There's
a term used often on the internet called Poe's Law. It basically
means that it's impossible to distinguish extremists' comments from
parodies of extremists' comments. Let me give you an example. Phil
Plait is a self-described “science evangelizer” and blogger for
Slate.com. A while back, he wrote an article titled, Give
Me An “F!” Creationists Fail a Fourth Grade Science Test,
where he lamented elementary students being taught creationism. In
the article he said:
My
complaint is one of simple reality. Young-Earth
creationism is wrong, and it’s certainly
not
science. For
that reason alone, ideally it shouldn’t be taught as truth
anywhere, let alone a science class.... In fact, all
of
science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against
pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact
uncovered by science. If creationism were true, then essentially no
modern invention would work. Since you’re
reading this on a computer,
that
right there is proof enough.
[Italics
and bold in original]
Really,
Mr. Plait? “All of science shows creationism is
wrong”? “No modern invention would work” if creation were
true? Computers are proof that evolution is correct? His comments
are hilarious and he means them! No exaggeration I could make
about his comments could be any more extreme than what Plait is
actually saying. It's a perfect example of Poe's Law.
I
shouldn't have to rebut any of these outrageous claims because they
are absurd on their face. It makes no sense to say that things like
computers or satellites or rockets wouldn't work if God created the
universe. I'm fairly certain that Plait is unaware that Charles
Babbage, the man credited with inventing modern computing, was a
creationist. However, the point of my blog, today, isn't to detail
the contributions creationists have made to science. Rather, it's
something else that Plait said that piqued my interest.
What
really makes my heart sink is the reality that this
is actually being taught to young children. Kids
are natural scientists; they want to see and explore and categorize
and ask “why?” until they understand everything. And we, as
adults, as caretakers, have a solemn responsibility to nurture that
impulse and to answer them in as honest a way as possible,
encouraging them to seek more answers—and more
questions—themselves. That’s how we learn. ¶But this? This
isn’t learning. It’s indoctrination.
[bold added]
Indoctrination
is a strong word to use. The ordinary definition of “indoctrinate”
is to teach someone to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Yet
there is a pejorative connotation to the word. I taught my children
to speak English; does that mean I indoctrinated them to speak
English? Is it indoctrination to teach our kids right and wrong? To
be nice? To pick up their things, to get good grades, and to work
hard? Teaching our children our values isn't indoctrination – it's
called raising them. We also tend to raise our children to
share our religious beliefs. I'm sure the parents who send their
kids to the private school Plait is ridiculing, are Christians who
believe in creation. That wanted to send their kids to a Christian
school that reinforces the same values the kids learn at home. To
accuse the parents of “indoctrinating” their kids is a type of ad
hominem.
What
I find most curious about militant evolutionists is how angry they
become whenever someone doesn't believe in evolution. In the
introduction to his article, immediately following the photo of the
4th grade quiz, Plait assumes the reader would be,
“screaming
in rage and/or pounding your head against the desk.”
Why? Because some people actually believe in creation and neither
Plait nor his cohorts can stand it. He says later, “I
am deeply saddened that there are places teaching this to children.”
Worshipers
of scientism
virtually froth at the mouth over the simple fact that people exist
who doubt evolution. They obsess over it. They stay up at night
worrying about it. They wring their hands and plot about ways to
stamp out science
deniers.
Yet they can't see their hypocrisy through their blinding contempt.
They
are the ones interested in indoctrination! Do you think I'm
exaggerating? Let's look at some facts.
THEY
LIE
Think
about the things Plait said in this article:
- all of science contradicts creationism.
- no modern invention would work if creation were true.
- Creationism goes against every founding principle and every basic fact of science.
If
he made just one statement like this, I might dismiss it as
hyperbole. To repeat it over and over shows he's being very
deliberate. It's rather ordinary for evolutionists to lie to bolster
their theory. I've even written a series about 10
lies evolutionists tell but there are many more than 10. I've
been thinking of doing a sequel, adding another 10. When people
tells lies to advance an agenda, that's the very definition of
propaganda.
THEY
SQUELCH
Several
years ago, the Cobb
County Board of Education placed a sticker in school science
books that said, “This
textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a
fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be
approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically
considered.”
