Why creationism

They also maintain that the systemic inequalities and cognitive biases that affect scientists themselves have shaped what people do with the results of objective research—and have called into question whether there can be pure objectivity in this kind of scientific inquiry.

Across the country, longstanding humanities departments and majors are being cut, while new programs in STEM fields are inheriting those resources. On the other hand—in terms of intellectual influence—the outcomes are more complex.

The generation of scientists who began their professional careers since the turn of the century are generally more receptive to incorporating STS insights into their work, acknowledging that scientific knowledge is made within complex human and institutional hierarchies, and that the sciences themselves have long lacked diverse participation and have ignored their own histories of exploiting minoritized populations.

Most of the criticism focused on the suggestion that the pursuit of scientific knowledge supersedes any need to show concern for Indigenous people themselves. Recent months have seen the discovery of the abused remains of Native American children at residential boarding schools, which were created to eradicate Indigenous cultures through assimilation.

The overwhelming majority of human remains in U. Weiss and Springer argue that genetic evidence from those remains may undermine Native American claims that they came from their biological ancestors, and that claims of Native identity are rooted in non-scientific legends which they liken to creationism. Most Buddhist sects also reject notions of God. Yet the discoveries in modern physics interest them as much as they interest the Krishnas, though they might put somewhat different interpretations on them.

The main cause of life, they maintain, is desire, and this could conceivably be understood in some physical, and hence testable, way. The Mormons have a special problem all their own. In addition to being Day-Age theorists God lives on the planet Kolob which rotates on its axis once for every thousand years of earth time, hence a day to God is a thousand years to us , Mormons are also rejecters of ex nihilo creation.

Joseph Smith made it plain in the King Follett sermon when he said, "Now, the word create came from the word baurau , which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize ; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship.

Hence we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos — choate matter, which is element, and in which dwells all the glory.

This view might also require equal time in science classrooms. They are among the leaders in the effort to get creationism into the public schools. Therefore, creation from nothing and from something will both have to be considered. So far we have only been dealing with the science curriculum. Yet the issue goes far beyond that. In , Creation Life Publishers put out a creationist school history textbook.

She sees history and the Bible as "two of God's media for revelation. An advertisement for this Public School text, which is called Streams of Civilization , says the book offers: "Sound Christian teaching of history.

The great men of the scriptures take their rightful places. Presents Noah and the flood as historical fact. Shows Jesus as more than just a man.

Yet, as if this weren't enough, Stanton opens up the biggest can-of-worms of all by pointing an accusing finger at historians who "continue to make Rome the first center of the Church," and who "give credit to Rome for establishing the solid foundation of Christianity and for spreading the Gospel during the first centuries after Pentecost. Her book, of course, changes the emphasis to the Byzantines, a fact that will guarantee a counter equal-time demand by Roman Catholics.

What may be good religion to the protestant fundamentalist is clearly not good secular history for public schools in a pluralistic society.

Although this volume isn't intended for public school use, and although it is primarily about science, it does illustrate the creationist position on historical matters. On page it speaks about the origin of human language in this wise:. This suggests that while language has obviously changed with time, it has not necessarily been evolving upward from primitive simple language. The biblical view is that man has had complex language from the beginning of the race. On pages and the book goes on to challenge the idea of cultural evolution.

In typical creationist fashion, "authorities" are quoted to show the impossibility of early man developing from the hunting and gathering stage through the agricultural village stage to city-state civilizations. That it took place is, therefore, a matter of faith, not historical evidence. As creationists begin demanding a two model curriculum in history , as well as science, two novel alternate views of history immediately come to mind:.

We could go on and branch out into still other subjects of study. Then it would be necessary to have psychology students learning exorcism and spell casting. Law students would have to get all the details on trial by ordeal and how to apply the water treatment for the detection of witches.

And, of course, let us not forget the stork theory of human reproduction as a requirement in sex education. When Bette Chambers, president emeritus of the American Humanist Association, was asked in a recent TV interview why she would not favor teaching creation and evolution side-by-side, she replied, "Because creationism is religion and evolution is science.

