Serbia strikes blow against evolution [education]

Serbian Education Minister Ljiljana Colic has ordered schools to stop teaching children the theory of evolution for this year, and to resume teaching it in future only if it shares equal billing with creationism.

The move has shocked educators and textbook editors in the formerly communist state, where religion was kept out of education and politics and was only recently allowed to enter the classroom.

“(Darwinism) is a theory as dogmatic as the one which says God created the first man,” Colic told the daily Glas Javnosti.

Colic, an Orthdox Christian, ordered that evolution theory be dropped from this year’s biology course for 14- and 15-year-olds in the final grade of primary school. As of next year, both creationism and evolution will be taught, she said.

Creationism teaches that a supernatural being created man and the universe. Most scientists regard “creation science” as religious dogma, not empirical science.

Belgrade University biology lecturer Nikola Tucic called the education minister’s ruling a “disaster.”

“This is outrageous ... We are slowly turning into a theocratic state and in the 21st century we are going back to the Book of Revelations,” Tucic told Glas Javnosti, referring to the final section of the Christian Bible.

Lecturer Tucic suspected Colic’s order was a move by Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica to bolster his conservative party’s flagging political strength by winning church support.

“This was a political decision which clearly shows the church is not minding its own business, but is deep into politics,” he said.

I don't like how I left off with my last criticism of trueorigin.org's "creation theory" presentation. I feel like I was trying to handwave too much away, so I felt that I should go into a little more detail as to exactly why it is invalid.

First and foremost, I cannot ignore their brazen dishonesty with respect to the presentation of the theory of evolution. They would have you believe that the theory of evolution states outright that no gods exist and that the supernatural is a fiction. This is, of course, false. No scientific theory, evolution included, makes any statements whatsoever about the existence of a supernatural element nor does it offer any commentary on the nature of any hypothetical supernatural constructs. That the author made such an assertion means that he is either lying about evolution theory, meaning that he is fundamentally dishonest, or he is lying about his knowledge of the theory of evolution, meaning that he is fundamentally dishonest.

Now, this does not itself invalidate their "creation theory", it merely invalidates their comparison between their own "creation theory" and the lies that they tell about the theory of evolution. The talking points of "creation theory" are another, also flawed, matter.

First and foremost, I must admit that many of the inital arguments/observations that they make for the theory are themselves falsifiable. A few of them, however, are not only non-falsifiable, but non-scientific as well. For example, the first statement of their "theory" is "As with all man’s endeavors, true science will inevitably honor the Creator and affirm the Bible as His true and accurate record, wherever it addresses the historical past". This statement addresses a supernatural construct. As science is only able to observe and comment within the natural universe, this statement is inherently non-scientific. I know that creationists love to thrash and moan and toss a major fit about the fact that science excludes the supernatural in its study. This is understandable. Creationists have no valid arguments, so they have to chagne the definition of science if they want their claims to have any "scientific merit". I, however, am not going to fall for that crap. They're making claims regarding a supernatural construct, therefore, their claims are outside of the scope of science. This does not means (as some -- not all, but some lying creationists will claim) that I am declaring them as inherently false. Non-scientific does not mean false. It just means that it cannot be studied with the scientific method.

Now, moving along to the non-supernatural claims that they use as the foundation of their "theory". The second claim is "The biblical record is accepted as a reliable historical basis of interpreting empirical data". This is a non-supernatural claim, but -- as they admit themselves -- it is non-falsifiable. In fact, it's just based upon individual opinion, not founded upon actual observation of the natural universe. Right from the start they're declaring that their theory is not entirely based upon what has been observed, but also in part on what they want to believe is true.

The next statement is "God Created..." (no, I'm not cutting it off. That's the full statement offered). Oh, wait. Supernatural construct again. Non-scientific. Invalid for a scientific theory. Moving right along, then.

The next non-supernaturalistic claim is "Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection". They claim that this could be falsified by showing that naturalistic processes could bring about organisms. Except that this isn't true. Just because you can show that a process is physically possible does not mean that it did happen. Showing that the organisms that we see today could have come about through natural processes would not falsify the statement that they were created as-is. Thus, their claim of falsifiability, in this instance, is inaccurate. They are wrong.

Next, "Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation". This is falsifiable, as they explain in their footnote. Except that they haven't defined what they really mean by "genetic information" (which is what the statement references), and in fact I've never really had a creationist adequately define "information" with respect to genetics (and someone feel free to fill me in on this). So, it's a falsifiable claim, once creationists get their terminology in order.

Next, "Indicative of Creator’s prerogative to employ similar or identical structures or information sequences for similar structures or similar functions in different organisms". This is not a hypothesis statement, this is an assumption. They've already proposed a "Creator" without having even come up with a complete theory. This is called assuming the conclusion, and moreover no justification is given for the assumption of exactly what is the "Creator's perogative". It is not valid within a scientific theory.

