DOCSLIB.ORG

Discussing Creation Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discussing Creation Science Discussing Creation Science Kenneth Kemp is an associate professor of philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO 80840, where he teaches ethics and the philosophy of science. He has degrees from Georgetown University, The University of Texas at Austin, St. John's College and the University of Notre Dame. His research interests include the history of the idea of evolution and the rela- Capt. KennethW. Kemp tion between science and religion. Creation science may be down, but it is surely not mined not by where the investigator gets his ideas, out. And despite the Supreme Court's verdict in but by what he does with them once he gets them. Aguillardv. Edwards,we can be sure that this will not The "religion in disguise" objection is, then, insuf- any more be the last word (not even the last legal ficient reason to refuse to discuss creation science in word) than were the earlierdecisions which declared the classroom. (To be sure, Overton did not rest his Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 anti-evolution laws unconstitutional. argument exclusively on the objection rejected Many biology teachers believe that creation science above.) But this counterobjection does not by itself should be ignored. Indeed, among the plaintiffs in provide sufficient reason to discuss creation science McLeanv. Arkansaswas an Arkansas school teacher either. who complained he could not in good conscience There is, after all, so much that could be included comply with the law. What I have to say here is not in a good biology course, and so little time. What intended as a defense of any legislative act proposing reason could there be for devoting any time at all to to lay out how high school biology should be taught. creation science? There are, I believe, at least two But I do want to argue that creation science has a such reasons. place in the biology classroom, and I want to say First, creation science represents a challenge to the something about what I think that place is. central organizing theory of modern biology. The challenge is not, it is true, a "scientific"challenge, if scientific is taken to mean a challenge made from Why Science TeachersShould Discuss within the scientific community. CreationScience (Creation scientists claim, of course, that they are part of the scientific community, as demonstratedby Before I proceed to argue that a discussion of cre- their advanced degrees in technical subjects, etc. But ation science belongs in the science classroom, I want virtually none of the work done by creationists is to fend off what I take to be the main objection published in, or even submitted to, refereed scientific against my position-that creation science is just re- journals, as they themselves were forced to admit ligion in disguise. This objection played a centralrole during the McLeantrial. For further information on in both the McLeanand the Aguillarddecisions. Judge this point, see Scott & Cole 1985.) Overton put it as follows But why should strictly scientific challenges be the The fact that creation science is inspired by the Book of only ones taken up in a high school biology Genesis and that Section 4(a) [of Act 590] is consistent classroom?The audience in such a classroom is, after with a literal interpretationof Genesis leaves no doubt all, not the scientific community, but the general that a major effect of the Act is the advancement of particularreligious beliefs. public, and there the challenge posed by creation science is taken seriously. A teacher should take his But this argument rests on a false assumption. The audience as he finds it. scientific status of an idea is not determined by its A second reason for considering the arguments origin. Friederichvon Kekule hit on the structure of raised by creation scientists is that doing so has a the benzene molecule in a dream, but he made a real good deal of educational value. A vigorous contro- contribution to science nonetheless. Even religious versy is, to my mind, always worth a look. Such con- origins by themselves do nothing to compromise the troversies provide a good context for cultivating crit- scientific status of the ideas to which they give rise. ical thinking skills, which, like writing, should be William Herschel's idea that the nebulae he saw in emphasized across the curriculum. To ignore cre- his telescope were distant clusters of stars was ation science is to miss a good opportunity. prompted in part by his views about Divine economy Further, it is not fair to students who may have (Clarkforthcoming) but that is no reason to discount heard something about creation science to dismiss it the quality of his work. Scientific status is deter- summarily without a word as to what is wrong with 76 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER, VOLUME 50, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 1988 it. Surely there is something to be said about why it ment . [were]written under the inspirationof the is bad. And understanding why scientists rejectinad- Holy Spirit [and] have God as their author. (Dei equate theories is part of what it is to be educated Verbum3:11) about science. The second principle, Theological Inerrancy, asserts that What They Should Say About It (P2)The booksof Scripturemust be acknowledgedas Assuming then that some kind of case for dis- teaching . without error that truth which God cussing creation science in the science classroom has wantedto put into the sacredwritings for the sakeof our salvation.