Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
(NOTE: Correction and Update Below)
A Missouri lawmaker has proposed legislation that would make learning about evolution in public schools “optional.” State Rep. Rick Brattin (R), the main sponsor of House Bill 291—also known as the “Missouri Standard Science Act”—introduced the bill in January. Brattin told KCTV, a local station, that teaching only evolution in school was “indoctrination.” He continued, “Our schools basically mandate that we teach one side. It is an indoctrination because it is not objective approach.”
The Kansas City Star reported that Brattin said, “…forcing students to study the natural selection theories developed by Charles Darwin a century and a half ago can violate their religious faith. It’s an absolute infringement on people’s beliefs.” Critics of Brattin’s bill say his legislation “would allow religious faith in biblical explanations to crowd out sound science.”
HB 291 would require schools to notify parents if “the theory of evolution by natural selection” was being taught at their child’s school—and give students the opportunity to “opt out of the class.” According to Dana Liebelson of Mother Jones, HB 291 “redefines a few things you thought you already knew about science.”
Liebelson:
For example, a “hypothesis” is redefined as something that reflects a “minority of scientific opinion and is “philosophically unpopular.” A scientific theory is “an inferred explanation…whose components are data, logic and faith-based philosophy.” And “destiny” is not something that $5 fortune tellers believe in; Instead, it’s “the events and processes that define the future of the universe, galaxies, stars, our solar system, earth, plant life, animal life, and the human race.”
Liebelson added that the “Missouri Standard Science Act” also requires that public elementary and secondary schools in the state—as well as introductory science classes at public universities—“give equal textbook space to both evolution and intelligent design.”
From the National Center for Science Education:
HB 291’s text is about 3000 words long, beginning with a declaration that the bill is to be known as the Missouri Standard Science Act, followed by a defectively alphabetized glossary providing idiosyncratic definitions of “analogous naturalistic processes,” “biological evolution,” “biological intelligent design,” “destiny,” “empirical data,” “equal treatment,” “hypothesis,” “origin,” “scientific theory,” “scientific law,” and “standard science.”
Among the substantive provisions of the bill, applying both to Missouri’s public elementary and secondary schools and to introductory science courses in public institutions of higher education in the state: “If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a course of study, biological evolution and biological intelligent design shall be taught. Other scientific theory or theories of origin may be taught.”
For public elementary and secondary schools, HB 291 also provides, “If scientific theory concerning biological origin is taught in a textbook, the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design.” After the bill is enacted, new textbooks purchased for the public schools will have to conform to the equal treatment requirement. A committee will develop supplementary material on “intelligent design” for optional interim use.
Eric Meikle, the education director at the National Center for Science Education, said that he couldn’t “imagine” that any mainstream textbook publisher would comply with the bill’s textbook requirement. Meikle said, “The material doesn’t exist.”
Brattin told The Riverfront Times that he was a “science enthusiast” and “a huge science buff.” He added. “This [bill] is about testable data in today’s world.” Meikle disagrees with Brattin. Meikle told Mother Jones, “This bill is very idiosyncratic and strange. And there is simply not scientific evidence for intelligence design.”
And people wonder why some of our students are falling behind international peers in science.
Creation Science 101 by Roy Zimmerman
Correction and Update
It has been called to my attention by Willy Kessler that HB291 was introduced in 2013 and “allowed to die.” Brattin was sponsor of another bill (HB 1472) this year which would require Missouri public schools to notify parents when evolution is being taught and to allow students to opt out of classes.
From the National Center for Science Education (January 17, 2014)
Antievolution legislation in Missouri
Missouri’s House Bill 1472, introduced in the House of Representatives on January 16, 2013, is the third antiscience bill of the year, following Virginia’s HB 207 and Oklahoma’s SB 1765. If enacted, the bill would require “[a]ny school district or charter school which provides instruction relating to the theory of evolution by natural selection” to have “a policy on parental notification and a mechanism where a parent can choose to remove the student from any part of the district’s or school’s instruction on evolution.” Parents and guardians would receive a notification containing “[t]he basic content of the district’s or school’s evolution instruction to be provided to the student” and “[t]he parent’s right to remove the student from any part of the district’s or school’s evolution instruction.”
