Biblical creationism, repositioned as creation science and most recently intelligent design has lost the contest of ideas on all counts: the rules, the criteria and the judging. It doesn't follow the scientific method; it doesn't allow us to explain, predict, and control better; and the jury of relevant experts (aka biologists) keeps returning the same verdict.
Now the creationists have taken a new approach that they hope will help them achieve their goal of teaching religious beliefs in our schools as science. That approach can be summed up in one simple word: whining.
One week from today, the new movie, Expelled, attempts to turn creationist complaints into mainstream media. Featuring Ben Stein, one of the conservative right's biggest whiners, the film makes several plaintive appeals: There's a conspiracy among big government and big science, and it's not fair! All we ask is for our perspective to get equal time! (Read: we lost, so let's split the prize.) All we want is for teachers to "teach the controversy"! This is all about academic freedom. Americans like freedom, right?
The whiners actually have spent millions of dollars on the movie, and even more on the marketing of it. You have to give them credit: by bundling Creationism with freedom, they have created a sophisticated strategy. Of course, Americans like freedom! More importantly, both democracy and scientific progress depend on intellectual freedom -- the freedom to ask questions and, unencumbered by ideology, to follow the answers where they lead. After centuries of heresy trials and book burnings, for biblical creationists to position themselves as the champions of academic freedom is a brilliant Orwellian move.
University of Washington professor, Leah Ceccarelli has pointed out that their "teach the controversy" strategy depends on a very specific sleight of hand: blurring the difference between scientific controversy and manufactured controversy or Manufactroversy.
You can say you first heard it here, well, if you haven't heard it already on MySpace or Facebook: Manufactroversy -- a made up word for a made up controversy. There's even a new website, Manufactroversy.NewsLadder.net that aggregates articles and blog posts about this manufactroversy and some other pretty famous ones as well.
Scientific controversy exists only when the jury of relevant experts is out on whether a new finding meets the standard of evidence. The debate and evidence gathering still are in process. A manufactroversy is when someone motivated by profit or ideology fosters confusion in the public mind long after scientists have moved on to the next set of questions. Think tobacco and lung cancer. Think Exxon and global warming. Now think Ben Stein and evolution.
The fact is, there is no scientific controversy about evolution, just like there is no scientific controversy about whether tobacco causes lung cancer or whether human activity causes global warming. However, in all three examples, someone powerful and well established loses out when and if the scientific mountain of evidence becomes common knowledge and widely accepted.
The tobacco industry in the 1960's wasn't anxious to part with its profits just like the oil companies of the 1990's had no desire to walk away from theirs. So they manufactured controversies, paying scientists to publish papers they knew would distort the issue.
In the case of creationism, the a vast preponderance of evidence, conflicts with traditional mythos. What possible explanation but that the scientists are colluding, corrupt, and biased. But, of course, they're not. The proponents of intelligent design can't gain credibility among hard scientists because their evidence is pathetic. So what do they do? Follow in the footsteps of the tobacco and oil companies and spend millions in an effort to create public doubt. They plea for their side to be told, they imagine vast conspiracies and they cry out for fair play, but the reality is much simpler.
The mountain of evidence supporting mainstream biological science is overwhelming. The paltry evidence for "insurmountable gaps" and "irreducible complexity" is actually shrinking. Evolution should be taught as science and creationism, in its many guises, as religion, including the rich pre-scientific stories about origins from many cultures and traditions. So why not just ignore the whiners and hope they will go away? Because they won't until we force them to stop their marketing of religious beliefs as science. We're still fighting the tobacco industry to this day. Oil companies still fund global warming deniers.
Besides, how long has it been since the famous Scopes trial? How long have creationists been talking about "Darwinism" as if no one but Darwin had noticed the fossil record or the DNA code in the last 100 years? It does get tiresome, responding to their ever evolving anti-evolutionary rhetoric. But we need to expose the bizarre supernaturalist agenda behind all the sudden whining about academic freedom. And somebody needs to gently remind Stein and his creationist cronies that they haven't been expelled from school, they flunked.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
HE/SHE ISN'T A VERY GOOD CREATOR.