(Dei Verbum3:11) been made, something needs to be said about how this is to be done. There are, I believe, three items A principle of inerrancy at least as strong as this one that should be on the agenda of any teacher who is probably entailed by the principle of inspiration proposes to discuss creation science in the classroom (given the doctrines of Divine Omniscience & Ve- distinguishing scientific from theological issues, racity). But theological inerrancyis silent on whether evaluating the creation science objections against the Bible is correct in all the geographical, historical evolution and developing a deeper understanding of and scientific points that it mentions. This leads science itself. some Christians, including most fundamentalists, to Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/50/2/76/43243/4448650.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 seek a stronger principle of inerrancy, perhaps Separatingscientific from theological issues (P3)When all the factsbecome known, they will dem- Surely much of the heat that accompanies the onstratethat the Biblein its originalautographs and whole creation-evolution controversy stems from correctlyinterpreted is entirelytrue and neverfalse in many parents' belief that teaching evolution (at least all it affirms,whether that relates to doctrineor ethics in public high schools) represents an infringementof or to the social, physical,or life sciences. (Feinberg 1984) their right to teach their children religion without in- terference from the state. This right is, of course, or even, given that the term "correctlyinterpreted" guaranteed them by the First Amendment and is still needs spelling out, surely essential to the peace of any religiously plu- ralist (P4)The Bible is to be interpretedwith strictexactness society. Anyone who does not understand the of word and meaning . by focusing upon the au- anger and frustration of these parents has not thor'swords in their plain, most obvioussense.... thought sufficiently of the possibility that the schools Thereis no roomfor specialconsideration for figura- might be used to teach views contrary to his or her tive literary forms such as poetry or metaphor own religion. But I believe that not only evolution, (Adaptedfrom Scott 1984). but even creation science, can be discussed without We might call the former principle "Extended Iner- running afoul of these legitimate constitutional con- rancy" and the latter "Literalism." (The difference straints. It is, after all, only religious views that are, between these two principles is emphasized by Barr or should be, constitutionally protected against crit- 1978:40-103.) ical discussion in the public schools. I want to argue Now, assuming we can use the term "Christian" that, despite what is commonly asserted, creation in a broad and non-partisan way, Christians can be science is not such a view and is therefore fair game. found on both sides of the question whether either There are, nevertheless, some theological issues in P3 or P4 is good theology. But whatever the sub- the neighborhood of creation science, and it is worth stance of a person's views, they must, I believe, be beginning our discussion by ascertaining exactly conceded to be religious and hence inappropriatefor what they are. The central theological point at issue discussion in the public school classroom. between creation scientists and evolutionists is not, But all of these beliefs can easily be separated from despite what creation scientists sometimes imply, creation science, which, as defined by Louisiana's whether the world was created by God and in some Creationism Act, means "the scientific evidences for sense remains dependent on Him for its existence. creation and inferences from those scientific evi- That may be the issue between creation scientists dences." To be sure, creationists are ambivalent on and atheists, but many evolutionists are neither. this point. Gish (1981) says that, "Creationistshave What sets creation scientists apart even from many repeatedly stated that neither creation nor evolution of their fellow Christians is rather the question of is a scientific theory (and each is equally religious)," how the Bible is to be interpreted. At least four dis- but in 1983:200even he writes that, "the scientificev- tinct principles of the status of the Bible can be dis- idence both for creation and for evolution can and tinguished: Inspiration, Inerrancy (in two versions) must be taught without any religious doctrine." and Literalism.The first principle, Inspiration,can be Most people friendly to creation science, of course, summarized as follows accept it along with certain religious beliefs.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Demarcation Problem