NCSE’s deputy director Glenn Branch commented, “House Bill 1472 would eviscerate the teaching of biology in Missouri.” Quoting “The OOPSIE Compromise — A Big Mistake,” which Eugenie C. Scott and he wrote for Evolution: Education and Outreach in 2008, he added, “Evolution inextricably pervades the biological sciences; it therefore pervades, or at any rate ought to pervade, biology education at the K–12 level. There simply is no alternative to learning about it; there is no substitute activity. A teacher who tries to present biology without mentioning evolution is like a director trying to produce Hamlet without casting the prince.” Teachers, schools, and districts would suffer as well, Branch observed. “The value of a high school education in Missouri would be degraded.”
The sponsors of HB 1472 are Rick Brattin (R-District 55) and Andy Koenig (R-District 99). Both have a history of sponsoring antievolution legislation in Missouri. In 2012, Koenig sponsored and Brattin cosponsored House Bill 1276, a “strengths and weaknesses” bill, and Brattin sponsored and Koenig cosponsored House Bill 1227, which would have required equal time for “intelligent design” in public schools, including introductory courses at colleges and universities. In 2013, Koenig sponsored and Brattin cosponsored House Bill 179, a “strengths and weaknesses” bill, and Brattin sponsored and Koenig cosponsored House Bill 291, which would have required equal time for “intelligent design” in public schools, including introductory courses at colleges and universities. All died.
SOURCES
Missouri lawmaker wants to make evolution teaching optional (KCTV)
Unprecedented Attack On Evolution ‘Indoctrination’ Mounted In Missouri (Talking Points Memo)
Anti-Evolution Missouri Bill Requires College Students to Learn About Destiny (Mother Jones)
Rick Brattin, Who Wants Anti-Evolution Lessons In Missouri Schools: “I’m A Science Enthusiast” (Riverfront Times)
Missouri bill would let parents pull kids from evolution classes (Kansas City Star)
Missouri lawmaker introduces bill allowing familes to ‘opt out’ of learning evolution (Daily Kos)
“Intelligent design” bill in Missouri (National Center for Science Education)
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
The creationists jumped all over this theory. Here was a renowned and brilliant evolutionist verifying what they had been saying all along. Gould did not realize it at the time of publication, but his evolutionary model paralleled the creation models that had been constructed. Gould was greatly embarrassed. He took every opportunity from that time on to declare that the creationists were misinterpreting their paper. He falsely accused them of saying that he had abandoned Natural Selection. He stood up against all efforts by creationists wherever he found them.
In fact, this court situation was his moment to get back at the creationists who had embarrassed him. It was his seminal work in 1972 with Niles Eldredge that put forward the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. Creationists rightly jumped all over it because in that paper, they argue that most of the fossil record is about evolution happening very slowly through natural selection. They said that the gaps in the fossil record were being ignored by everyone. The gaps show that there just wasn’t enough time for new species to form through Natural Selection.
Wayne, I had grown up in my twenties reading Gould. I admired him greatly, and if he was alive, I still would. I subscribed to Natural History where he had a regular column and looked forward to every issue. I have many writings from him in my library that I cherish. I made sure to order his last magnum opus knowing he would die soon from cancer. But Gould was very wrong on the creation issue.
And that Elaine, is the essence of how we are propagandized by political parties as well. It is necessary to keep the people’s mind closed to certain uncomfortable knowledge and discoveries.
davidm,
….”We can’t talk about predictions without talking about falsification. That is exactly what the requirement of falsification is.”
No!
You most certainly can talk about predictions without discussing falsification. Make a prediction based upon your belief in Creationism and then let’s see if it works.
