| Biology Homepage |  |
Back to sciencethinking.org |
| Zoology Homepage |
Last Updated: 25-Jul-2008 9:09 PM
Notes on the Web - Unit Six- Part 7
Pseudoscientific Creationism and Intelligent Design
Bruce G. Stewart
General Objectives and Study Guide
Your objectives for these Notes on the Web and associated readings and exercises are:
To define "scientific creationism" and analyze its claims in relation to the criteria of true science;
Related Textbook Readings:
As we thoroughly addressed earlier in the semester and earlier in this unit on evolution, the criteria of science are clear. It is possible to distinguish non-sciences and pseudosciences from true sciences by determining the facts about whether the criteria of science are met by a particular claim. Recall that the term "non-science" is not a derogatory term. In fact, non-sciences include a vast array of human endeavors which greatly enrich our lives and promote human progress. However, the pseudosciences, which make unsubstantiated claims of being science, are destructive cultural pathogens which obfuscate public understanding of the nature of true science. Pseudosciences furthermore lead to dysfunctional approaches to dealing with and understanding natural processes.
Please realize that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Evolution and religion are not incompatible. If you would like to learn more about this viewpoint, try visiting the following link and read the essays that address this question: "How can you reconcile the conflict between evolution and religion?"
Another site that includes some theological perspectives on science and evolution is the official web site of Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education. This site has a number of links pertinent to the topics in our Notes on the Web.
It is critically important that you objectively evaluate the facts about the pseudosciences of "scientific creationism" and "intelligent design" so that you can recognize that these constitute specific religious viewpoints, not scientifically valid theories or principles. We shall examine some examples that address this point.
Evidence for Scientific Creationsim?
Our first example will be drawn from the following article from the prestigious journal Science:
Lewin, R. 1985. Evidence for Scientific Creationism? Science Vol 218: 837. (17 May 1985)
Click on the citation above to download an image of this one-page article. Read it carefully. Note the following major ideas either directly from the article or from our class discussion:
What is the definition of "Biblical Creationism"?
What is the definition of "Scientific Creationism"?
Who is Henry Morris and what does he claim about "scientific" creationism?
Recall that scientific procedures for critically examining evidence and the claims made about that evidence involve the scientific peer-review process. (Go back to your notes and handouts on this from our earlier lectures if you need to refresh your memory.) To make a claim that there is extensive valid evidence that supports a particular hypothesis or theory, one would have to show that their are peer-reviewed, published scientific journal articles that concur with that claim. Otherwise the claim of widespread support is simply and plainly wrong. This could be due to such things as honest misunderstanding of the evidence and/or scientific process, religiously-biased "tunnel-vision" which prevents objectivity, general ignorance, or purposeful lying about the facts.
Lewin (1985) cites an extensive study by E. C. Scott and H. P. Cole who conducted a review of scientific literature to see if there is widespread evidence in support of the so-called "scientific" creationism views. Answer the following questions regarding their findings.
How many journals over how many years did they survey for information?
How many articles/letters even addressed the issue of "scientific" creationism?
How many of these were empirical studies that supported the claims of "scientific" creationism?
How many submitted articles to how many journals did they survey for information on "scientific" creationism?
How many articles dealing with the issue of "scientific" creationism did they find?
How many of these were accepted for publication?
How many of these were scientific empirical studies?
Given the results that you noted above, is there scientific evidence that supports the "scientific" creationists claims?
McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.
Our second example illustrating the "lie of 'scientific' creationism" will be a review of the court case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education. This case dealt with a state law (later struck down as being unconstitutional) passed in Arkansas which required the teaching of "scientific" creationism as science in the public schools. The text of Judge William Overton's famous ruling should be visited at the following link:
You do not need to read the whole ruling, but scan through it to answer the following questions.
Who were the plaintiffs against the teaching of creationism in the public schools of Arkansas? (found in the Introduction of the ruling)
What were the main beliefs of the creationists? (found in Section III of the ruling)
Why did Judge Overton rule that "Creation-science" is not, in fact, science at all? {see Section IV(C) of ruling}
Kitzmiller, et al. versus Dover Area School District, et al.