It's mixing apples and oranges and coming up with fruit salad. At this point, some people will sneer incredulously, "All that weird occult stuff isn't factual knowledge. There's no chance it will get into the school curriculum. Who are you trying to kid with this alarmist scare tactic?

But there is no kidding going on when one realizes that most of this material can already be found in most high school libraries , and when one sees that Transcendental Meditation, astrology, psychic phenomena, and UFO research have already been taught in some schools. These ideas are all around us, students are thinking about them, as are their parents.

It is thus an easy thing for such subjects to find their way into the regular curriculum unless a decided effort is made to confine them to the library and possibly to classes in social science. But even if we stick our heads in the sand and imagine such problems don't exist, that such studies have no chance in the public schools, we must still face up to the "weird" teachings of the creationists themselves!

None of the fringe ideas previously mentioned can hold a candle to creationist astronomy. The proof is in the reading. Henry Morris offers his explanation for the existence of certain astronomical oddities — "the fractures and scars on the moon and Mars, the shattered remnants of an erstwhile planet that became the asteroids, the peculiar rings of Saturn, the meteorite swarms In any event, this type of cause warrants further research as a potential explanation for apparent disturbances in the stars and planets since their creation.

Morris says objects in our solar system would behave oddly due to these star wars, "in view of the heavy concentration of angels, both good and evil, around the planet Earth. Morris even suggests that astrology is true due to "evil spirits" who live on the stars and use their demonic forces against the earth. However, outside these angels and devils, Morris doesn't believe in extraterrestrial life.

He explains it in this wise on page There are definitely no men, or man-like intelligences, living on other planets or, stars. Now, will creationism require equal time for this in astronomy and science courses? Must we keep our telescopic eyes peeled for Michael and his angels? And must we teach anti-science in the science classroom, inculcating apathy toward the space program and other scientific research that goes against the grain of creationists? Yes we must. And we will also have to consider Dr.

Duane Gish's position that certain dinosaurs breathed fire. And, since dinosaurs lived at the same time as man according to creationism, this accounts for the dragon legends that are mentioned in the mythologies of various world peoples Gish, One could list a whole catalogue of creationist oddities or "weird ideas," ones that put pyramid power and the Loch Ness monster to shame!

Oops, I forgot. Creationists believe in the Loch Ness monster too. In our day and age, classroom time in the sciences is at a premium, particularly in the secondary schools where the entire field must be covered in one junior or senior high school year.

With so much to teach, there is simply no room for side-issues, controversies scientists don't take seriously, wild new proposals, and the like. The student has his or her hands full just mastering the basic material. Can you imagine losing half the time in two-model education?

Can you imagine losing much more in the necessary multi- model education that would include astrology, Atlantis, the human aura, and the creation story of the Hopi Indians? So much time would be robbed placating these various pseudoscientific and religious groups that little time would remain for providing the learning necessary for students who wish to pursue careers in science. The basic question is, should generally rejected theories about science get equal time with established positions which have the weight of evidence behind them and the consensus or near unanimity of scientists?

Put another way, should any unestablished generally unaccepted theory get equal time with theories that had to go through the long process of proof and production of evidence?

Creationists argue that giving their view equal time is just "fair play. Science doesn't work on "fairness" but on merit. The position that has the best evidence, has withstood a long barrage of criticism, has been modified in the face of new data and is in harmony with it, and has the most support from knowledgeable workers in the field is the theory that should be given the emphasis in education.

Any other approach would imply that science is simply a matter of capricious opinion, and that one theory is just as good as another. This may be true in religion, where the ideas cannot be verified, but science is quite another matter. This is why science can neither be treated on a "fairness" system nor mixed with religion.

Furthermore, it is contrary to the idea of academic freedom to attempt to mandate one minority group's ideas of "fairness" in the public schools. In some of the proposed "two-model" legislative bills, teachers not conforming to the creationist idea of fairness could expect fines or loss of jobs.

But the teaching of evolution is not similarly required or enforced. As Mayer argues, "It is a feature of academic freedom that the content of a discipline is not prescribed by law.