Or we can view this issue through court decisions:
McLean v. Arkansas:
” In 1982, in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, a United States federal court held that an Arkansas “balanced treatment” statute violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Arkansas statute required public schools to give balanced treatment to “creation-science” and “evolution-science”. In a decision that gave a detailed definition of the term “science”, the court declared that “creation science” is not, in fact, science. The court also found that the statute did not have a secular purpose, noting that the statute used language peculiar to creationist literature.” http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/mclean-v-arkansas
Appearing for the defense in the above litigation were such notables as Stephen Jay Gould (Punctuated Equilibrium theory of Evolution) and Francisco Ayala—both a biologist and philosopher.
Now let’s move on to Kitzmiller v. Dover:
“In the legal case Kitzmiller v. Dover, tried in 2005 in a Harrisburg, PA, Federal District Court, “intelligent design” was found to be a form of creationism, and therefore, unconstitutional to teach in American public schools. http://ncse.com/creationism/legal/intelligent-design-trial-kitzmiller-v-dover
Here is a short summary of Judge John Jones’ Decision in the Dover trial:
“In finding for the plaintiffs, Jones ruled that ID is in reality creation science, a religious-based doctrine that the U.S. Supreme Court banned on constitutional grounds in 1987. Jones found that ID “cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” He went on to say: “The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.” (page 31, court ruling) and further: “The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.” http://www.research.fsu.edu/dover/thedoverdecision.aspx
The above decisions demolishes your claim that Creationism is science….I’m certainly no expert but those who gave testimony in the above trials were.
“The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory”
I still can’t seem to post to this thread. Trying again in smaller sections.
Wayne wrote: “The above decisions demolishes your claim that Creationism is science….I’m certainly no expert but those who gave testimony in the above trials were.”
These court cases do not demolish my claim. I already mentioned these court cases. They buttress everything about what I have been saying about how science has secured legal censorship of information. What these cases do is set back public education by at least 20 or 30 years before enough knowledge can come forth to the next generation to show the failure of evolutionary theory to explain origins.
Wayne wrote: “You most certainly can talk about predictions without discussing falsification. Make a prediction based upon your belief in Creationism and then let’s see if it works.”
My prediction is that the fossil record as it stands today falsifies Monophyletic Natural Selection as an adequate explanation for the diversity of life observed today. Future work in paleontology will never substantiate that Natural Selection is the primary mechanism of speciation.
I also predict that eventually there will need to be a complete reworking of the mechanism of fossilization. There must also be a reworking of an understanding of the geologic strata that relies less upon Lyle’s principles of uniformitarianism and incorporates mechanisms of catastrophism and hydrogeologic sorting.
Right now the bias in science of origins has brought scientific advances to a standstill so that it relies primarily upon outdated theories from men who lived more than 150 years ago. We have made tremendous advances in technology, but almost none in the science of origins. It is as if science concerning origins is stuck in a time loop. One day some new scientists in the field will wake up and reject what has been going on for the last century and forge a new path open to new ideas and even theories incorporating the possibility of Intelligent Design.
Mike,
I agree that it is motivated by fear. I think some are afraid that they won’t be able to retain control of their religious followers if their minds are opened. Better to keep the people’s minds closed to certain “scientific” knowledge and discoveries.
Rep. Brattin’s proposal is mot motivated by a desire to develop critical thinking skills in the study of science. It is motivated by fear that science is a threat to religion. But science is only a threat to primitive religion, by which I mean religion which separates reason from faith.
I think scientists see a threat to science when religious fundamentalists claim that a literal translation of the Bible explains creation…and then the fundamentalists attempt to force schools to teach creationism/intelligent design in science class.
*****
Movie Selection of the Fittest: Creationists Block Internationally Acclaimed Movie on Darwin From Being Shown in U.S.
9/13/2009
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/13/movie-selection-of-the-fittest-creationists-block-internationally-acclaimed-movie-on-darwin-from-being-shown-in-u-s/
Excerpt:
In an act of utter cowardice, United States distributors appear to be caving into a creationist campaign to bar the movie Creation on the life of Charles Darwin. The film explores his loss of faith following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.
