While the recent Texas evolution fight made a loser out of both Creationists and Evolutionists, thankfully science came out the winner.
A Victory for Science (Part 1)
Recently, the state of Texas underwent a periodic review of it's biology curriculum textbook. At primary issue was a debate over how evolution should be taught. The results were mixed. For the second part of this three-part blog, I'm going to look at one of the losers to this battle of wits: creationists.
Creationists just plain old don't like a lot of the conclusions that the theory of evolution implies. I don't know of any who disbelieve in the science of genetics, but I also don't know any that believe that non-life begets life, and that organisms in one kingdom, given enough time, can turn into organisms that belong to another kingdom. The thing is, for hardcore creationists, it's NOT a simple matter of being skeptical of a scientific theory, it is the purposeful rejection of an ideology because it is in conflict with theirs. It's not that evolution untenably corroborates disassociated data, it's that if you believe in it, you go to hell.
While it would be easy to claim that creationism has somehow won in this whole affair, the ultimate result is the opposite. The current Texas decision has set a precedent that will ultimately HURT the creationist standpoint.
This is because the tactic that creationists have used is a tactic of "don't just believe what you're told, or what's popular". Of course, Christianity isn't well-known for it's skeptical disbelief in that which cannot be empirically verified. No, the real point of this type of argument is two-fold. The first is that it presents a legitimate window through which one can scientifically doubt the "scientific" principles of evolution. With their foot in the door, creationism is allowed to wedge it's own "science" in: intelligent design.
Intelligent design is not science. It is an ideologically-driven train wreck between philosophy and data (just like evolution). It makes sense to create a new pseudo-science that has positive ramifications on your ideology to counter a pseudo-science that has negative ramifications. The problem, of course, is the method that creationists are using to get their blend of garbage to replace the existing blend.
The method, remember, is to question everything. Be critical. Be skeptical. The reason, of course, is that this spirit (the spirit that drives real science) has a tendency to wash away non-science mumbo jumbo. The error, though, is to assume that once people use critical reasoning against evolution, they won't then turn the very same against creationism. There is no way that creationism, as a science, can survive against critical thinking.
At best, it's a wash for creationism. Yes, the kids may not believe in evolution, but they're not going to believe in intelligent design either. But here's the dangerous part: you've taught your kids to be skeptical. It's not going to take long before those same little 9th grade critical thinkers to point their aim at Christianity. Remember, Christianity, at least the parts that attempt to describe history and universal fact, does not hold up well against science. If you don't believe me, just ask the Catholic Church.
In the end, critically thinking teens will start looking at Christianity and coming to conclusions like "Christianity is the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree..."
Thus critical reasoning destroys the religion of evolution, thus it destroys the religion of Christ. As such, by using this tactic, creationists are ultimately destroying themselves, which is why this recent decision in Texas makes them a loser too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most scientists would argue that creationism does NOT teach skepticism, but rather, represses it, by directing the skepticism away from critical thinking and toward skepticism itself. If this is true, I don't see how this teaches critical thinking and why teens would reject such thinking.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it's possible to examine real life cases where creationism is taught: look at existing evangelical Christian communities that do so (see Jesuscamp). It's unlikely that these kids learn critical reasoning skills, except to be skeptical of anything they are scared of or their parents are unfamiliar with. How will these kids become critical thinkers?
Also: you're sounding more and more likea follower of Antisthenes.
ReplyDeletewell, that's my point.
ReplyDeleteChreationists want to supplant one non-science with their own non-science. the TACTIC that they're using is science.
Ironically, if their tactic is successful, it will totally impair their ability to advance their own non-science in the future.
And yes, a lot of creationism is taught without critical reasoning (like evolution). The part of creatonism that I'm looking at specifically is the part that's actually engaging in an intellectual debate with the other side in the courtrooms and school boards, rather than the Jesus Camp creationists, who will never gain much ground in schools (thankfully).