Creationism & Evolution: Hearing Both Sides

Science expert questions intent of teacher’s aids

It seems that a teacher in a Mount Vernon Middle School classroom decided to inject a bit of creationism into her science class. Naturally, this has the school board upset at what is essentially teaching religion in a public school.

I’m going to talk about something that one student was quoted as saying in the article whose link I posted above.

Levi Stickel, 17, who attends the hearing daily and carries a Bible, said he thinks it is good to hear both sides “to strengthen your own beliefs.”

This is what I want to discuss, the whole idea of “hearing both sides”.

Creationists like to claim that they are unfairly shutout of science classes and they simply want kids to hear both sides of the Creation vs Evolution Argument.

The problem they have is that Creationism isn’t backed by science, at all. Anytime creationists try to quote what they call “science” a real scientists immediately shows them why they are wrong and most creationists really don’t know that much about science.

Creationism or Intelligent Design isn’t based on science, but faith. They start out with a preconceived idea – that G-d or an Intelligent Designer created the world and all the life on it – and work backward to try to find evidence to support the conclusion. Science does it the other way around, by collecting information, formulating hypotheses, doing tests and coming to a conclusion based upon the preponderance of evidence. That’s a simplified way of explaining the Scientific Method, but it will do for now.

So, there is no scientific debate between the two. It’s religion versus science and that’s it.

Let’s take the whole “let’s hear both sides” argument to it’s natural conclusion, shall we? Let’s go over some of the ideas that we teach kids in school these days and juxtapose what we would also have to teach them if we wanted them to learn “both sides”:

  • teach them that Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969 and that the whole thing was faked by the US government;
  • teach them about racial equality and that one group of people is racially superior to others;
  • teach them about the biological and environmental causes of disease and that evil spirits cause illness;
  • teach them that the world is round and teach them that the world is flat;
  • teach them that the Earth orbits the Sun and that the Sun orbits the Earth.

Where does it stop?

Oh, I know. The creationists say that there is so much evidence that the world is round, the Earth orbits the Sun, etc and all the other ideas have ben refuted by science that there is no reason to teach the “other side”.

But, the scientific evidence tells us that life on Earth evolved over time. Beginning with simple forms of life,  then on to more complex lifeforms until we come to where we are now. All the scientific evidence supports it, so why not teach that in science class?

Answer: because it disagrees with somebody’s religious beliefs. Not because it disagrees with science, but because somebody feels that it opposes his religious faith, he wants to have his side taught alongside, even without science to back him up.

As far as “equal time” is concerned, there is really no desire to have Creationism on an equal footing with the Theory of Evolution in science classes or in the scientific community. The true goal is to have creationism become the dominant view in scientific circles, including in America’s classrooms.

How do I know this? Because the Discovery Institute blatantly admits this in their “Wedge Document“, which was written in 1999.

The Wedge Document outlines a twenty-year plan for the inclusion, and then dominance of creationism in our public school curriculum and in public life in general.

To quote from their five-year goals:

  • To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
  • To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
  • To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Their twenty-year goals:

  • To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
  • To see design theory application in specific fields including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics, cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanitites, to see its influence in the fine arts.
  • To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

You can read it for yourself. They will not be satisfied with equal time, as it only serves as a precursor to their hoped-for domination of the scientific perspective regarding the origin and development of life on Earth.

All this talk about scientists “being afraid” of creationism being taught is erroneous. Scientists aren’t afraid of the idea of creationism itself. The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for the instantaneous creation of life on Earth in its present form by a Higher Power.

None. Zero. Zip. Nadda.

The Theory of Evolution does have practical applications, as well. Scientists can accurately predict how life could be affected by climate changes, how viruses can adapt to antibiotics, and other practical applications.

Creationism has no practical applications. You can’t use it for anything other than attempting to validate a religious opinion. Beyond that, nothing.

That teacher who attempted to sneak creationism into a public school classroom is only a footsoldier in the Discovery Instutue’s plan to subvert science and further their own goals.

In that same document, under “ACTIVITIES”, they include as item #10 Academic Debates, which is interesting since very few real scientists question the Thery of Evolution as a fact-of-life. The only people the creationists can usually find to argue their position are people either with no scientific degrees, people with degrees from non-accredited universities or even people with real degrees but in a field of science unrelated to evolution.

Scientists have no problem with debates. They just prefer that both sides know what they are talking about and creationists have a problem when the best they can come up with includes tactics like quote mining and deception.

One thing creationists like to do is claim that evolution is “only a theory” without understanding how scientists actually define “theory”.

Most people use the word to describe a guess or a hunch. In science, a theory is the best possible explanation for an occurrance, based upon a preponderance of evidence. A theory can be tested, modified, changed or even scrapped altogether if subsequent evidence invalidates it.

A “hypothesis” is the closest equivalent to a guess, in the scientific community. But, it’s not supposed to be a wild hunch based upon a gut feeling. More like an educated guess, to put it simply.

So, once again, creationists are attempting to hide their true objectives, hiding behind a wall of lies and ignorance. Never mind how teaching creationism in our schools will harm future generations of scientists. They’ve got an agenda and a religion to validate. SO, the facts be damned.

signature

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , ,

One Response to “Creationism & Evolution: Hearing Both Sides”

  1. Tony Whitson Says:

    Another debate:
    Teach them that the WTC was bombed by Al Quaeda, and teach them that it was an inside job by the Bush administration.

    If you look into the “9/11 Truth” literature, you’ll find that their arguments are amazingly similar, in logic and rhetoric, to the arguments for Intelligent Design.

    1. They take something as evidence against the accepted story of what happened.
    2. They insist that this piece of “evidence” proves that the accepted story could not have happened.
    3. They take this as conclusive evidence that the Bush government must have done it.

    (As if that government were capable of pulling off anything beyond their “mission accomplished” PR stunts … but that’s another matter.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: