Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism.
From The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Creationist Claim CA040: Fairness demands that evolution and creation be given equal time.
Creationist Claim CA040: Fairness demands that evolution and creation be given equal time.
In fairness, creation and evolution deserve equal time in science classes. (H.J. Morris 1985, 197-198)
1. The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes.
A 1999 United States poll found that most people favor teaching evolution--and that when creationism is taught, most prefer that it be taught either in nonscience classes or as a religious belief.
2. Equal time would open creationism, and by extension Christianity in general, to ridicule and attack. Saint Augustine recognized this in the fifth century:
3. Equal time would mean teaching
From The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak
In fairness, creation and evolution deserve equal time in science classes. (H.J. Morris 1985, 197-198)
1. The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything we find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes.
A 1999 United States poll found that most people favor teaching evolution--and that when creationism is taught, most prefer that it be taught either in nonscience classes or as a religious belief.
2. Equal time would open creationism, and by extension Christianity in general, to ridicule and attack. Saint Augustine recognized this in the fifth century:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions,...and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. (1982, 42-43)
3. Equal time would mean teaching
- other versions of creationism from other denominations of Christianity (including young-earth, old-earth, day-age, gap theory, geocentrism, and flat earth). All have equal basis for being taught, since they are all based on exactly the same Bible. All are mutually incompatible (DYG 2000; H.M. Morris 1985, 215-247; Watchtower 1985, 186).
- other versions of scientific creationism from other religions. Claims have been made for Muslim, Hindu, and Native American versions of creationism.
The only legal precedent favoring creationism in the United States in the last fifty years was an Interior Department decision finding, on the basis of native creation and flood myths, that 9,400-year-old Kennewick Man was associated with present-day Native American tribes (Chatters 2001, 266; see CJ311).
- creation traditions from more than 300 other religions and cultures, from Abenaki to Zulu.
- other ideas for the origin of life and the universe, such as
- solipsism
- Last Thursdayism, the unfalsifiable view that the universe and everything in it was created last Thursday with only the appearance of earlier history
- multiple designers (Hoppe 2004)
- Raelianism or other extraterrestrial involvement
- creation by time travelers.
- solipsism
- Creationists do not advocate equal time for evolutionary theory in church services. Why?
From The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Creationist Claim CA041: Teach the controversy
CREATIONIST CLAIM CA041: Teach the controversy.
Students should be taught all sides of a controversial issue. Evolution should not be taught without teaching the controversy that surrounds it.
1. On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy. The "teach the controversy" campaign is an attempt to get pseudoscience taught in classrooms. Lessons about the sociological issues of the evolution-creation controversy may be appropriate in history or other nonscience classes.
If the object is to keep bad science from the classroom, the same standards should be applied to the counterarguments from creationists, which are all bad science.
2. There are controversies over details of evolutionary theory, such as the relative contributions of sympatric versus allopatric speciation. These controversies require a great deal of background in biology even to understand what they are about. They should not be taught to beginning students. They should be taught to graduate-level students in biology, and they are.
Further Reading: Scott, E.C., and G. Branch. 2003. Evolution: What's wrong with 'teaching the controversy.'
From The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak
Students should be taught all sides of a controversial issue. Evolution should not be taught without teaching the controversy that surrounds it.
1. On the fundamental issues of the theory of evolution, such as the facts of common descent and natural selection, there is no scientific controversy. The "teach the controversy" campaign is an attempt to get pseudoscience taught in classrooms. Lessons about the sociological issues of the evolution-creation controversy may be appropriate in history or other nonscience classes.
If the object is to keep bad science from the classroom, the same standards should be applied to the counterarguments from creationists, which are all bad science.
2. There are controversies over details of evolutionary theory, such as the relative contributions of sympatric versus allopatric speciation. These controversies require a great deal of background in biology even to understand what they are about. They should not be taught to beginning students. They should be taught to graduate-level students in biology, and they are.
Further Reading: Scott, E.C., and G. Branch. 2003. Evolution: What's wrong with 'teaching the controversy.'
From The Counter-Creationism Handbook by Mark Isaak
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
