The Great Debate: "Should ‘Intelligent Design’ be taught in public schools?"

Today is the third of a series of cross-blog debates with conservative blogger Mike Waters; who enjoys the challenge of a gentlemanly discussion. Go and read Mike's opinion over on his blog; and be sure to comment on what you read! Today's topic is of interest because of the controversial story that perhaps life on Earth didn't even develop on this planet at all!

In the mean time, here's my two cents:

Should ‘Intelligent Design’ be taught in public schools?

Let’s get something straight. There is no such thing as ‘Intelligent Design.’

So-called Intelligent Design is essentially Creationism – the belief that the planet Earth, and all life upon it, was created as described in the old testament of the Bible.

The only difference between the two is that teaching Creation Theory in school was made illegal in 1987 (in Edwards v. Aguillard and other court rulings) because it fundamentally violated the principle of Separation of Church and State.

Following that ruling, unscrupulous fundamentalists repackaged Creationism in a shiny new pseudo-scientific format and have, ever since, been trying to get it taught in schools.

Nevertheless, it remains every bit as unconstitutional as the curriculum that sparked Edwards v. Aguillard back in 1987.

But for the sake of argument, let’s dig a little bit deeper into why Intelligent Design/Creation Theory should be kept out of public schools:

• It’s unconstitutional: Intelligent Design/Creation Theory stem from a Judeo-Christian interpretation of creation. Therefore, teaching it in schools paid for by the taxpayer, and established by the government, is ‘establishment of religion.’ Namely, it’s establishment of Judeo-Christian monotheism that violates the 1st Amendment rights of anybody who is not Judeo-Christian. Buddhists, Hindis, Native Americans and atheists all believe that life came about differently; so if you force their kids to study one particular religious viewpoint (in accordance with the first chapter of the Old Testament) you’re “prohibiting the free exercise” of other religious or non-religious viewpoints.
• It’s unscientific: Intelligent Design/Creation Theory is not based on any form of evidence whatsoever. You can argue the ‘theory’ that life was created by a single ‘Intelligent Designer’ but that’s no more provable or unprovable than arguing it was created by many ‘Intelligent Designers’ – or just happened randomly, or was the work of hyperintelligent mice, or a Giant Spaghetti Monster. If your theory is founded on the understanding that you can never able to prove or disprove it, it ceases to become a theory and becomes theology instead. That’s absolutely fine with me - it’s all very well to believe in a higher power – but if theology gets taught in school, it should be confined to the Religious Studies classroom, not the Science Lab.

Another argument against teaching Intelligent Design/Creation Theory in school is that I just don’t see the point. The beauty of what we get taught about evolution is that it is fundamentally compatible not just with decades of scientific research, but also with just about every religion on Earth.

Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.

—National Academy of Sciences

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. Vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities.

Pope Benedict XVI

Just because we teach that one species evolved over millennia into another, that doesn’t discount the belief that some mysterious ‘Intelligent Designer’ wrote the blueprint or lit the touch paper.

Nor does it prove that they didn’t. Whether or not there is a God is unprovable, so that's why the question doesn't get asked when studying evolution - not because evolution and atheism somehow co-exist.

Finally, proponents of Intelligent Design/Creation Theory have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. They incorrectly believe that the concept of evolution – that one animal species evolves into another - hasn’t been proven, and is somehow up for debate. That simply isn’t true.

Evolution is a ‘theory’ only in the same way gravity remains a ‘theory.’ Or, to be more specific, we know THAT evolution happens, just as we know if you throw something in the air, gravity will bring it crashing back down to Earth. The ‘theoretical’ part is WHY that happens – ‘survival of the fittest’ being the current understanding.

To argue against the process of evolution – that protobionts evolved into bacteria and eukaryotes and eventually more complex life forms – is like arguing that the world is flat. It’s wrong, plain and simple – and if we teach our kids something so mind-numbingly, inconceivably false, even as a ‘theory’, we’re guilty of child abuse on a massive scale.

Video Game Causes Outrage (but not the one you'd think.)

So in the highly popular Grand Theft Auto series of video games, your thuggish main character can cruise up to prostitutes and have a romp with them in the back seat of his stolen car.