    Part I The Demarcation Problem 25 Chapter 1 Popper’s Falsifiability Criterion 1.1 Popper’s Falsifiability Popper’s Problem : To distinguish between science and pseudo-science (astronomy vs astrology) - Important distinction: truth is not the issue – some theories are sci- entific and false, and some may be unscientific but true. - Traditional but unsatisfactory answers: empirical method - Popper’s targets: Marx, Freud, Adler Popper’s thesis : Falsifiability – the theory contains claims which could be proved to be false. Characteristics of Pseudo-Science : unfalsifiable - Any phenomenon can be interpreted in terms of the pseudo-scientific theory “Whatever happened always confirmed it” (5) - Example: man drowning vs saving a child Characteristics of Science : falsifiability - A scientific theory is always takes risks concerning the empirical ob- servations. It contains the possibility of being falsified. There is con- firmation only when there is failure to refute. 27 28 CHAPTER 1. POPPER’S FALSIFIABILITY CRITERION “The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation” (6) - Example: Einstein 1919 1.2 Kuhn’s criticism of Popper Kuhn’s Criticism of Popper : Popper’s falsifiability criterion fails to char- acterize science as it is actually practiced. His criticism at best applies to revolutionary periods of the history of science. Another criterion must be given for normal science. Kuhn’s argument : - Kuhn’s distinction between normal science and revolutionary science - A lesson from the history of science: most science is normal science. Accordingly, philosophy of science should focus on normal science. And any satisfactory demarcation criterion must apply to normal science. - Popper’s falsifiability criterion at best only applies to revolutionary science, not to normal science.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Law Review Volume 83 Issue 1 2005 Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution Matthew J. Brauer Princeton University Barbara Forrest Southeastern Louisiana University Steven G. Gey Florida State University Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Education Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and Steven G. Gey, Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism and the Constitution, 83 WASH. U. L. Q. 1 (2005). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol83/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Washington University Law Quarterly VOLUME 83 NUMBER 1 2005 IS IT SCIENCE YET?: INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM AND THE CONSTITUTION MATTHEW J. BRAUER BARBARA FORREST STEVEN G. GEY* TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Creation/Evolution
    Creation/Evolution issue VI CONTENTS Fall 1981 ARTICLES 1 A Survey of Creationist Field Research—by Henry P. Zuidema 6 Arkeology: A New Science In Support of Creation?—by Robert A. Moore 16 Paluxy Man—The Creationist Plltdown—by Christopher Gregory Weber 23 An Analysis of the Creationist Film, Footprints in Stone—by Laurie R. Godfrey 30 Tripping Over a Triloblte: A Study of the Meister Tracks—by Ernest C. Conrad 34 Misquoted Scientists Respond—by John R. Cole REPORTS 45 News Briefs from the Editor LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED FORTHCOMING SYMPOSIA Fall Science Conference of the Metropolitan Detroit Science Teachers Associa- tion and the Detroit Area Council of Teachers of Mathematics. November 14, 1981, at Lakeview High School, St. Clair Shores, Michigan. One of the sessions at this conference will be devoted to the creation-evolution controversy. University of Minnesota Conference on "Evolution and Public Education." December 5, 1981, at the Earle Brown Center of the St. Paul Campus. It is aimed at high school teachers, school board members, legislators, and the general pub- lic. The purpose is to examine the creation-evolution controversy as it relates to education and science. John A. Moore will give the keynote address. Fourteen lecturers will participate, including two who have written for Creation/Evolu- tion. Contact Peter Zetterberg, Department of Conferences, University of Min- nesota, 211 Nolte Center, 315 Pillsbury Drive SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, (612) 373-3486. University of Montevallo, Montevallo, Alabama: "Scientific Creationism vs. Evolution: Impact on Public Schools." Early 1982. This program is aimed at freshman students, the university community, and the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Intro to Science Studies I
    PHIL 209A / SOCG 255A / HIGR 238 / COGR 225A Intro to Science Studies I Fall 2017 Instructor: Kerry McKenzie [email protected] Seminars: Tuesday 9.30-12.20pm, HSS 3027. Office Hours: Wednesday 2-4pm, HSS 8088. 1 Overview. This course is a philosophically slanted introduction to Science Studies. Our central question is a conceptual one, whose relevance to Science Studies should speak for itself – namely, what is science, and what distinguishes science from other fields? In grappling with this question we’ll familiarize ourselves with central works in the philosophy of science canon, and make glancing acquaintance with some more contemporary issues in scientific epistemology and metaphysics. But our guiding motif is a normative one: what, if anything, makes science entitled to the privileged status that it enjoys within culture? In more detail. The ‘question of demarcation’ – that of what, if anything, makes what we call ‘science’ science – was a central preoccupation of many of the major 20th century philosophers of science. While interest in this topic waned after the appearance of Larry Laudan’s ‘Demise of the Demarcation Problem’ in 1983, the question of what separates science from ‘pseudoscience’ is now making something of a comeback. In this course, we will review the approaches to demarcation offered by the philosophers Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos – all of which serve as concise introductions to the dominant themes of their work as a whole – and then examine some more contemporary approaches more centred on pragmatics and the philosophy of language. We will then consider how homeopathy – for most a pseudoscience par excellence – fares with regard to the criteria we’ll have studied.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Or Pseudo-Science: Yes, It Matters!
