Pants in knot: “Creationism” in Louisiana schools

It is a category mistake to regard Science in terms of methodology, doctrines, and ideology. Similar category mistakes are made in regards to Christian faith. I propose that Science should be most basically understood as a collaborative search for truth. It should be sociologically treated as fundamentally a civilizational project, rather than as a body of knowledge or a method of discovering knowledge. It is a sociological category error to think of Science according to hierarchical and bureaucratic norms, as is routinely done in academia, government, and the mass media. Mahlon Bekedam

Teaching Creationism is no worse than teaching evolutionism. We don't see what the issue is. If it was up to us we would have biology classes teach biology, present the evidence and leave the spin off of it. Then have open discussions as to what mechanisms can account for the evidence, see if those mechanisms can be tested and then test them. Virgil Cain

Oh the humanity! So, Severeky, aside from your precious church state rule, what's wrong with it? May the best theory win! After all, you have the science on your side. Oh wait.... AnimatedDust

The usual part-fear (being, themselves, physically inferior) and part-wishful thinking. Both the Nazis and Japanese fondly thought they were a master-race, physically as well as intellectually. But we're still waiting for the next Big White Hope to become the World Heavy-weight Boxing Champion - the ultimate sporting prize in he eyes of the same - and most of mankind, if it comes to that. And then the Williams sisters go and thrashed all-comers off the tennis-court, and well they don't do too bad at sprinting, middle-distance and long-distance running, and a lot of other sports. Dart, indoor carpet-bowls and synchronized-swimming, not so much. BA77 pointed out that there have been plenty of authoritative studies carried out clearly attesting that neither are they in no wise inferior intellectually, given a comparable life-environment. Axel

ppolish: To this day there are folks in Louisiana who consider blacks “savages” in the Darwinian sense. Inferior race. As a former resident of the Pelican State, folks have considered blacks as an inferior race long before Darwin was born. Heard about slavery? velikovskys

Thanks, BA, for the excellent quotes and references. leodp

Its good to see Louisiana not be intimidated . The truth is what should be taught. if thats not settled the people should decide which options are taught.Only the people should decide these things. its freedom and rights to run ones own home. Evolutionism etc always loses in competition, to some degree, with creationism so they would worry. Discovery folks should change and demand trith and freedom and creationism in schools. Yes the bible. otherwise in subjects about accuracy in origins banning the bible means OFFICIAL STATE OPINION the bible is not truth. Thats illegal for the state to say. Where is a lawyer when you need one/! Robert Byers

supplemental quotes:

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint, and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” Ruse, M., - atheistic philosopher - How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? Darwinians wrongly mix science with morality, politics, National Post, pp. B1, B3, B7 (May 13, 2000) A Neurosurgeon, Not A Darwinist – Michael Egnor Excerpt: The fight against the design inference in biology is motivated by fundamentalist atheism. Darwinists detest intelligent design theory because it is compatible with belief in God. But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines. I still consider religious explanations for biology to be unscientific at best, dogma at worst. But I understand now that Darwinism itself is a religious creed that masquerades as science. Darwin’s theory of biological origins is atheism’s creation myth, and atheists defend their dogma with religious fervor. – Michael Egnor is a professor and vice chairman of the department of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/06/neurosurgeon-intelligent-design-opinions-darwin09_0205_michael_egnor.html

Of related interest: The Supreme court has ruled that, for first amendment purposes, atheism is, in fact, a religion:

Atheism and the Law – Matt Dillahunty Excerpt: “… whether atheism is a ‘religion’ for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture.” “Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of ‘ultimate concern’ that for her occupy a ‘place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,’ those beliefs represent her religion.” “We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) (‘If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.’)” “The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a ‘religion’ for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions” http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742

Here are several examples of Darwinian atheists themselves violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by openly proselytizing their own atheistic religion in the classroom:

“Proselytizing for Darwin’s God in the Classroom” John G. West – video http://www.discovery.org/v/40/2

Also of interest, it simply is impossible to do science without presupposing Theology on some level. i.e. In order to do science in the first place, one is forced to presuppose that the universe is rationally ordered and that we have rational minds that are able to comprehend that rational order. Verse and Music:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Imagine Dragons - Radioactive https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktvTqknDobU

bornagain77

to repost from the 'lemonade out of lemon' Luskin thread: As shocking as it may seem to some people, neo-Darwinism is more properly defined as a religion rather than as a science. And thus, since neo-Darwinism is more properly defined as a religion rather than as a science, it is, regardless of whether it will ever be enforced or not, constitutionally illegal to teach neo-Darwinism in the public school classroom. To prove that neo-Darwinism is primarily a religion masquerading in scientific clothing is fairly easy. The reason Darwinism is best defined as a religion rather than a science is because Darwinian evolution is not founded on a rigid mathematical basis, as other overarching theories of science are, but was originally founded, and continues to be founded, primarily on (bad) theological presuppositions.