[As long as you're parked in a dark alley, of course. The designers didn't want the the game to be accused of not being realistic. - Editorial Bear]

You don't see anything explicit - just watch the car bounce up and down and listen to the suspension squeak. [Actually, that's not true. In the latest incarnation of the game, you DO get to see all the gory details - Editorial Bear.]

But when the Lady of the Night pulls up her kickers and clambers out of your car, you can sneak up behind her and bash her pretty little brains in with a baseball bat.

That, for the uninitiated, allows you to recover all the bloodstained money you'd spent hiring her 'services' in the first place.

For the curious, here's how to do it:

[Warning, the video is narrated by a foul mouthed Scotsman and, being about the systematic murder of a digital prostitute, is unsurprisingly not rated PG-13. - Editorial Bear]


How to Murder a Prostitute for Dummies

Naturally, little side-games like this have caused some outrage amongst the moral majority - who argue that video games like Grand Theft Auto are destroying the moral fiber of today's youth (even though the game has a 18 certificate, so children of responsible parents shouldn't even be playing it.)

Nevertheless, it's not Grand Theft Auto that's attracted the REAL ire of the religious right. It's the G-rated, family friendly strategy game Spore.

In Spore, you guide the development of life - from single-cell organisms to multi-limbed monsters who discover fire, war with other tribes, create cities and eventually travel to space.

"This entire game is propaganda!" One Christian critic exclaimed. "Aimed directly at our children to teach them evolution instead of creationism!"

Cue the collective *faceslap* of every rational person on the planet.

Yes, it's true, the concept of Spore is based on the concept of evolution. However, Spore has about as much in common with evolution as, well, eugenics.

For example, when Spore's creatures 'evolve,' they don't change gradually, over the course of many generations. A fully formed 'new' creature pops out of the egg of an old one - thus propagating that tired line Creationists use: "Find me the proof, oh Godless heathen, that a dinosaur turned into a monkey!"

It's right there on your video screen, buddy. Unfortunately, that's not how evolution happened in real life.

To be honest, I'm surprised old earth creationists and those who believe in Intelligent Design haven't embraced this game, because Spore has far more in common with their philosophy than Darwin's.

For a start, you play 'God' and you 'intelligently design' your creature through each step of it's evolution. Secondly, as God, you 'intelligent design' the facets you think you creature will be best off using. You even guide their existence and philosophy, choosing between being warlike and aggressive, to create fiercer creatures, or diplomatic and peaceful, generating more resourceful critters.

Quite simply, forget about SimCity or Civilisation. There is no more authentic 'God' game than this. Conservative Christians? Quit your whining and pick up a copy immediatement!

[Thanks to Christine for her Spore pictures. - Kitty Copy Editor]

Dog with a Bone? Theories that didn't pan out...

I think went too far comparing New Earth Creationists with Holocaust Deniers. [British tabloid journalism strikes again? - Editorial Bear.]

Although the similarities I pointed out were awkwardly accurate, perhaps it was shotgun journalism... I apologise.

But it DID get me thinking...

I'll admit it... Recently I've been like a dog with a bone (a dinosaur bone) when it comes to creationism and intelligent design and all this other religious babble trying to muscle in on rationality, science and history.

Maybe I should take a deep breath, sit down and relax.... Chill out, as they say.

I mean, what does it matter if somebody believes that the world is 6,000 years old? By the same logic, what does it matter if somebody believes the holocaust didn't take place? I find the first suggestion stupid, the second suggestion offensive - but neither of them really affect my life in the slightest way.

This is America. We have the First Amendment, which says (short of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre) that you have a constitutionally protected right to claim whatever you want, no matter how stupid or offensive the rest of us find it.

And the First Amendment is an important one. If people didn't have the freedom of speech, what sort of nation would this be? I'm already sick to death of our 'moral superiors' trying to tell us what we can and can't watch on television, or banning sex toys and naughty DVDs in the deep south.

Freedom of speech is a two way street. If we argue that the moral majority have to respect our freedom of speech, we must respect theirs in return. So consider my wrist smacked.

Besides, some open minded discussion is always good.