But, as with their approach to science, the creationists have an alternate view on academic freedom too. To them, academic freedom means telling teachers what to do, where to do it, how to do it, and the degree to which it must be done. But there is nothing free about setting such requirements or using intimidation in order to get a particular view added to the curriculum.

Nor is it academic freedom to force the teaching of every possible view on a subject. Correctly defined, academic freedom is the freedom of the scientific community to establish by research and consensus what the most reasonable position is, and then to be allowed to present that position, without coercion or censorship, in the schools.

But, aside from freedom there is the issue of credibility. Jerry Bergman, in his booklet advocating equal time for creationism , correctly notes: "Establishing teacher credibility requires presenting material in non-dogmatic ways according to the merits of the facts. The "merits of the facts" happen to favor evolution.

But the two-model approach implies that informed scientific opinion is equally divided on the issue of origins. To teach that this is the case when it is not, and when the evidence for evolution is clearly demonstrable, is to dishonestly mislead students. Such an act is unethical and the betrayal of a public trust. Furthermore, it is an irony when one considers that creationists profess to do this in the interest of increasing morality in society. Evolution supposedly promotes amorality. If we take Bergman at his word, and go by the "merits of the facts," then we will operate on a merit system in science and give every theory its just due and no more.

This means creationism would indeed have a place in the science classroom - as a discredited theory on a par with Lamarkianism, or as a minority fringe theory on a par with Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. That would be honest. And while we are on the subject of honesty, it would be wise to appraise creationist textbooks and audio-visual aids on how they live u, p to that virtue.

Richard M. Today it is only laughable. The world's libraries are full of books that give overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Any use of these books in any school will cripple the students' understanding of science. The Institute for Creation Research in their audio-visual aid, Creation and Evolution: A Comparison of Two Scientific Models , make a number of statements that scientists in general would regard as false or misleading.

Here are just a few: "As a matter of fact, however, neither creation nor evolution is a valid scientific theory Creationists maintain that the Second Law of Thermodynamics thus directly contradicts evolution. Evolutionists believe, however, that there must be a way out of this apparent dilemma. So, if creationists wish to talk about "fairness," something should be said about the fairness of having creationists author the two-model materials without consultation from evolutionists. And shouldn't Hari Krishnas be allowed to author some two-model textbooks, and Day-Age theorists as well?

Clearly, it is dishonest to falsely imply that 1 scientific opinion is equally divided on creation and evolution, 2 the case is equally good for both models, 3 there are only two models possible, 4 the evidence supports creationism, and 5 evolutionists believe absurdities.

Yet most creationist school materials make these implications. Therefore, one can only conclude that the two-model approach, as now advocated, is not suitable for the public schools. Besides honesty and quality of education, there is such a thing as courtesy.

Nell Segraves of the Creation-Science Research Center said in an interview, "Most of the creation science is anti-evolution, showing the flaws in the evolutionary thinking.

Such has been a common criticism leveled against creationist textbooks, particularly Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity. Marvin Moore, a creationist writing in Liberty magazine , had this to say about the book: "The three factors that raise a question about its appropriateness as a textbook in a public school classroom are its defense of Biblical creationism, sometimes with religious language; its attempt throughout to discredit the evolutionary theory; and its occasional belittling of scientists who believe in evolution.

Conrad Bonifazi, Professor of the Philosophy of Religion at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, California said, "The art of teaching itself is brought into disrepute by the introduction into it of denunciatory elements.

Since evolution is not taught in that way, why should creationism be? There are, however, non-creationists who would enjoy having the two model approach in the public schools. Many of them are atheists and freethinkers who see such two-model teaching as an opportunity to "debunk religion. They enjoy a good fight, and wish for another Darrow to battle another Bryan in a rousing fracas. They feel such opportunities in the public schools will bring about a reduction in the effects of religion on society.

And there is a basis of validity in this. After all, since the Bible is at bottom the basic source of creationist beliefs and the ultimate authority appealed to in every jam, then the Bible cannot help but be part of the creation model. Therefore, where the Bible makes testable claims, it would be fair in any two-model course to test them.