    Science or Pseudo-Science: Yes, It Matters! I live in southwest Ohio, a beau- months, over 265,000 museum visi- when, according to Nelkin, William tiful area with streams and hills full tors have contributedto the economic Willoughby,the religion editor of the of fossils embedded in its limestone; well-beingof the area,spending an esti- WashingtonEvening Star, filed suit so I can see evidence of the fossil mated $10 million on gas, food, and against the Director of the National recorddaily. Yet, on May,28 2007-just lodging (Kelly, 2007). By the end of Science Foundationand the Boardof across the Ohio River in Petersburg, the summer,the Museumannounced Regentsof the Universityof Colorado. Kentucky-a new museum opened; that it had run out of parkingspaces The NSF had provided the funds for EDITORIAL the CreationMuseum, built for $27 and needed to build a new lot! the development of the BSCS texts, million Answersin a non- and BSCSwas locatedat the by Genesis, I think as I read these University international based in "Dej vu," of Colorado-Boulder. profit, ministry, accountsin local and national Willoughby to one Web newspa- wantedthe NSFto funds Petersburg.According site, as a provideequal pers.Twenty-five years ago, NABT, "forthe of the creation- TheAnswers in GenesisCreation and as a promulgation witness, Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/70/2/70/54478/30163204.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 plaintiff, BSCS, joined ist of the of man[sic]" Museumis a one-of-a-hind,high- other science to defeat the theory origin groups (Nelkin, 1977).
    [Show full text]
  • Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change
    religions Article Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change K. L. Marshall New College, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH1 2LX, UK; [email protected] Abstract: In the century since the Scopes Trial, one of the most influential dogmas to shape American evangelicalism has been that of young-earth creationism. This article explains why, with its arm of “creation science,” young-earth creationism is a significant factor in evangelicals’ widespread denial of anthropogenic climate change. Young-earth creationism has become closely intertwined with doctrines such as the Bible’s divine authority and the Imago Dei, as well as with social issues such as abortion and euthanasia. Addressing this aspect of the environmental crisis among evangelicals will require a re-orientation of biblical authority so as to approach social issues through a hermeneutic that is able to acknowledge the reality and imminent threat of climate change. Citation: Marshall, K. L. 2021. Revisiting the Scopes Trial: Keywords: evangelicalism; creation science; young-earth creationism; climate change; Answers in Young-Earth Creationism, Creation Genesis; biblical literalism; biblical authority; Noahic flood; dispensational theology; fundamentalism Science, and the Evangelical Denial of Climate Change. Religions 12: 133. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12020133 1. Introduction Academic Editors: Randall Balmer The 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial is often referenced as a metonymy for American and Edward Blum Protestantism’s fundamentalist-modernist controversy that erupted in the years following World War I. William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer and politician who argued in favor of Received: 25 January 2021 biblical creationism1—in keeping with his literal understanding of the narratives in Genesis Accepted: 12 February 2021 Published: 20 February 2021 1 and Genesis 2—was vindicated when the judge ruled that high school biology teacher John Scopes had indeed broken the law by teaching Darwinian evolution in a public school.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation/Evolution
    Creation/Evolution Issue XXIV CONTENTS Fall 1988 ARTICLES 1 Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism by Tbm Mclver 25 Scientific Creationism: Adding Imagination to Scripture by Stanley Rice 37 Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment: Tennessee as a Case Study, 1925-1975 by George E. Webb FEATURES 43 Book Review 45 Letters to the Editor LICENSED TO UNZ.ORG ELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED About this issue ... In this issue, Tom Mclver again brings his historical scholarship to bear on an issue relevant to creationism. This time, he explores the history of and the major players in the development and promotion of the "gap theory." Rarely do we treat in detail alternative creationist theories, preferring instead to focus upon the young- Earth special creationists who are so politically militant regarding public educa- tion. However, coverage of different creationist views is necessary from time to time in order to