No less than nine major court rulings have affirmed the same basic conclusion that evolution is science and various renderings of "scientific creationism" are not science!. One of the most recent and important of these cases (Kitzmiller et al. versus Dover Area School District, et al.) received considerable coverage in the popular press during 2005-2006, and once again, reason prevailed in the judge's ruling. The complete ruling can be found at the following liink:
This link goes to a PDF file which is rather large and may take some time to download. The document is 139 pages long; however, you might go directly to the conclusions section starting on page 136 to get the main points of the ruling. Or.... read the following quote from Judge John Jones III's ruling:
H. Conclusion
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator. To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal
damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. A declaratory judgment is hereby issued in favor of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 such that Defendants’ ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Art. I, § 3 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
2. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 65, Defendants are permanently enjoined from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District.
3. Because Plaintiffs seek nominal damages, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court and serve on Defendants, their claim for damages and a verified statement of any fees and/or costs to which they claim entitlement. Defendants shall have the right to object to any such fees and costs to the extent provided in the applicable statutes and court rules.
s/John E. Jones III
John E. Jones III
United States District Judge
The Dover Area School District wasted $100,000's on this case.
The State of Pseudoscientific Creationism in Oklahoma State Law
Oklahoma's Department of Education Science standards have been routinely rated at a level of "D" or lower over the past few years. Although descent with modification is a component, the foundation principle of evolution and the theory of natural section are not even named! It is no wonder that Oklahoma students are confused on this issue! Legislation similar to the unconstitutional Dover Area School District and other such anti-science legislation has been introduced in committees of the State of Oklahoma legislature over the past few years. Fortunately, none of these destructive, unconstitutional, pseudoscientific type of religiously-based proposals have made their way in to State Law. Were any to actually be enacted, they would surely be challenged and struck down on constitutional grounds. This would be at great taxpayer cost and would severely damage the reputation and future of our State. To read some of the reasons, visit the following link:
The Fred Flintstone Belief Syndrome (FFBS). Did Dinosaurs and Humans Exist at the Same Time?
Although we could give dozens of examples that illustrate the point that "scientific" creationism is a pseudoscience, we shall add only one more here. A common claim of "scientific" creationists has been that there are human footprints found along with dinosaur footprints. This has not been supported by the scientific evidence. Abstracts of the following two papers will be provided to you in class. Read these to get a feel for the reasons that the "human" footprint stories are nothing more that myth or wishful thinking.
Hastings, R. J. 1987. New observations on Paluxy tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin. Journal of Geological Education Vol. 35, p. 4.
Monroe, J. S. 1987. Creationism, human footprints, and flood geology. Journal of Geological Education Vol. 35, p. 93.
Self Study Critical Thinking Exercise. Based on the examples given above, on our lecture discussions, and on any other sources you may wish to provide, explain why "scientific" creationism is (A) a pseudoscience and (B) a religious assertion. This is not an exercise you will turn in.
An Optional Self-study Exercise
Review the following two pseudoscientific articles published by the Creation Research Society in a pseudoscientific journal. Write an essay of at least five paragraphs including (A) an introduction to the "scientific" creationism issue, (B) a critique of article one, (C) a critique of article two, (D) a brief discussion of the cryptic format that is used in the articles to give the appearance of a true peer-reviewed science journal, and (E) a conclusion.
Davidheiser, Bolton. 1991. What is a species? Creation Research Society Quarterly 27:149-151.
Frair, W. 1991. Original kinds and turtle phylogeny. Creation Research Society Quarterly 28:21-23.
Links to Further Explore the Creationism/Evolution Issue
As with all materials throughout the semester, you will have opportunities to ask questions or ask that any relevant material from your assignments be discussed in class and/or in threaded discussions on Internet.
Some Recommended Readings
Berra, T. M. 1990. Science, Religion, Politics, Law, and Education, Chapter 5, pp. 120-144 IN Evolution and the myth of creationism: a basic guide to the facts in the evolution debate (by T. M. Berra). Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.
Committee on Science and Creationism of the National Academy of Sciences. 1984. Science and creationism: a view from the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy Press. Washington, D. C.
McCollister, B (ed.). 1989. Voices for evolution. The National Center for Science Education, Inc. Berkeley, California.
© 2005, 2007 Bruce G. Stewart
| Biology Homepage | |
Back to sciencethinking.org |
| Zoology Homepage |
Last Updated: 25-Jul-2008 9:09 PM