The creationist conspiracy

[Ron Ecker]

I would consider an organized effort to sabotage good science education to be a conspiracy. It is certainly an illegal activity in the sense of being unconstitutional in America, being perpetrated to substitute religious beliefs for science in public school science classes.

While its proponents may be a minority, they wield disproportionate and destructive political power by creating turmoil in state boards of education and state legislatures across the country, often forcing state governors to take sides, as likely as not on the side of creationism for fear of not getting reelected or not advancing to Washington.

The Creation Museum, which attracts many thousands of impressionable young students a year, is a shining beacon of this conspiracy, sending these students home to confront the "lying" teachers who try to teach them about evolution (which Ken Ham, the museum's founder, refers to in a book title of his as "The Big Lie").

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/...nted=1&_r=1

[Evan Burton]

It's quite amazing, though these people are not typical of their faiths. There are many scientists with strong religious beliefs, and they do not see any conflict with science and religion, and they do not have any problems with evolution, etc.

[Ron Ecker]

Evan,

You may not know that Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, is Australian. Could you please take him back?

[Jack White]

I would consider an organized effort to sabotage good science education to be a conspiracy. It is certainly an illegal activity in the sense of being unconstitutional in America, being perpetrated to substitute religious beliefs for science in public school science classes.

While its proponents may be a minority, they wield disproportionate and destructive political power by creating turmoil in state boards of education and state legislatures across the country, often forcing state governors to take sides, as likely as not on the side of creationism for fear of not getting reelected or not advancing to Washington.

The Creation Museum, which attracts many thousands of impressionable young students a year, is a shining beacon of this conspiracy, sending these students home to confront the "lying" teachers who try to teach them about evolution (which Ken Ham, the museum's founder, refers to in a book title of his as "The Big Lie").

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/...nted=1&_r=1

The Creationist Faith is no nuttier than the Darwinist Faith...both based on bad science and faulty faith.

But at least the Creationists are on a firmer footing, because their name implies that all of CREATION

WAS CREATED BY A CREATOR. That is a logical premise, even though in this case it may be misguided

along a narrow and ancient theological path.

Darwinists are completely unscientific, believing that all of CREATION WAS CREATED BY CHANCE

MUTATIONS and that EVERYTHING THAT IS WAS CREATED FROM NOTHING. Darwinists claim that

every living thing MUTATED to its current species in some unknown manner from some common

ancestor, yet they have no evidence of this wacky theory. Scientific facts can only be proved by

REPLICATION or OBSERVATION...yet science has never observed a MUTATION OF A SPECIES INTO

ANOTHER SPECIES, nor have they proved this theory by REPLICATION. I will convert to Darwinism

when the first proof is offered of the millions of MISSING LINKS transitional between various species.

The only intelligent position is that CREATION IS A MYSTERY, and only FOOLS CLAIM TO KNOW

the origin of all life and creation. But this does not negate that any CREATION REQUIRES A CREATOR.

Jack

[Evan Burton]

Evan,

You may not know that Ken Ham, founder of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum, is Australian. Could you please take him back?

Nope. He's yours now; you have to keep him!

[Matthew Lewis]

Creationism is based on NO science and all faith.

[Evan Burton]

How should science respond to this public fear of evolution?

Miller: Science can respond in three ways:

1. The first is by answering the objections that are frequently raised against evolution. The charge that evolution is not good science—that there are no transitional forms, that the mechanism of evolution doesn’t work, and other similar charges—can easily be answered from scientific literature.

2. The second is by emphasizing the fact that scientific ideas are different from religious ideas and therefore that science in general, and evolution in particular, does not present an obligatory threat to religion.

3. The last way to respond is simply by doing good science. Evolutionary biology is fundamentally a useful theory. It’s a theory whose application and practice in the laboratory every single day yields useful scientific results. The American people are a people of practical results and consequences. When something works, when something is practical, when something earns money, it gets respect in American society, and evolution can do all of those things.

In some regions of the U.S., educators are being encouraged, sometimes forced, by their institution to teach “alternative” ideas to evolution. What is your response to this development?

Miller: Disappointment. If the ideas being offered were genuinely scientific alternatives, if they were ideas that had significant support within the scientific community or substantial experimental evidence, it might be interesting to include them in the science classroom.