The film has been the target of creationists, who remind distributors that only 39 percent of Americans believe in evolution. Jeremy Thomas, the producer of Creation, notes “[t]he film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it’s because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they’ve seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up.”
It is a shame that someone like Rick spouts off on something and just becomes a lightning rod that perpetuates the divide. You bring up a point about the educators not having the ability to teach something other than the standard model handed down from the state or feds. It really does stifle creativity and diversity of education, in more ways than just religion. Like teaching to the test as to keep up with federal mandates.
Thanks for the response. I’ve to head to bed now, been up all night.
The problem has been exacerbated by the empiricist philosophy permeating our government. Although technically our government has not purged religion from society, a misinterpretation of our founding documents has given empiricists a stronghold by which to censor any theories that might be supportive of theism. A statement in our founding documents forbidding the favoring of particular religious establishments has morphed into a prohibition against government being allowed to have any connection with religion or theism whatsoever. When public education censors competing concepts, the dissemination of knowledge becomes one sided. Young people today are woefully lacking in education about theist models of origins based in science. Not only have the scientists argued that only empiricist philosophy is the path to knowledge, they have now convinced judges who have outlawed the teaching of any empirical models of origins that might also include the concept of an intelligent designer. The stage has been set to create a prejudice, a strong bigotry, against anything theist. Such is not based upon actual scientific knowledge, but based upon the censorship of competing ideas.
Regardless of my statements like this, I cringe when seeing efforts like this one by State legislator Rick Brattin because it is obvious when he speaks that he knows nothing about science. While I appreciate his efforts to stop censorship in public education, he ends up hurting that cause by looking foolish in attempting to define science improperly. He should fight for the right of educators to decide upon the science curriculum themselves rather than try to force his brand of balanced teaching. No educator presents a balanced view. It is impossible. We should never expect it. The educator should be honest and help students learn not only basic material concerning what they need to know, but also the conclusions which that educator comes to through his studies. For the law to forbid this, to censor the educator, is wrong.
No matter how I break it up, I can’t seem to make my response post. Sorry, I give up for now.
David:
I have wondered why the notions of science and religious faith have to be so mutually exclusive when they can coexist somewhat.
To be as succinct as possible I would offer this: God created all things and it is up to science to explain how all things. Both sides can embrace the science but the only difference is that one notion is that the scientific fact or theory is divinely inspired or it is not. Yet, both sides agree on the scientific basis for why.
The unfortunate problem is that for centuries both sides have perceived the other to be a threat to their positions. Pure science types view religious advocates as wanting to prohibit scientific research and the religious sides believe their faith is being questioned or their culture being brushed aside.
I am breaking up my post into smaller portions because it will not post as a single long response.
Darren Smith wrote: “The unfortunate problem is that for centuries both sides have perceived the other to be a threat to their positions. Pure science types view religious advocates as wanting to prohibit scientific research and the religious sides believe their faith is being questioned or their culture being brushed aside.”
I truly see the problem as more one sided than you represent it. The problem began in the 18th century when certain philosophers like David Hume began to reject the idea of innate knowledge or knowledge coming through divine revelation, imparted to the spirit or soul. There was a scientific revolution whereby some scholars rejected any kind of metaphysical knowledge (the empiricist vs rationalist issue) while others acknowledged room for knowledge to come through both sources (empiricism and rational thinking apart from empiricism, as expounded upon by philosophers like Descartes). Science today is monopolized by logical positivists and empiricists who for the most part deny there is any such thing as spirit or soul. Their philosophy of knowledge is that divine revelation is a farce and knowledge only comes through empirical observations.
Man looks at the face of Mt. Rushmore and sees the hand of intelligent design, yet when man looks at the face of a newborn baby, sees no hand at all.
As to the question of the existence of “God,” perhaps this question can be trivialized. Who has the absolute authority to define the word, “God,” without any possibility of human error? How may the definition of “God” differ from the definition of “The Giver of LIfe? How may the definition of “God” not differ from the definition of “The Giver of LIfe”?