I mean, look at the theory of the creation of the Earth... Sure, it's a proven scientific fact that creation doctrine isn't correct. The world wasn't created in six days...

On the other hand, despite a mountain of evidence supporting it, the jigsaw puzzle of evolution isn't totally complete. There are still some missing pieces and it's entirely possible that newly discovered evidence might drastically change the way we view the early history of our planet.

That's why it's such a good theory. More important than being provable, the theory of evolution is unprovable. It is possible to imagine evidence that disproves it.

The ability to disprove a theory is what makes it scientific and open to discussion. The problem with doctrine like Intelligent Design is that it's a theory that cannot be proven wrong, because you can't prove it right, either. Therefore it's not a scientific theory at all (and that's why it belongs in a theology or philosophy classroom, not a science lab.)

All that being said, it's always important to keep an open mind. Look at other theories we've seen in the past that have been blown apart by later discoveries:

Spontaneous Generation

Look back at the early days of science, back in the 17th century when people were first seeing the living organisms we'd later describe as bacteria. Scientists observed little squirmy creatures in people's wounds and came up with the theory of 'Spontaneous Generation.'

This theory claimed that living organisms were spontaneously generated by decaying matter - it matched something Aristotle himself had said over a thousand years earlier: "It was a readily observable truth that aphids arise from the dew which falls on plants, fleas from putrid matter, mice from dirty hay, crocodiles from rotting logs at the bottom of bodies of water, and so forth."

So mainstream was the theory that bacteria (and fleas and mice) spontaneously arose from rotting matter that when Sir Thomas Browne published his contradictory theory in 1646, "Enquiries into Very many Received Tenets, and Commonly Presumed Truths," he was universally mocked.

His contemporary, Alexander Ross scoffed: "To question spontaneous generation is to question reason, sense and experience itself."

It wasn't until 1861 that Louis Pasteur finally proved conclusively that the theory of spontaneous generation was complete rubbish, through a series of complex experiments.

The Solar System

When I was a kid, we studied the planets in school - and there were nine of them.

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Today, kids are being taught that there are eight planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune.

So what happened? Did one go missing?

Far from it - in fact, scientists discovered another four planets in the last five years, or so. Ceres, Haumea, Makemake, and Eris. But they're small planets - roughly the size of the 'ninth planet' Pluto, so scientists reclassified them all as 'dwarf planets.'

It's another example of how established fact gets superseded by a different established fact. Knowledge isn't black or white (like some Creationists believe) but a constantly moving roller-coaster ride where nothing is to be taken for granted.

Creationism

Just like Spontaneous Generation and the nine-planet Solar System, the idea of Biblical creation is also a theory that's been discredited by further scientific discoveries - the age of the Earth and fossils tracing the evolution of life on this planet.

Does that mean that our current theory is infallible? No, of course not. But the fact that the modern theory isn't infallible doesn't give the discredited theory any sudden legitimacy.

It's like one of the other widely discredited theories of our time - The Flat Earth.

The Flat Earth

It's a popular myth that people believed the Earth to be flat right up until Columbus crossed the Atlantic and discovered the Americas. In fact, that was just a story popularised by Washington Irving's 1828 book "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus."

The idea of a spherical Earth is as old as civilization itself. Pythagoras believed that heavenly bodies were spherical as far back as the 6th Century BC. Eratosthenes of Cyrene calculated the Earth's spherical circumference in 240 BC.

In fact, even Biblical scholars from the early Middle Ages believed that the Earth was a sphere, contrary to popular belief.

When Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg was persecuted by Pope Zachary for his theory of a spherical Earth, the shape of the planet wasn't the origin of the heresy - it was actually his suggestion that other men existed beneath the Earth who weren't descended from Adam (and therefore were free of Original Sin.)

Observational evidence had always discredited 'Flat Earth Theory' - but that didn't stop people believing in it. In fact, an organisation called the Flat Earth Society still promotes their belief in a 'flat earth' today.

They have, astonishingly, thousands of members (and, unsurprisingly, strong historical links with a fundamentalist "Christian Catholic Apostolic Church," which later gave birth to the pentecostal movement. )

The BBC recently ran an article about how many 'flat-Earthers' still stick by their beliefs today.

New Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers

Perhaps a more politically correct version of my New Earth Creationists/Holocaust Deniers article would have been to compare them to modern Flat Earthers.

They're both preposterous, discredited beliefs - but unlike Holocaust Denial, they don't really do anybody harm if dumb people want to stick with them.

Is New Earth Creationism as bad as Holocaust Denial?

DID THIS POST GO TOO FAR?: Maybe 'alternative theories' aren't so bad after all. If you get your knickers in a twist because of this post, read this follow up.

Two revisionist movements have been gaining alarming strength over the last few decades - and they share worrying similarities.

Their agendas are very different, but their origins, methodology and outlook run parallel to each other. New Earth Creationists and Holocaust Deniers.

Thirty or forty years ago, Creationism and Holocaust Denial were both fringe lunacy - the domain of idiots and fundamentalists who received well-deserved scorn and the contempt of mainstream society.

Flash forward four decades: A New Earth Creationist just ran in the Presidential Primaries, while representatives from 30 countries attended a two day conference in Tehran to "Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust."


What the hell is going on? When did the arena of whackjobs, nutcases, idiots and bigots start spreading into civilised society?

Crazy, crazy people...

Let me introduce you to the Holocaust Deniers - people who believe that the murder of 6 million Jews by Hitler's Nazi regime never took place.

They started out as rednecks and skinheads - 'white pride' idiots who made up conspiracies about how Jews controlled America. They denied that the holocaust ever taken place - and argued that it was all a 'Zionist conspiracy' to demonise Germany.

For the most part, these people were derided and ignored - as were their crackpot theories. However, over the course of the past couple of decades, a movement in the Middle East cropped up that mirrored and gave weight to their denial of the Holocaust.

The governments of fundamentalist Islamic countries like Iran and Syria started publishing statements denying the holocaust, arguing that "the so-called Holocaust is an alleged and invented story, with no basis."

With the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, this movement has grown. Recently, Iranian President Ahmadinejad declared:

"The Zionists have fabricated a legend under the name Massacre of the Jews, and they hold it higher than God himself, religion itself and the prophets themselves...If somebody in their country questions God, nobody says anything, but if somebody denies the myth of the massacre of Jews, the Zionist loudspeakers and the governments in the pay of Zionism will start to scream!"

On December 11th 2006, Ahmadinejad hosted a conference for representatives from 30 countries, under the title "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust."

What began as a disgusting delusion, maintained by only by the most contemptible of lunatics, has now become a 'legitimate' revisionist movement. So popular has the denial of the Holocaust become that some religious schools in Great Britain have even stopped teaching Holocaust History in class, for risk of 'offending' their Muslim students.

Creationist Cretins

Now let me introduce you to a similar group of crackpots - the New Earth Creationists. People who believe that the Earth was created in exact, literal accordance with the Bible: 6,000 or so years ago.

Like Holocaust Denial, modern society was largely free of New Earth Creationists thirty or forty years ago. New Earth Creationism had never been a particularly convincing theory - even Saint Augustine, the 4th century Bishop of Hippo, argued that the creation story was allegorical.

Yet towards the end of the 20th century, a revival movement started, with Christian fundamentalists across America uniting behind the idea that fossils, geology, history and astronomy were all wrong about the age of the Earth.

They argued that 'The Great Flood' (of Noah's Ark) swished around the geological strata and made it appear older than it was - leading creationist Henry Morris to declare "the last refuge of the case for evolution immediately vanishes away, and the record of the rocks becomes a tremendous witness... to the holiness and justice and power of the living God of Creation!"

The development of the Internet gave an even greater voice to these fundamentalist Christians, leading to the development of websites like Ken Ham's 'Answers in Genesis' and the popularity of homeschooling with a 'Christian curriculum' which neatly avoids theologically troubling (i.e. scientifically accurate) concepts like evolution.

The result? And entire generation of kids and young adults brainwashed into believing the fictional fantasy that is New Earth Creationism.

Similarities

On the surface of it, the similarities between New Earth Creationists and Holocaust Deniers might not seem obvious - but they're there. Consider:

Both movements step from religious fundamentalism.