Moving on, and skipping their admitted non-falsifiable statements and also their blatant lie regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which they just threw in to claim that evolution theory would violate it, a typical creationst dishonest statement) we come to "General pattern of ecological zones quickly buried from lower to higher elevations; variations expected". Now this, this is the first real prediction that they have made. I honestly cannot find fault with this statement (in speaking of its validity as a scientific hypothesis/theory, not in the truth value of the statement itself). Of course, since this is thus far the only really valid scientific statement (the second once the creationists pushing this "theory" define "genetic information" in a satisfactory way), it's a rather flimsy argument.

The next, and final statement, addressing errors in dating methods, is "Residual effect of catastrophic processes and conditions during the flood" again claims falsifiablity, but again isn't. The explanation for falsifying it is "if uniformitarian “dating” methods unanimously and consistently agreed on any one age of the earth contradicting the biblical creation estimate.". Except that they've not yet shown that multiple dating methods could all give the same erroneous date for the same material under specific conditions. Thus, the statement is actually non-falsifiable, or at least they haven't provided a falsification criteria that is actually valid.

Now finally, what really bothers me, is that the above are just -- as admitted in the article -- components of a creationist paradigm. They may form the basis of "creation theory", but the actual "theory" itself is never definitively stated. Moreover, only two statements could potentially be falsified, and the two of them together do not lead to any inherent conclusions. Even accepting all of the statements that do not appeal to supernatural constructs as part of the "theory", I cannot derive any conclusions from them, much less "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth". With the Theory of Evolution, a series of testable, falsifiable statements based upon observations of the natural universe were put together to come up with the coherent explanation that biodiversity on earth is the result of mutation and natural selection starting with a common ancestor (or common ancestors) that became more and more diverse as populations were isolated in radically different environments where different genetic traits created different survival advantages. Whether or not you agree that it is true, it's still a series of statement that logically flow to a conclusion. Not so with "creation theory". At best, it's an attempt to show that evolution is impossible and that one or two things in the world might possibly coincide with how some people think the Bible described some events in the past. You can't get a coherent conclusion from that.

And now I'm going to bed. I could probably write something more reasoned than what I just offered, but I'm not really sure that the piece offered at trueorigins.org is worth that much effort.

You spent far more time reading and criticising a creationoid essay than I would have done. Personally, I regard 'noid essays as being as worthy of my time as a glowing economic report put out by the government of Zimbabwi. Nevertheless, I want to comment on a couple of your points, which may or may not be related to the 'noid article, but which triggered these responses:

Non-scientific does not mean false. It just means that it cannot be studied with the scientific method.

That's the big issue many of them have in mind when they toss around the term "naturalistic." However, there are indeed those who, while pointing out the truism that creationist claims aren't scientific, will also toss in their personal opinions about theology. That's only a personal quirk of the particular debater, and not a basic element of science. Yet it inspires endless postings in our threads about "Godless, atheistic, naturalistic science."

They claim that this [creationism] could be falsified by showing that naturalistic processes could bring about organisms.

Another key issue. When we point out a way in which something could have evolved, such as an eye, we have a very limited purpose. We are not claiming that this is the way it did happen, or that we can reproduce the process in a lab. All we are doing is explaining how such a process is possible by natural means. And that's an important point, because the only argument that the creationist really has is that such developments are not possible, and thus must be miracles. Thus the "miracle is necessary" argument can be falsified. But, as you say, notwithstanding the existence of at least one natural pathway, it could have been done miraculously. On the other hand ... it also could have happened naturally.

First and foremost, I cannot ignore their brazen dishonesty with respect to the presentation of the theory of evolution.

I just included that line so you can trace back the post, I am so late in this discussion.

I can't escape the analogy of this subject with the Dan Rather - forged memos - controversy.

It is the same issue really.

Dan Rather says, "Prove the memos are false."

Faulty logic, Can't Prove a Negative. Can't prove a lie true.

Can't prove there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. Nothing exists by which to prove such, by definition.

He has to prove they are real, are valid.

It is the same whether it is ID, evolution or the memos.

One can only give evidence of the EXISTENCE!!! of something, not its non-existence.

This is so crudely, fundamentally simple that I am continually amazed when people don't see it. But they don't.

This corruption of the thought process is far more damaging than the false beliefs generated by them. It is sad, painful even, to see people fighting for issues that are mere fantasy, for which there is no shred of evidence, on the same level as getting your foot run over by a truck.

(Or that hiker who had to cut off his own arm because he got it stuck between a rock and a hard place.)

In the end one can only walk away from these people and go on educating those who will listen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.