Until there is a rigorously tested and rigorously not falsified definition of “God” with which everyone agrees, one definition may define, by mistake, “not-God” instead of defining “God.”
Given my inability to find one single universally-agreed-upon-by-all-humans definition of “God,” I shall allow that “God” may happen to be a word that has yet to be perfectly defined in human terms.
Suppose people who participate in Turley blog activities are all well-versed in set theory, and especially well-versed in the theories of sets which contain themselves as members. Bertrand Russell’s “Barber Paradox” may be, or may not be, about a set which contains itself as a member. Who shaves the Barber? Might who the Barber is affect who shaves the Barber?
Consider the set of {all things and non-things} which exist.
Why does existence exist and why does existence seemingly not exist?
Consider, hypothetically, that something exists which can stop existence from existing. If, also hypothetically, the something that can stop existence from existing sets about successfully stopping the existence of existence from existing, then, in stopping existence from existing, it will stop itself from existing, thereby stopping itself from stopping existence from existing.
Therefore, existence cannot not exist? If nothing were to exist, what are the inescapably necessary and sufficient properties of the existence of nothing? After all, surely nothing can accomplish the impossible?
If nothing can accomplish the impossible, why cannot creation evolve and evolution create?
……” This is pretty much the same thing in regards to theories of origins. We can’t do standard experiments where we control variables and isolate causes like in many questions of science. Rather, we must apply rational thought to the empirical evidence that we have and draw a conclusion based upon that. I think the analogy very much applies, and I am not convinced otherwise.
Yes, when one looks at our expanding universe rational thought of empirical evidence dictates that it started with what is commonly called “the big bang” and not by divine intervention.
Forensic studies of a murder scene do not make predictions that can be tested and verified….they collect evidence that is presented to a Jury and they make a determination of guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. It is up to our adversarial method of examination in a court room that leads to a conclusion, not scientific experiments.
The original idea of a big bang was proposed by an amateur astronomer in Belgium, who just happened to be a Catholic Priest—Georges Lemaitre. At the time scientists rejected this idea because it was thought that we lived in a static universe. It was the work of Edwin Hubble, and others, that demonstrated that galaxies in our universe are not only receding away from us but are accelerating that the concept of the Big Bang was revisited.
How did the Big Bang start—I tell ya I truly wish I knew. I’m afraid I won’t live long enough to find out. I can say that there are new ideas being explored that based upon quantum mechanics there is no such thing as nothing. “Nothing” never existed….excuse the double negative. So it might be that the big bang was created from something??? There are other researchers that feel we might live in a “multi-verse” where there are more than one Universe(s). One researcher, whose name escapes me, hypothesized that perhaps it was the coming together of two Universe (s), with all that unimaginable mass, that created our big bang and started our Universe on its path.
In a previous posting of yours you gave me a link to an article for me to read. I will read it and I thank you for expanding my mental universe–I like to keep learning and I have appreciated all of your comments and ideas. I may not always agree but you have been very congenial and friendly.
davidm,
…..In regards to Newtonian mechanics, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was in no way a modification of it. It was something completely different. It exposed the limitations of classical mechanics to macroscopic objects.”
Newtonian mechanics is still used today….if one wants to study how far a cannon ball will go given a certain set of initial conditions then Newton will work just fine. But if one wants to put an automobile on the surface of Mars, then relativistic calculations are needed if success is to be achieved.
It was in the study of the microscopic world, not macroscopic, where Newtonian or classical physics fell apart. Which is why today we have two fundamental theories of our universe: relativistic for the macro scopic world of the very large and quantum mechanics for the very small world of atoms and sub-atomic particles. Both work very well in their respective areas but they cannot be interchanged…there have been and are many brilliant scientists working on a unification theory of these two far different mathematical models. Maybe String Theory might be a unifying method but so far that has not been achieved—as far as I know.