It's no coincidence that the popularity of Holocaust Denial and New Earth Creationism match the explosion of fundamentalist religious movements - which seek 'wisdom' from religious documents like the Koran or the Bible.

Like it or not, fundamentalism Islam and evangelical Christianity share an alarming number of similarities - not least of which is a stubborn insistence of finding answers in old books, rather than science, history and fact.

Both theories are just wishful thinking.

The Islamic fundamentalists really want to believe the Holocaust never happened, because then residents of the state of Israel would stop having the moral authority to aggressively defend their existence. [How dare they! - Editorial Bear]

New Earth Creationists, on the other hand, really want to believe the Bible is true, so it gives them divine justification for hating gay people, shooting abortion doctors and banning people from having sex. Ever.

Both theories ignore mountains of evidence.

The reason Holocaust Denial was such a derided movement forty years ago was because there were thousands of concentration camp survivors around to tell them they were talking crap.

As they died out, it opened the window to 'suggest' that the genocide had never even occurred. After all, there was nobody left around to argue about it.

That still left thousands of documents, photos and the camps themselves to prove than the Holocaust was real (plus that fact that six million Jews mysteriously vanished between 1933/1945.) Nevertheless, Holocaust Deniers claim that the evidence was faked, the numbers made up and the eyewitness testimony is a lie.

As for New Earth Creationists? Well, they use similar methodology to defend their position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Despite the fact that radiometric dating, ice-core data and even the rings on trees prove that the Earth is older than 6,000 years, they stubbornly refuse to accept it. As Creationist Henry Morris argued: "When science & the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data."

Both New Earth Creationism and Holocaust Denial rely on shameless, stubborn, stoic refusal to accept any and all evidence disproving their beliefs.

Both theories rely on disinformation, brainwashing, manipulation and outright lies to further their cause.

Holocaust Denial has graduated from lunacy to 'revisionist history' by misrepresenting evidence, denying the facts and brainwashing the ignorant.

Across the Middle East, for example, schools and television stations declare that the Holocaust was a hoax - so poor, ignorant children grow up believing that to be the truth. They simply don't know any better.

Likewise, New Earth Creationists rely on homeschooling to fatten their ranks - with unscrupulous hacks like Andrew Schlafly and Ken Ham creating misleading home school curriculums that teach theories like New Earth Creationism as if it was a scientific fact.

In scientific debates, Creationists lie, bully and manipulate in order to make their silly stance sound more believable. Interviews with notable skeptics like Richard Dawkins have to be brutally edited to discredit them, quotes have to be taken out of context to support the theory and in the absence of all other options, Creationists are more than willing to out-and-out make stuff up.

Both theories are just plain wrong. Holocaust Denial and New Earth Creationism share one overriding similarity - both 'theories' are complete rubbish.

The Holocaust did occur. During Hitler's reign, six million Jewish people - and an equal number of gypsies, homosexuals, communists and other 'social undesirables,' were taken off to camps in central Europe and exterminated in gas chambers.

We know this has happened because people survived to tell of it: Concentration camp inmates themselves, along with the American and Allied soldiers who 'liberated' those camps.

Likewise, a mountain of irrefutable evidence proves that the earth is four and a half billions years old - and that life evolved from single-celled organisms into the current menagerie of mammals, reptiles, birds, insects and bacteria.

The Bible is not an infallible, literal history of the world. It's just a book. Or, at a push, a reasonably effective paperweight.

Are New Earth Creationists as bad as Holocaust Deniers?

On the face of it, of course not.

Holocaust Deniers are trying to deny the systematic extermination of six million people.

Not only does that defame the memory of those who have died, it's a slap in the face for the people who survived - and their descendants.

Most terrifying of all, by trying to eliminate the Holocaust from society's collective memory, it leaves the world vulnerable to letting it happen all over again.

As for New Earth Creationists - all they want to do is believe their silly little fairy tale about the world being sixty centuries old.

On the surface, it doesn't do anybody any harm. In fact, I recently spoke to a brilliant, dynamic young lady who just happened to be a New Earth Creationist - and she said: "I don't care what others believe, so long as I'm allowed to believe what I want to."

Advocates of New Earth Creationism aren't really fighting for anything more than the right to believe what they want to - even if that believe is idiotic, irrational and founded in fantasy.