Where those claims don't stand up to the test, religion based on them would be effectively "debunked. A concern over such possible debate in the public schools led Herbert Stern of the University of California at San Diego to declare:. The teaching of divine creation as a scientific theory demeans religion and I therefore oppose it. For most people in this society religion is the highest form of spiritual expression which carries with it perceptions of truth that are unknown to the empirical searches of science.

To treat a religious vision of [origins] on the same footing as a scientific one is to drag religion into a spiritual gutter and to stimulate a fake conflict in the youngster between a system of thinking which has over the centuries sought to cultivate the loftiest of motivations and a system which has sought to bring meaningful order into the immediacies of human experience.

Any educational program which seeks to make these utterly different human concerns into a single and conflicting search for meaning is one which has declared bankruptcy in its own confidence. A scientist who must prove the wisdom of evolution by arguing the absurdity of special creation is as unwelcome to me as the minister who must prove the wisdom of religion by citing the absurdities of science.

Zoologist Richard D. Alexander warned: "When creation theorists strive to introduce creation into the classroom as an alternative biological theory to evolution they must recognize that they are required to give creation the status of a falsifiable idea — that is, an idea that loses any special exemption from scrutiny, that is accepted as conceivably being false, and that must be continually tested until the question is settled.

A science classroom is not the place for an idea that is revered as holy. Creationists, however, argue they will only be teaching the "scientific" creation model, not the religious one.

What many fail to remember is that most believers in creationism tie their whole religious value system to that very "science. If this were not so, if creation "science" were not so important to creation religion, the creationists would not be making such vigorous moves in the direction of getting more religious schools to teach it, in addition to the public schools.

And Dr. Unless the Lord returns first, however, we believe the case for scientific creationism is so sound that, by His grace, we may yet see a real nationwide reintroduction of creationism as a viable alternative into our schools and colleges. The ultimate results, in terms of a revival of Biblical Christianity in our national life and in individual lives, are exciting to contemplate.

Some freethinkers find it exciting to contemplate too, as an opportunity to create a rise in atheism. Morris and other creationists are confident that the efforts to Christianize America will win out over the opposition. Is this confidence well-placed? Yes, because equal-time teaching of creationism doesn't end with just two model textbooks.

The next step is to demand that at least half the science teachers be creationists in a sort of "affirmative action" program for fundamentalism. The Creation-Science Report , put out by the Creation Science Research Center, notes that efforts in this direction are already in progress.

This would force a change in teacher training. If creationism is to be taught in science classrooms, then teachers must be trained to teach it — not in a general or Christian sense, but in a manner acceptable to a small, fundamentalist minority. It is not simply the textbooks that creationists strive to control, but teacher training as well. You see, the end result is the thing the creationists are concerned about, not just the process.

Morris has indicated in debate and in writing that an atheist or liberal Christian teacher would probably not do justice to the teaching of creationism or the two-model approach. His opponents agree, in a way. Biologist Richard Haas of Fresno State College put it plainly: "Whatever the merits of creationist points of view such arguments clearly do not belong within the public schools except in courses devoted to theological subjects taught by persons specifically trained in these areas.

In other words, if creationists demand special teachers for creationism, let them be religious teachers, because science teachers aren't qualified to deal with this issue. Richard Bliss of ICR, however, feels he has research to show that the two-model approach is ideal for science teaching. He thinks teachers trained to use it will be better teachers and their students will be better learners.

He summarized his research in Impact No. Let's look at the data presented there. Using the "Pre-test, Post-test, Control Group" design on high school biology students in Racine, Wisconsin, randomly divided into classes by computer, and using teachers all trained in two-model instruction who were equally divided in their preference for either creation or evolution, Bliss began his experiment.

Normal "traditional" material in Biology: Living Systems , by Oram, Hummer, and Smoot, was taught to the control group. The pre-test prior to the course showed no significant difference between the control and experimental groups. Thus both started at basically the same level. After the instruction, the post-test results showed a significant gain at the.

They did better in learning both the evolutionary data and arguments, and those for creationism. They had more positive attitudes toward the subject of biology in general. Furthermore, "those students in the experimental group in the middle and high IQ range showed a significant increase in preference toward the creation model after they had examined all the data.

