Evolution : 2 Kansas School Board : 1

[tomndebb]

One issue (and I do not presume to indicate that this was Lib’s point) was where/how the organizers selected the panelists. If the lawyer was Jenkins, (I can’t remember where he teaches), the organizers seriously brought a big gun to the table (and I am surprised if he showed poorly). If the organizers went to one local fundie organization and asked “Who’ve you got?” and then went to all the state colleges and asked for a list of names of the best available speakers on the subject from around the country, that would imply that the deck was stacked.

I see no reason to allow “Creation Science” to waste my kids’ time by “sharing” a spot on the biology curriculum with actual science, but I do not think it is fair to put on dog-and-pony shows instead of legitimate debates.

[Maeglin]

We (the organizers of the event) did not wish to make a completely one-sided presentation or mock the debate whatsoever. The creationists on the panel were the following individuals:

Tom F. Willis, the president of the Creation Science Association, an nonprofit group which urges schools to adopt the teaching of creationism. His group helped the board formulate the science standards adopted the year before. He contended that the teaching of evolution has harmed society.

John H Calvert is a corporate attorney and the managing director of the Kansas-based Intelligent Design Network.

These men were not idiots. They were well-prepared, and believed in what they were saying. I called them ignorant because they accused the scientists of teaching unprovable metaphysics, which they summarily denied.

MR

[tracer]

goboy wrote:

I fail to understand why fundies believe that accepting evolution is equivalent to atheism. It has always seemed to me that the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the nature of Jesus and the Resurrection. Shouldn’t devout Christians simply teach about the redeeming power of the Atonement and God’s love and not worry themselves over such tangential matters?

My impression is that Fundamentalist Christians believe in a kind of “slippery slope” argument.

If you admit that Genesis Chapter 1 isn’t literally true, then later on you’ll admit that Genesis Chapter 3 isn’t literally true, and then you’ll be admitting that the Gospels might not literally be true either, and before you know it homosexuals are burning down your churches and lions are lying down with lambs and Satan beats up Jesus in a steel-cage match.

[David_B]

Maeglin said:

First though, it is important not to misrepresent the Kansas Science Standards instituted by the previous board. The standards never suggest that evolution be stricken from the curriculum and replaced with creationism. Rather they handed the responsibility to evaluate these often competing theories to the local schools.

Correct. However, handing the responsibility to the local schools, and saying that information won’t be on the state standardized tests, is essentially telling the local schools not to bother with it. Sure, a few will do so, but most will spend their time with subjects that will actually be on the state tests.

Also, without the state standards to back them up, teachers are put in a difficult position when some creationist parent comes in and says, “You shouldn’t be teaching this crap.”

Lib said:

That’s a little bit disturbing.

What I find disturbing about the quote above is that you pitted three scientists against two theologians, and then make the astonishingly perfunctory statement that the latter two seemed ignorant. But if you staged three theologians against two scientists, and argued about the Categorical Imperative, wouldn’t the two scientists appear to be staggeringly ignorant?

Yeah, but they were supposed to be talking about science. These were not priests who were putting forth a theological view, but people who were supposed to be discussing a scientific issue.

[Liberal]

If they were theologians who represented themselves as scientists, then they were dishonest.

[David_B]

I would submit that all so-called “creation scientists” are just that.

[Lemur866]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
**

Actually, I think what the Creationists do (at least what they say they do) is posit “models” based on predictions, and then examine which model they believe the data fits with the fewest complications. I don’t see anything wrong with that. Per se. **

Yes, except the “models” fail every one of their predictions. Libertarian, you are too generous. Creation science is not about examining the universe for evidence of a creator. It is about proving that the earth is >10,000 years old, that there was a great flood that covered the earth, that the sun stopped in its tracks for Joshua, etc etc.

Creation Science takes as its first axiom that every word of the KJV of the Bible is literally, incontrovertably true. Old Earth creationists are regarded by most creationists as heretics. These people are not interested in the truth, they are sophists who use the trappings of science to try to put the book of Genesis into geology classrooms.

[tracer]

Lemur866 wrote:

Creation Science takes as its first axiom that every word of the KJV of the Bible is literally, incontrovertably true.

Well, not quite every word.

If they did that, they’d not only be Creationists, they’d be Geocentrists and Flat-Earthers. And they’d have to believe that the (flat) Earth is rectangular, thanks to Revelation 7:1.

[Opus1]

tracer:

If they did that, they’d not only be Creationists, they’d be Geocentrists and Flat-Earthers. And they’d have to believe that the (flat) Earth is rectangular, thanks to Revelation 7:1.