But nevertheless, I find the similarities between the two groups troubling. Advocates of Holocaust Denial and New Earth Creationism are fighting for different things using the same troubling methods.

Ben Stein: Intelligent Idiot

Most people are familiar with Ben Stein.

If they don't know him as a former Nixon speech writer, an Emmy award winning actor or an economic columnist for The Wall Street Journal, they'll probably recognize him as 'that lecturer dude in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.'

Ben Stein is a seriously clever man. He's a graduate of Columbia University in New York, was voted valedictorian of his class at Yale Law School and has been a professor of law, politics, economics and civil rights at prestigious universities on both coasts of the USA.

Rarely has a single man excelled in so many varied fields.

That being said - and admitting that Ben Stein is probably one of the smartest men in America - it's important to realize: He's an idiot.

Yes, Ben Stein is the dumbest smart guy I know.

Earlier this year, Ben Stein wrote and hosted an independent documentary film called Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It was a movie about Intelligent Design - and how Ben Stein, amongst others, contends that Intelligent Design is being 'suppressed' by the mainstream scientific community and the popularity of the theory of Evolution has led directly to evils like communism and the Nazi Holocaust.



The problem with this film - and what makes Ben Stein's involvement in it so astonishing - is that it's a pack of lies. Crooked film-making even the likes of Michael Moore would be ashamed of.

The New York Times dismissed it as a "conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry" and "an unprincipled propaganda piece that insults believers and nonbelievers alike."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science declared that the film was nothing more than "dishonest and divisive propaganda, aimed at introducing religious ideas into public school science classrooms."

If you want to find out more about Expelled's ridiculous claims - and the evidence that refutes ever single one of them, you can read this article at the Scientific American.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is nothing more than a propaganda piece, aimed at getting Intelligent Design into the classroom.

You want proof?

Did you know that the producers of Expelled offered American schools $10 for each student they managed to send to see the film?

When you have to pay people to go and see a movie, it's a pretty good indication that it's no good.

Evolution Prologue

During the Cenozoic Era, the chickens would fry you!

The reason I started my scientific shenanigans was due to enraged arguments I'd been having with some particularly stubborn Christians over on An Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics.

The argument was about evolution - something I grew up being taught was a 'theory' only in the same way gravity was a theory.

There is a mountain of evidence proving that evolution was the journey life on Earth took. Yet in America, I'm astonished to find that millions of people don't believe in evolution - and some of them even adhere to the six day 'creation story' from the Bible!

Over on Coffee Bean's blog, things have got pretty heated. One woman dismissed evolution as an "outlandish claim" and another chap claimed: "There is not one fossil that has ever been discovered that supports Darwin's theory. Not a single one on the entire earth!"

Well, that's just rubbish.

So what I'm going to do it tell the story of life on Earth, as I've come to understand it - based on the evidence presented to me.

As I've said before, I'm not a scientist. I might muddle a few things up on the way - but at least what I'll present will be based on science and fact, not the pages of a storybook written two thousand years ago.

Science for Idiots (Idiots like me...)

Over on Coffee Bean's brilliant 'An Uneducated Housewife's Guide to Politics' there is all sorts of angry debate going on, encompassing many topics, including the perennial discussion about creationism versus evolution.

One of the angriest voices has been mine - simply because the whole existence of 'creationist doctrine' continues to astonish me.

Living in America, I'm often astonished at how similar things are to life in Britain. Oh, sure, the accent and the weather is different, but things are largely the same, aren't they?

Well, it stuff like creationism (and maple syrup on bacon, but I digress) that throws into sharp relief how different things in America actually are.

Here in the United States, people - and I'm talking about a lot of people - actually believe that the world was created in six days, exactly as it's written in the Bible.

This truly astonishes me.

For the most part, I like to think I'm fairly open minded and slip quite effortlessly into the conventions of different cultures. However, I find this particular one very difficult to swallow.

Over on Coffee Bean's blog, I haven't been altogether gentlemanly in my discussions. The words 'religious nutjob' and 'idiot' have passed my (virtual) lips more than once. This really isn't very mature of me. I should simply accept that other people have opinions different to my own (and then I should take the time to explain to them, in very simple terms, why they're wrong.)