Yes I am familiar with the Philosopher Popper but have to acknowledge that I have not studied any of his works. So my understanding of his principles is virtually nil. My academic studies have been concentrated in chemistry and there is a large void when it comes to understanding philosophy and its many practitioners. If I could have a do-over in school I would include Philosophy along with accounting and business in my academic curriculum—areas that I have needed in my career but were sadly lacking.
I’m of the old school of science where it is common for a scientist “to stand on the shoulders of others” to advance our knowledge and understanding. When the term falsification is used it does not mean forgery or fraud has taken place, it’s just that a particular theory did not work under a different set of circumstances. Apparently Popper has a novel or unusual (to me) understanding of the term falsification than I do. I will make a sincere effort to study his ideas as I always like to learn new things. Unfortunately I am not intellectually capable of debating or critiquing Professor Popper’s.
Let’s move away from falsification for a moment and concentrate on another requirement of a scientific theory: All scientific theories have to make predictions that can be tested and verified, as you mentioned above in Einstein’s prediction of light being affected by gravity.
What can you offer as a Young Earth defender to make predictions that can be tested and validated?
Wayne wrote: “Let’s move away from falsification for a moment and concentrate on another requirement of a scientific theory: All scientific theories have to make predictions that can be tested and verified, as you mentioned above in Einstein’s prediction of light being affected by gravity. What can you offer as a Young Earth defender to make predictions that can be tested and validated?”
We can’t talk about predictions without talking about falsification. That is exactly what the requirement of falsification is. When a theory makes a prediction, and that prediction can be tested by empirical means, then that theory is falsifiable. The more risky the prediction, the more scientific the theory is. Einstein’s theory was extremely risky in that his math predicted an outcome that nobody expected, an outcome that could be falsified by empirical observation on a specific date at a specific time.
I am not a young earth defender anymore than I am a defender of the Catholic church or any other church. I am a creationist, but not a young earth creationist. The reason why I have sometimes appeared to defend the Catholic church on the issue of abortion, or young earth creationists on the issue of creationism, is the same reason that someone becomes the devil’s advocate in a debate. It is simply to be honest with ideas and consider what the evidence really says. It is my hope that we step away from our biases and unspoken assumptions and think about these matters from a fresh perspective.
In this particular case of young earth creationism, I already mentioned that it satisfies the criterion of falsifiability because of all creationist theories, it puts forward the most risky predictions of all creationist theories. It argues that the earth is not older than 10,000 years. Well, there is a mountain of evidence that appears to falsify this notion, from cosmology and the expanding universe, to radiometric dating of rock strata and fossils. What I have found is that most scientists are so bigoted against the notion of creationism that they either continue to deny that young earth models are falsifiable because they invoke a Creator who is outside the ability of science to prove or disprove, or they finally admit that the model has been falsified, so okay, it is a scientific theory, but a bad one that has been falsified, like Lamarckian evolution or cold fusion. Of course, the next step is to ask why creationism can’t be taught in public schools like Lamarckian evolution is taught? The answer is usually something like, “no, we can’t waste time doing that.” The truth is that there is bigotry in science that leads to censorship.
Phillip Johnson is a lawyer who could see that even though he knew little about biology and science, he knew the scientists were hiding something. The way they argued their case indicated it, and he became a creationist based upon his legal perception of this. Myself as a scientist in biology has always been amazed at his ability to perceive this.
In regards to Newtonian mechanics, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity was in no way a modification of it. It was something completely different. It exposed the limitations of classical mechanics to macroscopic objects.
In regards to Einstein’s Relativity Theory and Bohr’s Quantum Mechanics, this again is not a modification of science over time. These men were contemporaries who forged two incomplete and distinct theories in science. Some people today will look for ways to merge them together no doubt, but we did not have Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr working together modifying their theories together into one correct scientific theory. That is not how science works.