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011 Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes: I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation): 1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind. 2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern. 3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures. 4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function. 5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms. 6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter. 7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life. 8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life. 9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering. 10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering. per Evolution News and Views Charles Darwin’s use of theology in the Origin of Species – STEPHEN DILLEY Abstract This essay examines Darwin’s positiva (or positive) use of theology in the first edition of the Origin of Species in three steps. First, the essay analyses the Origin’s theological language about God’s accessibility, honesty, methods of creating, relationship to natural laws and lack of responsibility for natural suffering; the essay contends that Darwin utilized positiva theology in order to help justify (and inform) descent with modification and to attack special creation. Second, the essay offers critical analysis of this theology, drawing in part on Darwin’s mature ruminations to suggest that, from an epistemic point of view, the Origin’s positiva theology manifests several internal tensions. Finally, the essay reflects on the relative epistemic importance of positiva theology in the Origin’s overall case for evolution. The essay concludes that this theology served as a handmaiden and accomplice to Darwin’s science. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=376799F09F9D3CC8C2E7500BACBFC75F.journals?aid=8499239&fileId=S000708741100032X Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014 Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,, ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973). Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes: “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,, Per Evolution News and Views Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of theology? – Dilley S. – 2013 Abstract This essay analyzes Theodosius Dobzhansky’s famous article, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” in which he presents some of his best arguments for evolution. I contend that all of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon sectarian claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. Moreover, Dobzhansky’s theology manifests several tensions, both in the epistemic justification of his theological claims and in their collective coherence. I note that other prominent biologists–such as Mayr, Dawkins, Eldredge, Ayala, de Beer, Futuyma, and Gould–also use theology-laden arguments. I recommend increased analysis of the justification, complexity, and coherence of this theology. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23890740

Moreover, Charles Darwin’s college degree was in theology, not in math. In fact, Charles Darwin himself said that he found mathematics to be ‘repugnant’:

“During the three years which I spent at Cambridge my time was wasted, as far as the academical studies were concerned, as completely as at Edinburgh & at school. I attempted mathematics, & even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra.” Charles Darwin, 1887 – Recollections of the Development of my Mind & Character, the work which Darwin himself referred to as his autobiography

Here is a excellent video, based in large measure on Cornelius Hunter's book 'Darwin's God', that reveals some of history and faulty theological reasoning behind Darwin's theory:

The Descent of Darwin (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - Pastor Joe Boot - video - 16:30 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKzUSWU7c2s&feature=player_detailpage#t=996

Not so surprisingly, it was the liberal ‘unscientific’ clergy of Darwin’s day that eagerly to jumped on the Darwinian bandwagon, whilst the conservative ‘scientific’ clergy reacted against the book:

“Religious views were mixed, with the Church of England scientific establishment reacting against the book, while liberal Anglicans strongly supported Darwin’s natural selection as an instrument of God’s design.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_On_the_Origin_of_Species

In was not until the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism came along, around 1940, that neo-Darwinism had some semblance of rigid a mathematical basis so that it could be considered a proper science instead of a pseudo-science. Ironically, the presuppositions behind the mathematical model of the modern synthesis are now, empirically, called into question:

Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Noble – video https://vimeo.com/115822429

,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. of note: Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. Moreover, when the mathematics of the modern synthesis, i.e. population genetics, are applied in a rigorous manner to neo-Darwinian claims, ironically, the mathematics of population genetics actually falsifies neo-Darwinism as being a true description of reality (i.e. falsifies it as being a true science):

Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory – 2008 Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue. Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf Biological Information – Purifying Selection (Mendel’s Accountant) 12-20-2014 by Paul Giem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGJZDsQG4kQ Biological Information – Mutation Count & Synergistic Epistasis (mutation accumulation) 1-17-2015 by Paul Giem – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gdoZk_NbmU

Thus, since neo-Darwinian evolution is based primarily on theological presuppositions, however faulty those presuppositions may be, and is not based on a rigid mathematical basis, (in fact, as was shown, mathematics falsifies neo-Darwinism), then neo-Darwinian evolution is not even a proper science in any meaningful sense of the word 'science' and, as such, fully deserves to be called a religion to the full extent, and meaning, of the word 'religion'. And it is therefore, obviously as a religion, illegal to teach neo-Darwinism in a public school classroom. Unfortunately, it is one law that I have scant hope of ever being enforced properly. bornagain77

Mapou, The scientific theory of Intelligent Design does not argue for 1) a creator of the universe, or 2) that the designs detected originate from a universal creator. To be clear, Creationism in this case is understood to mean:

Creationism is saying something very different from intelligent design. Creationism posits that a supernatural being created life. This is the very reason why the Supreme Court declared creationism to be religion in Edwards. v. Aguillard. Intelligent design theory makes no appeals to the supernatural nor can it tell the identity of the designer. Thus, teaching intelligent design theory cannot entail teaching creationism, or religion. ID proponents do not desire to bring religion into the classroom.

rhampton7

To this day there are folks in Louisiana who consider blacks "savages" in the Darwinian sense. Inferior race. I'm sure they teach their kids THAT part of Evo Theory. http://www.kalb.com/home/headlines/Residents-on-edge-after-KKK-fliers-appear-in-yards-291306801.html?device=phone&c=y ppolish

rhampton7 reminds us:

[The] Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.

While I don't believe that the book of Genesis should be taught in school, I think it is appropriate to teach that there is indeed a lot of very powerful evidence that the universe was designed and created. So pure creationism (without bringing in any religion into the picture) is a perfectly legitimate subject in the classroom. People everywhere should vote on this stuff. If the unfriendly Darwinists start jumping up and down and foaming at the mouth, pull up a chair and enjoy the show. LOL. Mapou

Teaching the critiques of evolutionary theory should not be conflated with Creationism, yet it seems that the Ouachita Parish school system was teaching both. As a reminder:

[The] Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.

rhampton7

Seversky:

Did you miss the part about teachers openly teaching Creationism in the science classes?

Why? You got a problem with it? If Darwinism is allowed in our public schools, so should creationism. Bravo, Louisiana. Mapou

Did you miss the part about teachers openly teaching Creationism in the science classes? Seversky