EVERY THING HE/SHE CREATES ENDS UP DYING!
YOU'D THINK HE/SHE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN IT RIGHT BY NOW.
Evidence for Evolution abounds.
Pesticide resistant insects, anti-biotic resistant microbes, the domestic dog, nipples on men, the lung-fish, archaeopteryx, the human fossil record, different human skin colors for those in different latitudes...and the list goes on and on and on.
When people like Mr. Stein say there is no evidence, what they really mean there is no evidence that they"ve heard and if they didn"t hear it, it doesn"t exist.
I for one am fine with the slow states teaching their kids all the creation science they want!
When my Western science based kid is up for a science job and your Creationist kid is the competition, who do you think will get the job?
Interviewer:
"How old is the planet Earth?"
My Kid:
"Some 4 billion years old."
Your kid:
"It was created on April 4th, 3924 BC at 8:23AM, by the Creator of course."
WHY DID THE CREATOR CREATE HITLER, POL POT, IDI AMIN, MOUSOLINNI, TOJO, BUSH, CHENEY, ROVE, McVEIGH, bIN LADEN?
They all slaughtered so many of his other creations that it seems kind of counterproductive.
Perhaps to thin the population.
WHY DID THE CREATOR CREATE ALL THOSE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CANCER?
SURLY ONE IS ENOUGH!
WHY DO MEN HAVE NIPPLES?
If we followed the Creationist's teachings, we would never have developed "Germ Theory."
"Germ Theory" is one of the most important foundations in all of science.
BUT, if we were to allow the Creationists to stiffle progress in Science, which is their ultimate goal, our sons and daughters would still be dying of easily curable diseases such as strep throat for crying out Creator!
I suggest that if a person like Mr. Stein gets sick, they head to Church instead of crowding our heathen WESTERN SCIENCE hospitals.
Mr. Stein, we all hope that when you get sick or injured you go to Church and not some Western Science hospital.
You see Western Science hospitals are steeped in EVOLUTIONARY Science.
So, if you were to get Cancer, Creator Forbid (Cancer: nice creation ain't it?), we hope you go pray for a cure and don't go in for chemo...that would be hypocritical would it not Mr. Stein?
By seeking a cure in a Western Science Hospital you're saying that your Creator was wrong for inflicting you with cancer...and we all know your Creator is never wrong.
QUESTION Mr. Stein:
"Why, in the Creator's Name, did He/She create Cancer, Alzheimers or the other wonderfully fatal creations He/She has given to his "most beloved" creations?"
When you Creationists can answer that, get back to us.
We modern human beings will be over here trying to better mankind by curing Cancer, Alzheimers and His/Hers other wonderfully deadly creations!
A note for the record.
It is my personal contention that Aristotle was a master of sophistry, and in many cases used His sophisticated knowledge of the "Art" to His advantage in argument as a preface to proffer ideals which He and the powers that be wished to be disseminated. In other words He played both ends to the middle and was not what Ms. Cecccarelli in her article claims, above reproach with regard to sophism. This fact may have been a result of discretion being the better part of valor considering His times?
God is just a human emotion, locked inside the psyche of a human being because of the Human condition and perpetuated by those that are illusional and those that seek control of others.
Math is a human language, created to take measure, and a way to share universal concepts of measure. The signs and symbols could all be changed any time to a new language and it would not change a thing, as long as the language represented the concepts in a universal manor, a standard.
Particle physics only happen in a lab, by a collider, the same goes for Bose"Einstein condensate, and certain superfluids there is no evidence of either happening in the natural universe. QM is a language not even well understood by those trying to speak it, the theory of everything is fleeting. The Spaghetti (string) theory, ain't fit to eat. Trying to relate QM to any concept of the God of Abraham or any other man made Gods is ridiculous. How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?
There has never, yeah I said "never" been a Prophet that has not gone to the mountain top or into the desert, without knowing what he would bring down or back.
How do I know? How can't one know is my answer.
Darling atheist friend Dap,
Just found this reply of yours to a comment of mine
"Muse my dear believer friend, how many times do I have to tell ya, "Logic" is a science, the science of reason, you don't go there. Did ya like the art of Albert Alcalay? Agape."