provide perspective and balance for those involved in the controversy. The second article compares scripture to the doctrines of young-Earth special crea- tionists and finds important disparities. Author Stanley Rice convincingly shows that "scientific" creationists add their own imaginative ideas in an effort to pseudoscientifically "flesh out" scripture. But why do so many people accept creationist notions? Some have maintained that the answer may be found through the study of demographics. George E. Webb explores that possibility in "Demographic Change and Antievolution Sentiment" and comes to some interesting conclusions. CREATION/EVOLUTION XXIV (Volume 8, Number 3} ISSN 0738-6001 Creation/Evolution, a publication dedicated to promoting evolutionary science, is published by the American Humanist Association.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers to Common Misconceptions About Biological Evolution Leah M
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Papers in Evolution Papers in the Biological Sciences 5-2017 Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution Leah M. Abebe University of Nebraska-Lincoln Blake Bartels University of Nebraska-Lincoln Kaitlyn M. Caron University of Nebraska-Lincoln Adam M. Gleeson University of Nebraska-Lincoln Samuel N. Johnson University of Nebraska-Lincoln See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution Part of the Evolution Commons Abebe, Leah M.; Bartels, Blake; Caron, Kaitlyn M.; Gleeson, Adam M.; Johnson, Samuel N.; Kluza, Tyler J.; Knopik, Nicholas W.; Kramer, Kristen N.; Maza, Masiel S.; Stava, Kaitlyn A.; Sullivan, Kaitlyn; Trimble, Jordan T.; and Zink, Robert M. , editor, "Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution" (2017). Papers in Evolution. 4. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Papers in the Biological Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Evolution by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors Leah M. Abebe; Blake Bartels; Kaitlyn M. Caron; Adam M. Gleeson; Samuel N. Johnson; Tyler J. Kluza; Nicholas W. Knopik; Kristen N. Kramer; Masiel S. Maza; Kaitlyn A. Stava; Kaitlyn Sullivan; Jordan T. Trimble; and Robert M. Zink , editor This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/bioscievolution/4 Answers to common misconceptions about biological evolution Class of BIOS 472, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Spring 2017 Students: Leah M. Abebe, Blake Bartels, Kaitlyn M.
    [Show full text]
  • Seminar Notebook
    Dr. Kent Hovind SEMINAR NOTEBOOK A resource designed to supplement the Creation Seminar Series NotebookSeminar 9th edition A resource designed to supplement the Creation Seminar Series Dr. Kent Hovind Creation Science Evangelism Pensacola, FL Previous Publications Are You Being Brainwashed? Claws, Jaws, and Dinosaurs Gap Theory Seminar Workbook Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, Florida 32503 © 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Creation Science Evangelism Permission is granted to duplicate for free distribution only. Published 2007 First edition published 1992. Seventh edition 2001. Eighth edition 2003. Ninth edition 2007. CSE Ministry Kent Hovind (Ho-vînd) 29 Cummings Rd Pensacola, FL [32503] 850-479-3466 1-877-479-3466 (USA only) 850-479-8562 Fax www.drdino.com ISBN 1-58468-018-0 Previous Publications Are You Being Brainwashed? Claws, Jaws, and Dinosaurs Gap Theory Seminar Workbook Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, Florida 32503 © 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007 by Creation Science Evangelism Permission is granted to duplicate for free distribution only. Published 2007 First edition published 1992. Seventh edition 2001. Eighth edition 2003. Ninth edition 2007. CSE Ministry Kent Hovind (Ho-vînd) 29 Cummings Rd Pensacola, FL [32503] 850-479-3466 1-877-479-3466 (USA only) 850-479-8562 Fax www.drdino.com Sci•ence \ \n [ME, fr. MF, fr. L scientia, fr. s cient- , sciens having knowledge, fr. prp. ofscire to know; prob. akin to Skt chyati he cuts off, Lsciendere to split — more at SHED] (14c)1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding2a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study . the~ of theology b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a~ 3a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws esp.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 17 Article 2 Issue 2 Symposium on Religion in the Public Square 1-1-2012 Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design Kent Greenwalt Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Kent Greenwalt, Establishing Religious Ideas: Evolution, Creationism, and Intelligent Design, 17 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 321 (2003). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol17/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS IDEAS: EVOLUTION, CREATIONISM, AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN KENT GREENAWALT* I. INTRODUCTION The enduring conflict between evolutionary theorists and creationists has focused on America's public schools. If these schools had no need to teach about the origins of life, each side might content itself with promoting its favored worldview and declaring its opponents narrow-minded and dogmatic. But edu- cators have to decide what to teach, and because the Supreme Court has declared that public schools may not teach religious propositions as true, the First Amendment is crucially implicated. On close examination, many of the controversial constitu- tional issues turn out to be relatively straightforward, but others, posed mainly by the way schools teach evolution and by what they say about "intelligent design" theory, push us to deep questions about the nature of science courses and what counts as teaching religious propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Business of Creationism
    The Business of Creatonism Many biologists like to believe that teacherdoesn't enjoy such a good income.2 What's next? One anti-evolution "scientific creationism" is restricted to CreationScience Ministries of Kentucky group has several hundred thousand a few publicity-seeking politicians and recently moved into new offices covering dollars to launch a new museum. That the usual group of ignore-the-evidence, 12,000 ft2 in Elsmere, Kentucky. These museum, which they hope to open by all-of-you-evolutionists-are-gonna-bum- new offices represent a 350% expansion 1999, will likely include pieces of Noah's in-hell zealots. Those folks are out there, (their previous offices covered only 3,400 ark, "hands-on science" kits that let to be sure. However, "creation scien- ft2). you prove that the Earth is only 6,000 tists" are becoming increasingly popular, In 1995, Creation Science Ministries of years old, models of dinosaurs (ridden even in mainstream America; groups Kentucky spent $453,000 to conduct sem- by humans?), and-you guessed it-sell Downloaded from http://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article-pdf/59/4/196/47998/4450283.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 like "Creation Scientists of America"- inars that reachedmore than 120,000 peo- all sorts of T-shirts, trinkets, pamphlets, each proclaiming slogans such as "God, ple. These seminars are wildly popular. and other junk to finance their God-is- Not Darwin" and "Put Jesus Back in the Indeed, a recent seminar attracted about on-our-side work. Given the "believe Classroom"-are popping up every- 1800 people;a similar seminarfor students what we do or you'll go to hell" threats where.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding Creation Science and Intelligent Design Review of Huskinson, B
    Branch Evo Edu Outreach (2021) 14:11 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-021-00150-2 Evolution: Education and Outreach BOOK REVIEW Open Access Understanding creation science and intelligent design Review of Huskinson, B. 2020. American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham (Switzerland) Glenn Branch* Abstract In American Creationism, Creation Science, and Intelligent Design in the Evangelical Market, Benjamin Huskinson pre- sents a close examination of the two main American sociopolitical movements launched in opposition to evolution during the second half of the twentieth century: creation science and intelligent design. Despite a failure of a central argument and a handful of errors, the book is a welcome and valuable interrogation of the stereotypes of American creationism. Keywords: Creationism, Creation science, Intelligent design Benjamin Huskinson’s book, apparently based on his 2018 particularly piquant discussion, he examines the federal dissertation at Queen’s University Belfast, presents a close tax returns for 1997–2015 of the largest creation science examination of the two main American sociopolitical organizations, concluding that the Institute for Crea- movements launched in opposition to evolution during tion Research and Answers in Genesis are growing at the the second half of the twentieth century: creation science expense of their smaller rivals, with the latter, newer, and intelligent design. “Creation science was developed as organization experiencing the most growth, thanks to its a response to perceived threats to evangelical orthodoxy” multimillion-dollar tourist attractions. Owing to increas- (p. 108), he emphasizes, not as a rival position to balance ing secularization and education, adverse judicial deci- the teaching of evolution in the public schools—although sions, and the rise of the internet, however, he suspects it was so advanced in short order.
    [Show full text]