One of the things pointed out by Popper was that Einstein put his theory at risk by making the prediction that light would be affected by gravity. He proposed that this could be observed during the next solar eclipse when a star would appear to shift in position due to the gravitational effect of the sun. Few believed Einstein was right, but many got out their telescopes to observe whether or not it was true. His prediction was verified and this led to the scientific community paying more attention to his Special Theory of Relativity. If his prediction failed, his Special Theory of Relativity would have been falsified. The same kind of thing happens with honest investigators of models of origins that include the concept of a Creator. If their model predicts a young age for humans, and an empirical clock proves humans were around for a much longer period of time, then that creationist model has been falsified.
A classic paper of the method was published by J.R. Platt outlining a method called Strong Inference. The idea is to construct a series of hypotheses to explain empirical observations, then attempt to falsify each one, discarding the ones that are falsified. It is not a long paper, and you can find it online here:
http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/science64_strong_inference.pdf
davidm,
…..”This is always the tenet used to claim that creation models are not falsifiable, but it is not an honest one. It is like claiming that a forensic scientist cannot give empirical evidence supporting the idea that someone was murdered because he cannot disprove the existence of the murderer.”
This is neither a proper nor accurate analogy. The word Theory in science has a different connotation than it does in everyday life. Applying scientific rules in theory development to a murder case is not applicable. The laws governing society are far different that laws governing the universe. And I suspect you know this.
…….”This is always the tenet used to claim that creation models are not falsifiable, but it is not an honest one.” The reason this concept of falsification is frequently used is because creationists insist on calling their concept science—or want their ideas taught along scientific studies in school. Teaching creation alongside science implies that it too is science—creationism is not and will never be part of science. Why you might ask? Because science is a discipline with its own set of rules and procedures. One may not like or agree with the rules but one is not free to change them in order to accommodate an idea that doesn’t fit within the framework of science.
If Young Earth creationists wanted their idea taught as a subject separate from science then you would not find scientists challenging your ideas. However, if you insist on challenging science then a reciprocal challenge will be presented to you.
If I walked in a chemistry lecture where a professor offered divine intervention as an explanation for an unusual result I would quickly cancel the class. If you walked into a theology lecture and were told that theology didn’t meet the standards of science then you would object.
I do not believe in creationism; however, I am not saying you are incorrect. I am only stating that your ideas are not science and should not be taught along science. I encourage you to speak about your ideas to as many people as possible so that all of us can have a better understanding of your viewpoint. It is my firm belief that when people are presented with a proper understanding of science and creationism, then the ideas of a God created existence will not be compatible with reality.
This may shock you: My wife and I attend a Christian church every Sunday. I have even been elected to an official position within the church. If you are curious how I manage the dichotomy of my belief system with a church it is pretty easy to explain: whenever I see or hear the word God I substitute the word Fate. Example: someone will say “Thank God two people were saved from an airplane crash where 100 people were killed.” I say: “Thank Fate for sparing those two….
I enjoy the fellowship and friendship at Church meetings and quite frankly our particular church is not a fire and brimstone type place. I may not agree with a certain belief system but I do respect it and appreciate the good things a church can accomplish in a community. Our church is simply involved with helping people get through life.
I keep my secular life separate from my religion and I would encourage others to follow the same principle.
Wayne wrote: “This is neither a proper nor accurate analogy. The word Theory in science has a different connotation than it does in everyday life. Applying scientific rules in theory development to a murder case is not applicable. The laws governing society are far different that laws governing the universe. And I suspect you know this.”
No, I would disagree with this. When a forensic scientist examines a murder scene, he collects empirical data and creates a theory about what happened. During the course of this, he may posit various hypothesis and disprove each one until he arrives at a clear idea of whether a murder took place, and if a murder did take place, then answer the questions of how it took place, when it took place, and maybe even who committed the murder. This is pretty much the same thing in regards to theories of origins. We can’t do standard experiments where we control variables and isolate causes like in many questions of science. Rather, we must apply rational thought to the empirical evidence that we have and draw a conclusion based upon that. I think the analogy very much applies, and I am not convinced otherwise.
Wayne wrote: “If Young Earth creationists wanted their idea taught as a subject separate from science then you would not find scientists challenging your ideas. However, if you insist on challenging science then a reciprocal challenge will be presented to you.”