Sorry to reply so tardily. Yes! How wonderful and amazing his adaptation of his art to his vision deficits. It's very inspiring. Sorry I have missed seeing it on PBS, but thank you for bringing his work to my attention.
Agape,
Muse
Dear Muse,
I'm happy to hear ya ya found Albert Alcalay's work of interest, I would see if you could get the DVD of the program from your local library or order it from the PBS store.
It made me think of you when I watched it, not only because of your own work, but because of your interest in art and the humanities, it really is a case in point of how important the arts are and the healing properties for the human spirit.
When I was very young 11 years old, the first place that I went to when I used to sneak downtown to Chicago on the train was the art institute of Chicago, it was and has remained to this day my favorite. So when I recommend His work to you, it was with some background. I wish I could have found better links to His work online for you.
Besides I was thinking maybe it would keep ya busy for a while, instead of tormenting poor non-believers on HuffPost, thought it may inspire you to spend much more time painting and less on proselytizing and propagandizing. TeeHeehe >:-) Agape.
Moderationsmuse,
We (You and I) agree about much of what you express throughout your many screedings.
1) You are without the abilities or training to understand anything about physics.
2) You are not a philosopher, nor do you have those type of critical thinking skills.
3) Because of (1) and (2), what you do contribute in the vast majority of your rants, are wishful thinking, and without merit, are completely unsupportable except by "faith", which amounts to being nothing more than a grifter's art.
Socrates, Plato's mentor once said: "There is only one good, knowledge, and only one evil, ignorance."
Plato, Socrates, and I are all in agreement, using Ockham's razor to decide where you would fall within Socrates statement is quite clear. What's up with that? (rhetorical question)
Therefore, if God did in fact exist, you would not be serving Him well, unless of course He is an evil God, which history seems to confirm by most accounts.
It may, be the case that there is *no* evil God, but only evil people, that's a personal choice, knowledge or the lack there of, pick one?
Quick question...Coming from one who advocaes the concept of intelligent design.
If I remember my science, matter can be neither created or destroyed through natural processes, simply modified. So where did the matter that forms the universe come from? Science only seems to have theories from the big bang forward.
I would also suggest that people read or re-read the Bible Gen. 1:1.
"In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. (Literally created from nothing) and the Earth was(become) without form and void" The rest of the creation story refers to God creating from existing matter. Nothing is mentioned (Because it is not relevant to our ancestors or us) of the time between "In the beginning" and "The Earth was (Become) without form and void" My thoughts on that time is that the Creator was preparing the Earth for us. (Personal opinion is that it was through the process of evolution.)
The problem, as I see it, is that science believes that it does not need religion, and religion believes that science is anathema to faith. I believe that science shows the power of God, and the 2 are intertwined.
"...science believes that it does not need religion.."
The problem is that there is no place in testable physical or mathematical propositions for an agent that we have NO empirical knowledge of. We cannot test for, explain, or account for "the will of god", The "mind of god" or anything else to do with god. There is NO place in the application or formulation of ANY scientific theory to insert god. The problem is, that as clear as that should be, it is unacceptable to a certain segment of the population, who remain ignorant of science, what it does, and how it operates, and how we know what we know. Instead of learning about these things, these people choose to remain ignorant and assert their dogma. "Inset god here" IS an anathema to science.
There comes the point, though, when even the most critical scientist needs to step back and say, "Science does not explain this at this time" the "insert god or gods here" applies to science and scientists as well. When the Theory du jour is treated the same way by scientists that God is treated by Christians, They have become no more than that which they decry.
I am not saying that certain of my fellow believers are not ignorant of science, because they most certainly are. I am just saying that scientists need to keep an open mind about opposing theories, whether it is an all-powerful creator, man-made global warming, intellegent design, evolution, or gravity. I am also saying that just because we are Christians, does not mean that we should ignore the scientific evidence. The scriptures ask believers to test the spirit, not accept it blindly.