Which is the point of the next few posts. I'm not a scientist - but I am a reasonably literate human being. I'm going to explain what I believe and why I believe it.

Now, as arrogant and opinionated as I am, I'm not always right. In fact, I'm not even often right! So there may be typos and errors in the next few posts that people should be more than willing to point out (for example, in a previous post I described the Earth as being 150 million years old. In fact, it's more like 5 billion years old.)

However, everything I write is going to be based in fact and science. I'm sorry, but evidence I can see and touch with my own two hands will always trump what's written in a two thousand year old religious text - no matter how 'inerrant' irrational people claim it to be.

Let the fun begin...

Facts, Interpretation and Truth

"Please tell the McCain/Palin Campaign (preferably politely) why teaching creationism in our public schools around America is superstitious and is not in our nation's best interests." Quantum Flux.

"...I would also add in closing that the comment about creationism being superstitious and not good for our country is ridiculous." The Maid

My last post sparked off two fascinating topics of discussion - abortion and creationism. I quickly wanted to touch upon the topic of creationism - and the concept of teaching it in American public schools.

Just to surprise everybody, I'll admit that I think creationism should be taught in every public school in America - but only EVER in Religious Studies class.

It's an important Christian concept and a major part of Christian theology. I totally support children being taught the basis of 'what Christians believe.' (Likewise, I think children would do well to learn the basic concepts of Judaism, Hinduism and Islam.)

What I do not believe in is teaching creationism as an 'alternative' to the currently accepted scientific theory on the creation of the earth. That's just wrong. Creationism is not a 'scientific theory.' It's fantasy.

Christians often argue that creationism is a valid alternative to the Theory of Evolution because the theory of evolution isn't complete. It has holes in - questions that still aren't answered.

How did the universe begin? How did life start of planet earth? There are theories, like 'the Big Bang' that answer this, but they're just theories (even though they're supported by very convincing scientific evidence.)

However, unlike creationism, there are parts of the evolution system that aren't theoretical. They're facts. Cold, hard, immutable, inarguable facts. These facts don't just help support the theory of evolution - they also prove, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the creationist doctrine is wrong.

To teach creationism as 'science' is to teach science that is wrong. It's a lie. In fact, it's bordering on child abuse. It's like teachings kids that the world is flat, or that 2 + 2 = 36.

Creationism says that God created the world six thousand years ago. Scientific fact proves that the world was forged between 100 and 150 million years before that. [Yo! Militant Ginger, you dumbass! Your dad points out that the Earth was formed 5 BILLION years ago. Geeze. Try using Wikipedia some time - Editorial Bear.]

Creationism says that God created Adam and Eve six thousand years ago. Scientific fact proves that man was walking the African plains two hundred thousand years earlier.

Creationism says that God created each type of animal (including man) individually. Scientific fact shows the evolution of fish into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into mammals and those mammals (eventually) into man.

It's laid out in front of us like a jigsaw puzzle. To argue against these facts is like saying the sky isn't blue, or water isn't wet.

What fundamentalist Christians have lost sight of, in their battle to get creationist fantasy taught as scientific theory, is that God can still exist in Darwin's world.

Fourteen billion years ago, the universe got created in what scientists call 'the big bang.' Why? How? Nobody knows - and the suggestion that a 'higher power' deliberately created the universe makes as much sense (if not more) than the idea that it just happened randomly.

How did life arrive on Earth? Why didn't it appear anywhere else? One popular school of thought is that life arrived on Earth from outer space (a theory called Panspermia .) It would be just as credible to suggest that 'God' created life.

How come mankind was the only animal to develop language, art, science, music and technology? Atheists think it's just coincidence. Doesn't it makes more sense to believe that a 'higher power' guided us and helped shape the society that humanity has become?

The fact is, science and God can coexist quite happily. Christians can live in reality, yet still believe in a higher power. The two are not mutually exclusive.

What the religious right need to do is adopt scientific methods into their religion - and accept that time, fact and circumstance can help their beliefs evolve just like science does.