The problem is that some creationists are scientists like me. I care about the science. When you tell me that my arguments have to be made in church, it is not at all satisfactory because I don’t believe in church or religion. Since when is it proper for science to excommunicate those who do not embrace the popular paradigm?
Wayne wrote: “If I walked in a chemistry lecture where a professor offered divine intervention as an explanation for an unusual result I would quickly cancel the class. If you walked into a theology lecture and were told that theology didn’t meet the standards of science then you would object.”
I personally do not have a problem with the overlap. I had a chemistry professor in college that was explaining certain chemistry principles. I think it had to do with the racemization problem and how all amino acids in biological systems are of the L configuration, yet in the lab you get equal stereoisomers of each. So how could abiogenesis occur? It was interesting to me because he made a comment about how this problem was one reason why he was a creationist. I kind of liked his open mind about it. I certainly did not want to march out of chemistry class and resign the course. He explained some empirical observations and then tied it to a broader theory of origins. I was appreciative of that connection. It made me think.
I am a creationist more like the way that Galileo was a creationist. I don’t see a conflict between believing in a creator and theology or science. I enjoy studying ideas in theology the same way I enjoy studying the physical world through science. From my perspective, bad theology should be discarded in the same way that bad science should be discarded.
davidm,
….”If a young earth model says the earth is only 10,000 years old, and radiometric evidence shows it is 4.5 billion years old, then the young earth model has been falsified.”
No, this is not falsification, unless you disregard a divine creator. What you are describing is a modification of a theory which happens regularly in science. In your example, the basic tenants of Young Earth remain the same….creationism.. Without going into a lot of jargon, today Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is in the process of being modified, due to a phenomenon in quantum mechanics referred to as “quantum entanglement.” It appear that some sort of information may be transmitted at speeds exceeding the speed of light. Now, this is not falsification of the entire theory, but a modification.
Continuing on the theme of Einstein: his theory of relativity greatly improved upon the Newtonian model of gravity. For precise calculations one uses relativistic calculations and not Newton’s laws of universal gravitation. Einstein improved upon Newton.
At one time scientists thought that electrons in an atom orbited the nucleus much like planets in our solar system. This theory was abandoned in favor of a quantum mechanical system….this is falsification. At one time there was actually a theory of atomic structure named: “Raisin in the Pudding.” This was also falsified.
Your example is simply not falsification. Calling it that doesn’t make it so. Your example still uses the underlying idea of creationism to explain the age of earth. Now your example would be falsification if you agreed not only that the earth is 4+ Billion years old but is the product of evolution without the hand of a God involved.
Wayne, I’m having trouble posting, so I’m breaking my posts up smaller to see if they will post that way.
Are you familiar with the philosopher of science, Karl Popper? Whether you realize it or not, his seminal book, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery,” is where you borrow your aspect of empirical falsifiability as a criterion of what makes a theory scientific. He specifically pointed out that what made astronomy different from astrology was that astrology constantly modified its theories until they ultimately became unfalsifiable. In contrast, the advances in astronomy happened by falsifying a hypothesis, discarding it, and then constructing new ones. He criticized the kind of ad hoc modification of theories that you seem to embrace. All my professors in graduate school (I studied evolutionary biology, earned several biology and zoology degrees and have an undergraduate minor in Chemistry) favored the approach of Popper not to focus on empirical falsification and constructing new theories in light of the evidence.
Wayne wrote: “Now your example would be falsification if you agreed not only that the earth is 4+ Billion years old but is the product of evolution without the hand of a God involved.”
Falsification must be done a step at a time. First we disprove the young earth model of creation. Then we disprove other models of creation. When all the models of creation have been falsified, then we will have disproved creationism in total and can rightly conclude that the hand of God was not involved with our origin.
David, did you go to the curator and make a complaint? Did you find out for certain it was an inaccurate recreation before telling your children it was grossly misleading?
I sometimes marvel at people who think they know better than everyone else and may actually be the most confused of everyone.