Just want to add that as a group, people engaged in the sciences are well aware that there is much we don't know; nothing is more humbling than knowledge and it's pursuit. But they are also keenly aware that it's easy to fool ourselves, and that is where the methods of science are used to keep us on the path to the truth. As a group those with religious certainty are the most skilled at self deception and are the least aware of how little they know.
Evolution is THE cornerstone of all biological science and is becoming incresingly important in pharmacology, cognitive sciences, sociology, and many other fields. You can't put this back in the bottle, and ID is an attempt by the religious to obfuscate what may be the truths they fear most.
Religious believers always tell me that their faith does not require evidence, because that's what faith is. The thing you don't seem to grasp is that belief in a theory is not the same thing as belief in a god because theories are based on empirical EVIDENCE. Your statements are evidence to me that you do not understand this critical difference.
Intelligent design is NOT a theory. It is an untested and untestable hypothesis. It has not risen to the position of 'theory' and will not do so until someone figures out a way to test it and provide supporting evidence. Until that happens there is NO debate; there is no controversy, except in the minds of people who cannot grasp this simple fact.
The point is, many scientist's are believers and of many faiths, that's not the problem, nor is People of faith as it were.
The problem is forcing of your believes on others, the fear tactics, the intolerance, the our way or the highway, the blind faith without any weight none at all no evidence not even a modicum, the back handed politics which try to over throw our Constitutional Republic by unconstitutional means, the failure to understand the ideal and wisdom of the founders separation of Church and State, the religious ideology that keeps others from getting proper medical treatment and being allow to decide their own fate when their end days have come, the shunning and the ostrazation and persecution, by intent, of others.
The problem is not your belief in Theology, the problem is that you would decide for everyone else because of those believes what's right for them, our belief be damned.
The problem is that you can live the under the rules as they are, the way you wish, but the rest of us must also abide by your antiquated "Sky Pilot" guide too.
You don't see a problem with that? You do not only want to live as you wish, but you want everyone else to live that way too. FORGETABOUTIT !
GOP4moretears Part 1
I am starting a new thread. Your comment was to HeevenStevens, but I add my 2 cents, since I seem to be the only advocate (sort of) for "intelligent design" (which I'll call Platonism).
"It was shown" (As in: "It was shown, in a court of law that "Intelligent Design" was developed by intent to deceive....") is passive voice. Your comment would be more persuasive if you supplied some particulars. However, all that aside, I was not addressing high school curricula in my comments. Neither was I really even advocating for ID as science, nor am I a "nut," even by HeevenSteven's interesting standard! And I suspect that I'm not alone in finding something intriguing in the broad notion of intelligent design.
(More to come. Why won't they let us make our long posts?)
1. Why do men have nipples?
2. Why did the Creator create all those different deadly form of Cancer...isn't one enough?
3. Why are there so many different kinds of domestic dogs?
4. Why do insects develop a resistance to pesticides?
5. Why do bacterium develop resistance to anti-biotics over time?
6. Why do human beings have so many different skin colors?
7. Why do Intelligent Design advocates go to Western Science hospitals instead of Creationist Churches when they get sick or injured?
Well be waiting for your answers...but we won't be holding our breath!
GOP4moretears Part 1 1/2
This notion, which is quite ancient and not necessarily connected to any particular religious ideology, provides a kind of alternate narrative. And that's really all. It's a philosophical fulcrum, a different kind of "what if" scenerio. Why would anyone, scientist or anybody else, find this threatening? As to introducing this idea in high school, it would have to make its appearance with serious texts -- starting with Greeks first, and then ... I don't know what (am not a philosopher). I don't see it happening. It is too hard for high school. Similarly, cutting edge physics -- string theory, etc. -- is too hard. Gracious, who would teach it? Does anyone think that the average high school physics teacher is some kind of genius? And evolution at the high school level? Come on. It's not going to be gene sequencing. You guys need to revisit a typical high school for a little reality check.
Well, for one "Intelligent design" a modern concept, (has to be) because it is supposed to be about science within the modern context of the term, not in a philosophical context. (which you seek to twist the meaning)
It was proven, I.D. was an effort to introduce what is considered theological concepts into the public school system, sorry it's not allow to teach religion in the public school system.
A lot of "modern" concepts have been around forever. Human beings get their drawers in a wad about the same stuff, century after century.