Unfortunately, the “alternatives” actually being offered are not scientific at all. The insertion of an idea such as young-earth creationism, which requires a rejection of astronomy, physics, and chemistry as well as biology, into the scientific curriculum makes about as much sense as teaching witchcraft in medical school. The other alternative often proposed, so-called “intelligent” design, doesn’t even rise to the level of being a scientific hypothesis. It has no explanatory power and approaches scientific problems by nothing more than an appeal to the “designer.” Since such appeals are not testable, they don’t amount to science and can only mislead students as to the nature of science and scientific evidence.

Kenneth T. Miller, Ph.D., a Christian and evolutionist, is professor of biology in the Department of Molecular Biology, Cell Biology, and Biochemistry at Brown University, in Providence, RI. His research delves into problems of structure and function in biological membranes using a variety of techniques associated with electron microscopy. One of his principal interests is the public understanding of evolution. He has written a number of articles defending the scientific integrity of evolution, answering challenges such as that posed by intelligent design, and has publicly debated anti-evolutionists. He has written a series of high school and college textbooks with Joseph S. Levine, calledBiology, the most recent of which is known as the “Dragonfly” book (Pearson Prentice Hall, 2002); he also wrote Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground between God and Evolution (HarperCollins, 1999). Miller was interviewed at the AIBS Symposium “Evolutionary Science and Society: Educating a New Generation” at the 2004 NABT convention.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html

*********************

A Position Statement of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada - Ottawa Centre on Science & Evolution

Approved by RASC Ottawa Centre Council, April 26, 2007

The RASC Ottawa Centre supports high standards of scientific integrity, academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also respects the scientific method and recognizes that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypotheses, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The RASC Ottawa Centre, then, is unequivocal in its support of contemporary evolutionary theory that has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been refined by findings accumulated over 140 years.

Some dissenters from this position are proponents of non-scientific explanations of the nature of the universe. These may include “creation science”, “creationism”, “intelligent design” or other non-scientific “alternatives to evolution”. While we respect the dissenters’ right to express their views, these views are theirs alone and are in no way endorsed by the RASC Ottawa Centre. It is our collective position that these explanations do not meet the characteristics and rigour of scientific empiricism.

Therefore the science agenda of the RASC Ottawa Centre and its publications will not promote any non-scientific explanations of the nature of the universe.

http://ottawa-rasc.ca/science/index.html

**************************

Science and Evolution

According to the National Science Board's 2002 study Science and Engineering Indicators, only one-third of Americans can adequately explain what it means to study something scientifically. As a nation, we are easy prey for those promoting pseudoscientific claims, and the National Science Board survey blames education and the media for this.

Elementary teachers spend significantly less time on science and social studies than on math and literacy activities (Pianta et al 2007). In a study of Science Education in Bay Area Elementary Schools, 22% of K-2 teachers and 10% of 3-5 teachers do not cover science at all and 59% feel under-prepared to teach science.

It is no wonder U.S. public acceptance of evolution is so low compared to other countries (Miller et al. 2006). Clearly one reason evolution is so easily rejected is because people are scientifically ill-informed. Hence, an excellent place to start is educating students about the nature of science, and more specifically, how to differentiate between science and non-science, pseudoscience and even bad science.

http://ncseweb.org/evolution/education/science-evolution

***********************

Within the scientific community and academia the level of support for evolution is essentially universal, while support for biblically-literal accounts or other creationist alternatives is very small among scientists, and virtually nonexistent among those in the relevant fields.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_denial

[John Dolva]

Evan: "biblically-literal" - is perhaps the crux of the problem.

One may cherry pick portions and hold them to be the bees knees, but always out of context.

For example, there is a letter from John (from memory) to a formative body of believers (church, (not a building)), that after an introcuctory portion, which is critical, states that an appropriate approach in the moment (CONTEXT, taking into account societal mores of the times) that women should not speak in church because the level of understanding, while expressed earnestly, should be addressed at home so the ''church'' can grow faster. So, in this instance, through questioning their husbands at home, the in-church discussions can proceed till the women are up to speed.

Such a rational approach becomes for some a directive that women shall forevermore not speak in amongst a body of believers. Clearly such a derivative is nonsense. Similarly a passage which correctly translates man should not adorn their hair in church has been mistranslated as not wearing long hair, whereas it is a message about vanity.

