Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?

CMI ^ | April 16, 2009 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

[GodGunsGuts]

Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?

by Russ Humphreys

Published: 16 April 2009

This year, as has been happening every year for several decades, various U.S. states are introducing legislation encouraging public-school students to examine scientific evidence against Darwinism. And again, anti-creationist lobby groups, such as the National Center for Science Education,[1] are pushing the panic button, claiming that such efforts aim to introduce Christianity into government-run schools.

This year, however, the anti-creationists seem to be pushing the button harder, saying that such bills “are multiplying out of control”.[2] Perhaps that is because more states now seem to be involved. Bills are pending or currently passed in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, while more are sprouting in Oklahoma, New Mexico, Michigan, Missouri, and South Carolina. As usual, one tactic the anti-creationists are using is to label such efforts as “creationist” and therefore “religion”, even though the bills only propose teaching more science evidence...

[mgstarr]

Thanks for saving me the time of trying to find and post that graphic.

[Soothesayer]

That’s wonderful! So how many experiments did you do?

[LiteKeeper]

MEGA-DITTOES

[Liberty1970]

Some of Darwin’s positions are outdated and some are not. It’s important to remember that he knew nothing of modern genetics and wasn’t even aware of Gregor Mendel’s work.

Of course not. Darwinian theory would never have arisen in a more modern scientific environment. Even now I find that I have to keep unlearning things that Darwinism taught me because they keep turning out false.

For example, I long accepted that natural selection must at least play a dominant role in gene selection, whether in a creationist or evolutionist model. But the steady flow of the research data on causes of death, gene selection and population genetics is forcing me to conclude that natural selection is a trivial and almost random agent. It weeds out of the worst of the worst lethal mutations, but does terribly little else. Creationary models of speciation, etc., will do well to pretty much ignore natural selection as a factor going forward.

[GodGunsGuts]

You've got it all wrong. The bills before the various state legislatures are primarily designed to prevent the following:

[56newblog]

Creationism is a fundamental “religious” belief.
KEEP religion “OUT” of public schools. KEEP religious beliefs in your Heart, your Home with your family and friends, “private” religious institutions of learning, and in your houses of worship.
Do not attempt to force your religious views on the rest of the world. There are very “wise” reasons why the founding fathers saw the need for separation of church and state.

There is NO scientific evidence to support fundamental creationist beliefs. LET your religion “EVOLVE” as we as a earthly human Life Form have.

[r9etb]

Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?

LOL! For some reason this line reminds me of the mouse who married an elephant. As he climbed her hindquarters and began to consummate the marriage, the elephant was struck in the head by a falling branch. "Ouch!" she exclaimed. "Fear not, my dear," replied the mouse. "I'll be gentle!"

[B-Chan]

[Liberty1970]

They must have some kind of absolute control. I have never seen experimental data for 6-day creationism, not even on the internet. They must have control over even that!

Historical models (which include both creationary and evolutionary models) cannot be directly confirmed by experiments. You might as well complain that no one has any "experimental data" to prove that Washington led his army across the Delaware river, etc.

What we can show is that systematically, the creationary model has a more parsimonious fit for natural history data than old-earth, evolutionary models. There is very little left that I could use to argue for an old earth any more, in preference to a young created earth with a catastrophic history. It's not possible to be well-informed regarding geological, paleontological, biological and other scientific data and prefer an old earth or evolution by common descent any more, unless one is irrationally, religiously motivated.

[GodGunsGuts]

Actually, none of the current bills are promoting creation science, as far as I know. As in the Texas bill, what they want is for the public schools to teach both the strengths and weaknesses of the neo-Darwinian ToE. Who could be against that? Wouldn’t ya know it, the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism is against that! LOL

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

After a quick viewing of your postings, I come to the conclusion that your favorite song, and therefore your theme song, is “The One Note Samba.”

[tacticalogic]

They want to “overthow” a lot more than one long dead biologist.

[GodGunsGuts]

One can only hope!

[Riodacat]

Great. I love THAT one..

[Soothesayer]

“Historical models (which include both creationary and evolutionary models) cannot be directly confirmed by experiments. You might as well complain that no one has any “experimental data” to prove that Washington led his army across the Delaware river, etc.”

History and scientific theories can’t be “proven” but you can build a case.

For example, there are two things you can do to build a case for young Earth creationism:

1. A mathematical and experimental alternative to current rock dating methods.

2. Locate modern multicellular species in the pre-cambrian sedimentary rock layers.

If you are a creation scientist, I would suggest starting there.

[TexGuy]

... otherwise doctors would still believe that sickness was caused by newts living in one’s stomach or imbalance in essential vapors.

or Scientists would still be trying to create Gold from dirt ...

[snarks_when_bored]

Anti-creationists: do they fear an overthrow of Darwin in the U.S.?

It's a slippery slope. First they come for Darwin; next, they'll be coming for Maxwell. Who knows where it might end?

[Soothesayer]

“It’s not possible to be well-informed regarding geological, paleontological, biological and other scientific data and prefer an old earth or evolution by common descent any more, unless one is irrationally, religiously motivated.”

You can be well informed on the limitations of current experimental technique and still try to come up with natural explanations. You can’t use “supernatural” as an explaination because it is always a non-explaination by definition ( of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe). The supernatural is always something that is not yet covered by science or perhaps not possible to be covered. Otherwise, it would instead be called “natural” instead.

[Marie2]

Well, school boards are SUPPOSED to be under local control. If the citizens in that district want evolution looked at critically, instead of swallowed whole, they should be able to assert that without a bunch of controversy.

I do not understand why honest evolutionists, which I assume most of my fellow FReepers are, get upset when we want the problems, contradictions and unanswered questions of evolutionary theory admitted and explored. To present it as infallible, especially given the tremendous changes that have occurred within it during its short tenure as “the only doctrine of our creation,” is unscientific in itself.

To admit there are weaknesses, flaws, or inconsistencies in the theory of evolution does not make you a creationist. It just makes you an honest person.

[GodGunsGuts]

I’m happy to report that Maxwell was a Christian creationist:

http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs_3.htm#maxwell