Plus ça change, plus c"est la même chose.
GOP4moretears Part 2
The Pandas and People thing is part of the culture wars. Why people keep fussing and fuming about this is a real mystery to me. It shouldn't scare the scientists. (What a timid bunch!) Nor should it provide overmuch comfort for religious fundamentalists. People doing cutting edge science are an elite group. They're really the only people who even understand what they're doing. Their chief problem is not designing high school curricula -- it's getting research grants. Scientists need the big bucks. So they must go courting the ignorant masses. Evidently scientists are not entirely comfortable in this role. Hence the sturm und drang. I don't, however, think one persuades anyone to reach for their wallets by notifying them how stupid they are. (Ms. Tarico, take heed.)
Fundamentalists pay taxes too. Carrots, my friends. Not sticks. Try carrots.
Intolerant-Muse,
Fact is, your obvious threats against others in your closing paragraph is exactly the problem, it's witch burning, the Inquisitions, the crusades, it is your answer to everything threats leading to acts of violence against others.
Yeah, their Orwellian debates are becoming less rational as their sophistry increases.
Fact is they keep doing the same thing and following the same antiquated paradigm and expect a different outcome. Their divine guide has not proved out to be omniscient, omnipresent, and Omnipotent as foretold. Imagine that.
All of us who opposed the ass-in-chief's war are helping to pay the trillions in taxes it's going to cost; let's not go down that road.
The ancientness of a notion has little to do with it's validity. If Plato he were alive today with up to date knowledge, he'd be against ID, because he would surely see it clearly for what it is. ID is not what scientists find threatening, it's that for political and religious fervor of against real science. Leave Pandas and People for the culture wars then; keep it out of science class. It is in FACT the religious who feel threatened by evolution.
How 'bout this: before each American history lesson, the teacher is required to state that not all historians agree with the meta-narrative threaded through the history of our democracy. Many people think that socialism is a better system for most people. Some think that blah, blah, blah. If we start screwing with the curricula like that, where does it end? It's a subtle form of book burning.
"The ancientness of a notion has little to do with it's validity." -- Agree completely. I mention this only because the ID is supposed to be so controversial. If so, it's a very old controversy.
"If Plato he were alive today with up to date knowledge, he'd be against ID...." I am not so confortable as you, putting words into Plato's mouth. Moreover, I think Plato would have found the conflict between politics, religion and science very intriguing since similar conflicts erupt in the dialogues. He would perhaps smile at how accurately he depicted enduring aspects of human nature.
As to the American history teacher's lesson plans, I expressed no opinion on the topic except to say that the whole controversy was above the heads of the average high school student.
The whole thing strikes me as a tempest in a teapot.
Two millenia before Darwin it was not a controversy.
High school science is mostly about what we know, and a bit about how we know it. I agree the deeper philosophical arguments about epistemology probably don't belong in a standard H.S. science curricula. My point about the history thing was just to refute many who claim that since evo is "just a theory" we should be telling H.S. students that it isn't a fact. My point was if you carry that policy through where does it end?
The religionists for all their bombastic screeds, holy transcendent hyperbolic rhetoric and superstitions, they are but snake oil peddlers, and all who greet them must be made aware, caveat empor!
Valerie, I just looked at your bio; I'm embarrassed to admit it took me so long (duh! what was I thinking?), as it's usually the first thing I do with a blogger I don't know.
I want to say welcome to HuffPo, I enjoyed this piece and I just read you March 19th piece on leaving Jesus, which was excellent as well. I"m looking forward to more from you.
As a life scientist, I think it is quite informative to discuss the various dogmatic theories of "creation" that people of various cultures around the world have developed and which have existed for thousands of years. This uniform human desire to explain our raison d'etre is in itself a phenomenon unto itself. Scientifically, our "evolution" of spiritual curiousity nakes a very interesting scientific question to answer - as far as we know, we are the one species that has such a keen desire to find out how we came to be the way we are. Of course, science class can't be the place or time for discussing stories of creationism - since science didn't provide the tools or background for the
Posted April 11, 2008 | 02:12 PM (EST)