AFA ceation goes, a minute for god is millinneas for humanity. Jesus made numerous allegories to change, or the laws of nature, such as reaping what one sows, considering the lilies of the field, the transition of the dead burying the dead to following his message.

In Physics, its well known that the studies of Buddha dovetails on a quantum level, regarding minute particles, dialectics, the impulses that perpetuate the wheel of life and so on.

Faith does not depend on science, (it's futile to try to make it so). It ''belongs'' in the realm of SALVATION, REDEMPTION, LOVE, FORGIVENESS, which in itself are mysteries outside the bounds of science, except perhaps studies of mind and mind interactions. In fact, an attempt to do so is not a bolstering of the real message, but sets the stage for a backlash.

IOW a world devoid of faith, ie Anti the messages of god.

As well, if god created everything doesn't it stand that god would also create a world that humans can develop scientific enquiry, and such things as evolution? IOW creationism and so on are ''non- subjects'' in a sense, arguably insiduous, as in the process of evolution of ideas they set the stage for its own annullment and can lead people further away from the true messages of god, not away from science. ie an ''ungodly'' creation of Humanity in the first place.?

Edited July 5, 2009 by John Dolva

[Len Colby]

The Creationist Faith is no nuttier than the Darwinist Faith...both based on bad science and faulty faith.

But at least the Creationists are on a firmer footing, because their name implies that all of CREATION

WAS CREATED BY A CREATOR. That is a logical premise, even though in this case it may be misguided

along a narrow and ancient theological path.

[...]

The only intelligent position is that CREATION IS A MYSTERY, and only FOOLS CLAIM TO KNOW

the origin of all life and creation. But this does not negate that any CREATION REQUIRES A CREATOR.

Jack

Its understandable that Jack believes what he does about evolution, when he was in primary and secondary school the theory was banned from textbooks used in public schools in the state and he is unlikely to have been taught about it while studying journalism (as apposed to anything related to science) at Texas Christian University.

Jack – You are unfortunately are arguing from a position of ignorance*, just because you as a lay person who probably was never exposed to the theory during your formal education can’t fathom the idea doesn’t mean it is unreasonable. The amount of energy splitting a single atom releases astounds me but I don’t doubt it is true. For good reason Peter (Lemkin) and (Jim) Fetzer, two people with scientific backgrounds you normally agree with and can’t be accused of unquestioningly accepting orthodoxy reject your theories.

You believe “Creationists are on a firmer footing, because their name implies that all of CREATION WAS CREATED BY A CREATOR… any CREATION REQUIRES A CREATOR.” Which raises the obvious question who (or what) created the creator? A creator that always existed or was created out of nothing is just as much a conundrum as a universe that always existed or was created out of condensed mass or out of nothing. As when you conflated biogenesis with evolution you are now conflating the origin of the universe with evolution. Some Christians believe God created the universe and/or started life but accept that modern species and life forms (including humans) evolved from less developed species and life forms.

You post as your previous ones on the topic (on other threads) all indicate an ignorance* of the theory of evolution this is why you won’t be able to point to any biologists, geoscientists astronomers etc (w/MS’s or PhD’s) who agree with you.

[Len Colby]

Evan: "biblically-literal" - is perhaps the crux of the problem.

One way to confound Bible literalists is to point out that Genesis contradicts itself in the space of a few sentences. Initially it says that God created aquatic and flying animals on the fifth day and on the sixth day made land animals first then man.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving

creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth

in the open firmament of heaven.

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that

moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their

kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that

it was good.

001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and

fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the

earth.

001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature

after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the

earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle

after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth

after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our

likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,

and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over

all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth

upon the earth.

A few sentences latter it indicates that he created man first then land and flying animals.

002:018 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be

alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

002:019 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the

field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam

to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called

every living creature, that was the name thereof.

002:020 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air,

and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not

found an help meet for him.

http://www.electricscotland.com/bible/genisis.htm

How can a book that presents two mutualy exclusive accounts of the same even be literally true? It is my understanding that there are contradictions between the various goespels as well.

[Scott Deitche]

As a scientist , I can say that there has yet to exist one single solitary piece of experimental evidence supporting either creationism or intelligent design. It just doesn't exist- nothing, nada.

