Grand Canyon Science-Creationist Face-Off

http://sciencewatch.blogspot.com/ ^

[truthfinder9]

There are a number of “battles” worth fighting in the whole “naturalism vs. good science” debates, including the allowing of intelligent design to be taught and discussed. However, the fighting to keep the young-earth creationist book in the Grand Canyon is not one of them. While I don’t condone the banning of any books, the Park Service can choose what it does or does not sell at its stores (though the book in question wouldn’t be banned, just moved). The following is a letter to the Park Service I wrote when the issue first arose:

Regarding the supposed “Book-Banning by Liberals” at the Gandy Canyon store: while I don’t condone the banning of any books, some are making incorrect statements/inferences about the evolution-creation debate.

The statement that one conservative group made, “contrary to the claims of traditional secular science, which contends the canyon is millions of years old” is misleading. Most people in the intelligent design movement agrees that the universe is old. Old age does NOT equal naturalistic evolution. Old age does NOT help evolution. As I describe in my own book (Is the Truth out There?) young-earthism is neither biblical nor scientific. Young-earthism is held up by skeptics as a reason not to trust the Bible.

To make it sound like young-earthism is widely accepted in conservatism(which it is not) is to invite ridicule. If a recent Gallup poll did indeed “show that almost one half of Americans believe in ‘creation’ and that it took place less than 10,000 years ago,” then that is another indicator of the abject failure of our education system and the failure of Christianity to address scientific issues.

The fact is that old age is one of Intelligent Design Theory’s strongest evidences. So while no one should support book banning (though technically it wouldn’t be banned), should we support young-earth “science” which is no more correct then naturalism or flat-earthism?

We should be focusing on practicing of good science, not the maintaining of fallacious beliefs masquerading as science. Intelligent design theory has come too far to be derailed by the battles between young-earthers and naturalists.

[Laissez-faire capitalist]

Young-earthism, old-earthism, darwinism/evolutionary thought...They are ALL theories, not Laws.

I often wonder why, then, that evolution is being taught as if it is indeed a Law.

[Blzbba]

"Most people in the intelligent design movement agrees that the universe is old. Old age does NOT equal naturalistic evolution. Old age does NOT help evolution. "



No, but Old Age DOES fly in the face of the fundamentalist Creationists who insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[eagle11]

IMO, the proponents of Creationism and Intelligent Design are making philosophical and theological appeals. But true science is not democratic, and is not open to populist debate.

[Stone Mountain]

Young-earthism, old-earthism, darwinism/evolutionary thought...They are ALL theories, not Laws. I often wonder why, then, that evolution is being taught as if it is indeed a Law.

Do you have a similar problem with gravitational theory or atomic theory? The real problem here is with the words "theory" and "law," both of which mean different things in scientific and non-scientific usages.

[truthfinder9]

Their interpretation is contingent on what is indeed "literal" and the original Hebrew does not say "24 hour days."