing no research). Evolution is a well-established, accepted theory, used every day by scientists all over the world. Contrast folks who graduate with a geology degree from a creationist college, who have to use old earth models of geology to find oil, and who admit that they are not able to use anything they learned at school, as it does not correspond with reality.
Compare the success of evolution in explaining the world with creationism, which offers no coherent theory, no reseach program, no facts - only apologetics, criticism of evolution, and a belief that it must be true because that is the way creationists read the bible. These are not competing ideas that deserve equal time. One explains the world around us, the other confounds our understanding by telling us that the clear facts we observe in nature are wrong.
All the pressure to insert "critical analysis" of evolution into public school classrooms comes from creationism camps, and parents & politicians who have been told by their religious leaders that this is an important issue. Especially telling is that calls for critical analysis in science are limited strictly to those items that contradict YEC claims (with the exception of geocentrism - I guess they have conceded on that one). What about controversies in areas that the Bible does not address? They aren't interested.
As a result, there is no scientific or educational value to teaching a creationism perspective on scientific controversy, since it is strictly an apologetics tool, intended to justify YEC theology.
What is worse, there is no legal or logical reason to limit the discussion to creationist talking points - so we are opening the door to astrology (as ID proponent Behe noted in the Dover trial) and any other form of religious belief being certified as science, as long as there are enough members of the local or state school board to insert it into the curriculum. This will result in children getting the clear message that all truth (even about the natural world) is a mater of personal conviction, based not on evidence, but on what religious leaders say must be true. This is a giant step back in knowledge, and presages a return to superstition, ignorance and fear as we lose our grasp on our understanding of the natural world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yeah, some on both sides, some scientists, some not.
The debate over atheism versus faith seems to use whatever tools are at hand, and truth is often the loser.
I am a Christian. I do not think that Genesis 1 was meant to read as teaching 7-24 hour days of creation. Historically the church has held a number of ideas about this, from Irenaeus’ view that each day was 1,000 years, to Augustine's view that we could not know how long a day was, to C.S. Lewis' view that, while true, it could well be a poetic borrowing from the myths of surrounding cultures.
Because God created the world, what we find out about the world should influence how we read the Bible. Because the world is beyond doubt old, and evolution beyond doubt happens, this tells us that Genesis 1 should not be interpreted literally.
Makes sense to me
Post a Comment