Every month there are dozens, even hundreds (in a good month) of experimental peer-reviewed scienctific papers from dozens of fields of inquiry all supporting evolution. In the last 100 years there has not been one single experiment, data analysis, or peer-reviewed published paper supporting ID or creationism.

The one thing that will always trip up a creationist is to ask them to explain the mechanics of the actual creation. They don't have any idea because they never bother to theorize how creation happened. They postualte a theory basically stating, if we can't understand it, then it must have been created. It's intellectually lazy, and incredibly frustrating to hear people speak out against evolution and not be able to come back with an alternative.

And of course the ultimate question is: If humans are too complex to have evolved and therefore must have been designed by a creator, who designed the creator? That question alone shatters their basic logic.

[Jack White]

"Colby's" ignorance about Texas Christian University is astonishing. TCU is a private non-denominational

university of the highest standards. Though it was founded in 1873 by two frontier teachers who belonged

to the Disciples of Christ congregation, it has been for many years a university whose seminary trains

pastors of all denominations, and has courses in the tenets of all religions. The Disciples denomination

contributes only token financial support and has no say in the administration of the university. Its Brite

School of Divinity is one of a dozen of its schools and trains Methodists, Baptists and other denominations...

but is just a tiny fraction of the whole university. The Bob Schieffer School of Journalism is one of the

leading journalism schools anywhere. TCU has one of the largest campuses of any school, yet the

student body is kept below 10,000 for low student-teacher ratio. No university has more modern

facilities. The School of Nursing turns out most of the nurses in this area, and the School of Business

is one of the top rated in the country. The School of Geology is top rated in petroleum engineering

and has the largest collection of meteorites in the US. The School of Music is the only US music

school with "All-Steinway" rating, and co-hosts the quadrennial Van Cliburn International Piano

Competition. It is the only university with a School of Entrepreneurial Studies, which helps train

business executives who want to own their own business. The TCU Board Chairman for many years

was Jewish, and he oversaw a period of great growth. TCU is a unique private university whose major

support comes from local philanthropies and civic minded companies. It recruits students from

foreign countries for scholarships; it usually has top scholars from more than 30 countries on scholarship

at any time. More than 50 percent of students receive some sort of student aid. And it excels in athletics too

...4 straight football conference championships.

The word "Christian" in the name represents a MORAL ETHIC which pervades its teaching, rather

than a denominational affiliation.

Oh...and the science department teaches the theory of evolution. They also teach Einstein's

theory and other theories. An educated person must know about these things.

Colby is ignorant.

Jack

Edited July 6, 2009 by Jack White

[Len Colby]

Let put this in perspective Jack – I, someone who never lived anywhere near Texas and has never been to Ft. Worth (though I was in Dallas for 2 days) know less about TCU than you, someone who studied their and has lived in Ft. Worth for the last 80 years (except for a brief stint in the Navy). I never claimed or implied any expertise about the school. You on the other hand have repeatedly demonstrated complete ignorance regarding the theory of evolution and biogenesis but have repeatedly pontificated about how they are faulty science. It’s obvious you have only the vaguest understanding of the theory you so adamantly reject.

TCU is not strictly non-sectarian: “Texas Christian University is the largest of eighteen colleges and universities associated with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a community embracing both faith and reason.” The covenant between the church and university stipulates that:

8. The Institution will seek to understand the Church's concerns,

aware that the Church and institutions hold in common the

development of persons to their highest potential and the

shaping of a society beneficial to all.

9. The Institution will include in its structure a means of preserving

its Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) heritage and will

pursue the vital relationships, goals and purposes common to

the institution and the Church

http://www.disciples.tcu.edu/tcu_relationship.asp

http://www.faith.tcu.edu/files/DOC-Institution-Covenant.pdf

I imagine that the ties were even stronger 60 – 64 years ago. In any case the issue was whether or not you were taught about evolution when you studied journalism there in the late 40’s. The university’s academic quality and the prowess of its sports teams six decades later is irrelevant. Was I wrong? Did you take any classes in which evolution was taught?

Unsurprisingly the biology etc professors at the school you are so proud of teach evolution. I'm sure that they would be glad to explain the theory to a prominent alum. like you. Sad that you consider them "unscientific" ignorant "fools".

BTW - who was the "Jewish" chairman of Texas Christian?