What is it with these people, anyway?

Much thanks to Laura for providing the fuel to this particular fire. In today’s headlines: ‘Creationists Seek Curriculum Change; Kan. Education Hearings Open Today’

Once again, hicks, hillbillies and the empirically challenged contest evolution’s place in the state curriculum. What is it with Kansas? I mean, sweet Jesus, is this the last sodding bastion for the faithfully, painfully blind? It’s embarrassing.

Today, challenging evolution as sound scientific principle is less a matter of protecting the faith and more one of willful, even wanton ignorance. Very simply, creationism — under the guise of “intelligent design” — cannot be advanced as credible theory because there is not one whit of evidence to support it. On the contrary, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the theory of evolution; what few dissenters there are speak against the tremendous weight of the evidence. My favorite quote from the Washington Post:

“The Discovery Institute, the strongest voice behind intelligent design, at one point gathered the names of 356 scientists who questioned evolution. In response, the National Center for Science Education located 543 scientists named Steve — including a few Stephanies — who declared the evidence ‘overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry.’” (emphasis added)

The Cosmic Watchmaker is more appropriately suited to theological and philosophical discourse, rather than presented in a scientific setting that affords a flavor of credibility of which it is categorically unworthy. The fight for creationism in the classroom — again, behind the thin veil of “intelligent design” — seeks to place religious contemplation on a level field with scientific inquiry. It attempts to say with governmental impetus that creationism is a theory just like evolution. And continental drift. And atomic structure. And relativity. And heliocentrism. And classical conditioning. And electricity. And, and, and.

Not only are creationists and evolutionists not on a level field, they’re not even playing the same game.

Scientific “theory” is not your garden-variety guesswork. Theory, in the scientific connotation, is an explanation based on rigorous scrutiny of related observations, of physical evidence, followed by multiple verifications from independent groups of researchers who find the same pattern emerge from the data time and time again. Scientific theory is an exceedingly cautious means of constructing an evidenced understanding of the world around us — an understanding built on a foundation of confirmed and demonstrable fact.

Gravity was “just a theory.”

Show me a battle to secure a place for philosophy courses in the state curriculum, and you’ll find me an enthusiastic advocate. I majored in philosophy; I have plenty of reason to believe such academic pursuits have intrinsic value. But to compel educators in our public schools to present creationism alongside evolution in a science course, as though each were an equally supported and credible lens through which the world may be viewed, is untenable.

Also, today is 05/05/05. Neat-o.

Comments

[Mom]

Mrs. Kolars reads your blog and she wants you to know her husband IS from Kansas :-)

[Me]

Hey "Brother" you probably remember "Me". I'm a Bible-toting creapo. Put all Biblical accounts a side. Put all creationist/ID arguements aside. Just look at what some world renown evolutionist say about the theory. Evolution is the most pathetic theory every introduced. It is surrounded with circular reasoning. I feel sorry for those who have spent good lumps of cash to get indoctrinated into this half thought through theory. Every evolutionist I have ever talked to says the same mantra, like it's fact, but when challenged, they fall short of any real answers. I'm sure you have read a lot of books supporting your predestined opinion. If you really want to be a "Free Thinker" try reading something a little more objective. I'll give you something to start chewing on: http://evolution-facts.org/

[Rogi]

Evolution is hardly a half though through theory. That argument aside, how can somone claim that in order to be a "free thinker", one has to "try reading something a little more objective." Seems like a contradictory statement, since the 'fre thinker" prerequisite involves reading something that a biased testator deems objective. Nonetheless those who support evolutionary theory do not avoid researching creationism and any writings on it. The website "Me" sites is interesting in some respects but bases the core of its arguments on highly circumstantial and unsupported evidence. Take the famed London Hammer for example and read something that refutes its significance not merely by providing contrary evidentiary support but by showing explicit contradictions in the promoters' of that theory as well as their unwillingness to subject the hammer to further scrutiny by outside sources. It seems to me that the supporters of creationist theory are engaged in highly suspicious practice of creating excuses and conditions that merely serve as a subterfuge for spoliation of evidence against their theory, something that goes aginst the entire concept of scientific research.

[MrIncognito]

If I were "Me," I would find creationist websites that use better grammar.

For example:

"First, the only alternative is clearly disproved by a massive amount of findings."

You cannot have an amount of findings. You can have a number of findings, or amount of evidence.

The fact that you would reference such a poorly constructed website is a little depressing. For example, in the section rebutting the big bang:

" Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The Big Bang is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of all matter, in which a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow."

Except for gravity. Gravity draws objects with mass together. Gravity slows two object moving apart.

Between the bad grammar, lack of any basic understanding for any discipline of science (gravity?), and poor grammar, I feel honestly sad that anyone sees this website as an authoritative source. I don't see how this nonsense survives even a decent high school education (nonsense meaning that website, not ID as a whole).