After all, even the most fundamentalist Christian wouldn't argue that the world is flat (although that was established Christian 'fact' four hundred years ago.) If religion has evolved enough to shed itself of that stupid, outdated and ignorant belief, why can't it do the same for creationism?

After all, according to the Bible, Jesus had an important message for his followers to spread and it sure as hell wasn't 'My Dad created the Earth in six days...'

Darwin Versus God

My continued research into the rich history of the United States has reached the brink of the Great Depression, and the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the southern states.

Steve Wiegand's book on the history of America touched on a subject very close to my heart - the uniquely American obsession with doctrine of creationism.

"The Ku Klux Klan's greatest influence," Wiegand writes, "developed in small and mid-sized cities and in rural areas, and the repressive attitudes it catered to were also quick to embrace 'fundamentalism,' or the idea that everything in the Bible was literally true."

"In 1925, the Klan succeeded in passing a law in Tennessee that prohibited the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution in public schools."

Now I don't think Monsieur Wiegand was suggesting a link between modern proponents of creationist theory and the Ku Klux Klan. However, as in all things, it's important to look at the origin of one's beliefs and the legacy they carry.

Most modern supporters of the doctrine of creationism are God-fearing Americans. Good people who love their families and are passionate in their beliefs. The fact that they believe in Creationism - that the world was created 6,000 years ago despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary - does not reflect on their good spirit and kind hearts.

Yet the fact remains, incontrovertible, that the modern creationist movement was forged at least in part in the fires of racism. It was the Ku Klux Klan, rejecting logic, science and reason, who helped give birth to modern creationist doctrine and fought to give it the legitimacy of the Tennessee state legislature.

Modern creationists, even if they're good hearted, patriotic and tolerant of other people's beliefs, should remain aware of their doctrine's sordid history. Their efforts to further the medieval thinking of 'Creationist Doctrine' is furthering the work of some of the 20th century's most despicable men.

Whatever happened to the facts?

I realise I've been ragging on conservatives for quite a while - but the problem is they drive me crazy! Especially trying to debate something with one.

Because conservative logic is blissfully free of fact. Opinions and decisions are not reached through an objective appraisal of the evidence, but through sheer, pig-ignorant gut feeling. "This is the way I feel," a conservative will argue, "and nothing you tell me or show me will make me feel any different."

It's a condition comedian Stephen Colbert characterised as 'Truthiness.' "We're not talking about truth," he explained, "we're talking about something that seems like truth—the truth we want to exist."

"It used to be, everyone was entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," he continues, "but that's not the case anymore."

Colbert managed to hit the nail right on the head with his definition of the word 'truthiness.' Because we live in a world now that's moving further and further away from rationality, straight into the lap of blissful ignorance.

And there, facts are totally redundant.

A conservative doesn't base his or her opinions on facts. Instead, they're based on a more nourishing mixture of gut feeling and assumptions. Assumption always comes before fact - whereas a rational person examines the facts first and makes assumptions based on them afterwards.

Take creationism, for example. A creationist makes the assumption that the Bible contains an 100% accurate account of the creation of the world - 7,000 years ago when God made Adam from the clay of the earth and Eve from one of his ribs. He examines the evidence afterwards and interprets it in a way that will match his assumption.

A rational person, on the other hand, examines the evidence first and uses that as a basis for his assumptions. Learning that every tree grows a 'ring' during each year of it's life, he could cut down the oldest tree in the world, count the rings and assume (based on the facts) that the world is 4,000 years old (the age of the oldest tree on earth.) Or he could learn that there's a new layer of ice grown in the North Pole every year, so he could drill through the ice and count the layers to discover that the 'world' (or, at least, ice) was 420,000 years old. Similarly, examining geological evidence suggests the world is half a billion years old. All assumptions are based on physical evidence.

That same physical evidence is open to interpretation - which means a rational person might come to one conclusion, but be forced to change their mind should further evidence disprove their original hypothosis. The problem with conservative is that their assumptions are set in stone - often before they've even examined the facts.

Once those assumptions have been made, a true conservative is incapable of changing their mind - no matter what the 'facts' say. That's my major problem with them.

You can't debate with somebody who's incapable of changing their mind. You might as well argue with a brick wall.