In other words, they became more creationistic in their point of view and less evolutionary. It seems, then, that the student virtues inculcated by the Bliss two-model method are higher motivation, better grasp of the data, more ability and inclination to think critically, and more open mindedness, making students "willing to change their views when new data arrive.

Jerry Bergman praised this study, adding that "the strongest pedagogical argument for teaching both theories is that it permits comparisons and contrasts. Teaching by contrasts helps the student to integrate new knowledge within the total framework of the subject. To the average person, or school board member, this sounds highly desirable, and may even make it seem "unconscionable from a pedagogical and scientific point of view, to teach only evolution to students in the public high schools.

But is the teaching of evolution alone really that backward? Let's use some of the critical thinking Bliss praises and take a closer look at his study. Bliss had two advantages which make his experiment unfair.

First, he designed the supposedly fair and balanced two-model teaching. Second, his own two-model textbook was involved. Apparently no evolutionists took part in either the training of the teachers in two-model instruction, or in the writing of the two-model textbook. All this was done by Bliss, a creationist at Christian Heritage College. Previously, I explained how creationist two-model instructional materials are unfair, imbalanced, and inaccurately portray evolution.

This is particularly true of Bliss' two-model textbook used in his experiment. It is no wonder, then, that more students became creationists after such a course of study!

Creationist two-model teacher training is probably no less inferior. Lemmon's previously mentioned review of the teacher's handbooks in the Science and Creation Series published by the Creation-Science Research Center, seems to clearly show this.

But there is another challenge possible. Normal "traditional" material in biology, like that used by the control group, generally doesn't put as much emphasis on origins as does creationist material. This means a student getting a "traditional" biology education will know less about origins than one getting a two-model education. We are thus forced to ask, is education in origins as all-important as the creationists make it out to be?

And, if it is, what would be the results of more concentration on origins in the "traditional" curriculum? Surely, in this latter case, the control group would do much better than it did in Bliss' experiment. All the above points indicate that a new study may be necessary. But this does not clear the air.

There is still the thought that a new experiment, of a fairer design, will still show a significant benefit for those learning under the two-model system. Would any criticism then be possible? Bergman is quite correct in his advocacy of teaching by "comparisons and contrasts. Students get more involved when teachers inspire them to think for themselves rather than just memorize by rote.

But since when is it necessary to teach pseudo-science side-by-side with legitimate science in order to stimulate thinking? Since when is it necessary to give students the option of believing fallacies and misrepresentations of facts in order to get them to think? There are enough real and genuine controversies in science today without dragging in controversies from the 19th century, such as creationism.

Though students would certainly benefit from learning why creationism was rejected, there is no point in deceiving them into thinking it is a live scientific controversy today. It is indeed a live social and religious controversy today, which is why it belongs in comparative sociology or religion classes. Creationists are constantly citing scientists who challenge various aspects of evolutionary theory in the scientific journals. Where these challenges are not outdated, they could be useful instructional tools for aiding students in the better understanding of evolution in particular and biology in general.

This material would supply the valuable "comparisons and contrasts. Controversy is part of science, and a necessary ingredient of its self-correcting operation. Students should be made aware of this so they will learn to appreciate the primary virtue of science that creationists seek to obscure: namely, that science is not dogmatic and not a creed laid down in advance of the data.

Students should also work with the sorts of evidence and reasonings scientists use. But why should this particular bit of nonsense get so many people so very upset? All of the polling evidence and surveys I know of show that the public are pretty confused about evolution — but also that they are confused about everything else that science reveals.

A quarter of Americans, for example, believe that the sun goes around the earth. Some absurd proportion of English school leavers believes, or will tell you, that the earth is 10, years old. Surveys show clearly that the public believe in homeopathy and in astrology. Yet the only one of these displays of ignorance that is treated as morally culpable is creationism.

Being a creationist is no handicap to anyone except a professional biologist. Even a scientist in an unrelated field can deny the truth of evolution with no ill effects to his career — look at Usama Hasan , who gained a doctorate in physics at Cambridge while he was a creationist.

When I examine my own revulsion from creationism I find it does have a moral component.