A good number of creationists are geocentrists. I believe geocentrism/heliocentrism was the chosen debate topic at a recent creationists conference. One of the Kansas school board members was also a geocentrist. As far as the flat earth goes, again, there are about 200 flat-earthers left in the creationist movement. But most creationists go through astounding verbal gymnastics to “reinterpret” flat-earth Biblical passages. The “circle of the Earth” in Isaiah is really a sphere; the foundations in Job are actually the mantel underneath the crust; the four corners in Revelations are either the four cardinal directions or the four corners corresponding to the tips of Alaska, Australia, Russia, and South Africa.

[lastgasp]

For your interest, about 5 years ago, the Pope finally conceded that the earth revolves around the sun. And in so little as I understand Catholicism, anything decreed by the Pope carries the full weight as if God said (since the Pope is God’s earthly representative). So despite the scripture, the Catholics at least are converted heliocentrists (at least as I understand it).

[JonF]

Concerning the beliefs and axioms of “Creation Scientists”:

From Introductory Information About … C.S.A. at The Creation Science Association For Mid-America, headed by Tom Willis (one of the participants in maeglin’s event):

“To educate people regarding the vast amount of scientific evidence that supports Biblical Creation as the true account of origins … To show that Biblical Creation, because it is true, is the only “scientific” explanation of origins, and therefore is the only account of origins that can possibly be useful to science. … The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple, but factual, presentation of actual events”

The Intelligent Design Network, from which came the other creationist participant in maeglin’s event, states a much more reasonable-sounding purpose:

“To promote evidence-based science education with regard to the origin of the universe and of life and its diversity. To enhance public awareness of the evidence of intelligent design in the universe and living systems.”

And Mr. Calvert professses not to believe in literal interpretation of Genesis. From Remarks of John Calvert to the Kansas State Board of Education on July 13, 1999:

“I am not a creationist as that term is frequently used in the press and by the scientific community to describe one who believes in a literal and narrow interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2. However, I do believe that life has resulted from design rather than by chance.”

There are other organizations that take Genesis and/or Divine Creation as an axiom. From Answers in Genesis Statement of Faith:

“1. The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. … Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole Creation. … By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.”

From Institute for Creation Research: ICR Tenets of Creationism:

“The Institute for Creation Research bases its educational philosophy on the foundational truth of a personal Creator-God and His authoritative and unique revelation of truth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. … A clear distinction is drawn between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the Bible. … The Bible, consisting of the thirty-nine canonical books of the Old Testament and the twenty-seven canonical books of the New Testament, is the divinely-inspired revelation of the Creator to man. Its unique, plenary, verbal inspiration guarantees that these writings, as originally and miraculously given, are infallible and completely authoritative on all matters with which they deal, free from error of any sort, scientific and historical as well as moral and theological.”

While not all “creation scientists” insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible, many do.

[Sassy]

Not everything the Pope says is the exact word from on high. There is a complex ritual involved for something he says to be taken at that level, and no Pope has invoked that power in many long years. I believe the last time was sometime in the 40’s or 50’s, when he ruled on the virginity of Mary.

Most people take what the Pope says seriously, and there are many under-educated Catholics who do think that his every word is law. I’m sure no one is in any hurry to correct that impression!

PS - the Vatican has never spoken infallibly on birth control.

[JRDelirious]

*Originally posted by lastgasp *
**For your interest, about 5 years ago, the Pope finally conceded that the earth revolves around the sun.
**

Funny. Ha, freakin’ ha.

For the record, what happened back in the 80s and 90s was that the Church admitted it was wrong to have tried Galileo for his teaching and struck down from the books the judgement of the Inquisition on that case (OK, so it took them almost 4 times longer than they took to exonerate Joan of Arc).
The Church accepted the truth of the Heliocentric system waaaay back, within a century of Galileo’s passing (BTW, the real reason Galileo got in hot water was a clash with the authorities over how he published his findings – that, and dissing the sitting Pope; the “heretical” theory offered a convenient excuse to go after him.)

BTW, the RCC accepted evolution as an explanation for the physical origin of life quite early on, for such a conservative body.

[Maeglin]

Thank you very much for all of those links. They were extremely informative.

MR

[Freyr]

I don’t have a citation for it, but I’ve heard that the Pope has issued a “Bull” that Darwin and evolution are completely compatible with Catholic teaching. I’ve not heard what position the Orthodox or Coptic Churches holds on evolution.

If this is true, it adds an interesting twist to the arguement. This isn’t about Christianity vs Science, but “Protestant” Christianity vs Science, or even more precisely, “Fundamentalist Protestant” Christianity vs Science. I believe most Protestant sects don’t hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible. A small group of people are raising a stink because the rest of us don’t believe their holy book is the literal truth.