Note that the stickers didn't mention creation or even religion.
Instead, they said that evolution should be examined carefully,
critically, and with an open mind. Critical thinking should be a
staple in educating our kids. Questioning
everything is supposed to be a fundamental principle of science –
except when it comes to evolution. No
one is
allowed to question evolution! In the matter of Cobb County, the
case ended up in court where a judge ordered the stickers be removed.
Such is always the case when any criticism of evolution is suggested
in the public classroom. Any policy that might treat evolution as
anything less than an absolute fact is challenged in court. Any
teacher who seems sympathetic to creation or intelligent design risks
losing his job.
Groups
have been organized, like the National Center for Science Education,
whose sole mission is to insure that the teaching of evolution is not
diminished in any way. They recently took up arms against the School
Superintendent in Arizona who was rewriting science standards for the
state. On their website, NCSE
bragged, “NCSE,
of course, is constantly on guard for threats to the integrity of
science education, including in
Arizona.”
By “science education” they mean “teaching evolution.” What
was their complaint? One example from the article says, “First,
although evolution is still listed in the edited standards as a core
concept, the description of the concept was changed for the worse.
The writing committee explained it by saying, correctly, “The unity
and diversity of organisms, living and extinct, is the result of
evolution.” This was then edited to say, ‘The theory of evolution
seeks to make clear the unity of living and extinct organisms.” The
difference, of course, is that the writing committee’s version
clearly says that evolution is correct, while the edited version is
studiously agnostic.”
It
seems the edited version didn't seem to state evolution was a fact.
Oh the horror! I'm not sure if evolution is the only scientific
theory with its own political lobby but I'm certain it is the only
scientific theory that is protected by law.
THEY
PROSELYTIZE
Education
is supposed to be about imparting knowledge. It's supposed to make
kids “critical thinkers.” We make sure kids understand the
material but teachers are not supposed to take sides. Right? I have
a degree in business. Part of my studies in college included
learning about different economic philosophies: capitalism,
socialism, communism, etc. Do you think it's possible to understand
an economic theory without endorsing it? Of course it is. I can
learn about – and understand – socialism while remaining a
capitalist. Likewise, a person could learn about and understand
evolution while still being a creationist. When it comes to teaching
evolution, though, it's not enough for these people to make sure
every student understands the theory. They won't stop until every
student utterly rejects creation and wholly embraces evolution.
Remember
in Plait's bio, he is described as a “science
evangelizer.”
What do you think he means by that? I think it's obvious. And he's
not alone in his zeal. In a NY Times interview, Bill Nye was asked,
“do
you imagine a child in a creationist-friendly household managing to
get his hands on the book [you've written about evolution] and
stealing away with it?”
Nye's answer is very telling:
A
man can dream! It would be great if the book is that influential. My
biggest concern about creationist kids is that they’re compelled to
suppress their common sense, to suppress their critical thinking
skills at a time in human history when we need them more than ever.
By the time you’re 18, you’ve made up your mind. It’s going to
be really hard for you, as they say in the Mormon tradition, to “lose
your testimony.” But if you’re 7 or 8, we got a shot.
“We
got a shot”? We should be
concerned that someone with such poor grammar wants to teach our kids
but I'm more alarmed by his obvious intentions – reach the kids
young enough, and we can convince them evolution is true.
I
came across an article in The
Conversation that says, “The
best way to get children to understand evolution is to teach genetics
first.”
That paper was a little more candid than many about the motive to
teaching evolution. In the following except, pay attention to the
parts I've highlighted in bold:
An
understanding of evolution and acceptance of the idea of evolution
are two different things. Acceptance is the belief that the
scientific view of evolution is the correct version: you can
understand evolution but not accept it and you can accept it but not
understand it. We found that students typically accepted
evolution to a greater degree after taking the genetics class.....
We
also set up a series of focus groups to find out why the
understanding and acceptance of evolution are not more strongly
coupled. Evidence from these suggests that what is more important for
evolution acceptance is not what is taught, but who
provides the endorsement. For some students, being told that key
authority figures such as parents or teachers approve of scientific
evidence for evolution made a big difference to their ability to
accept it.....
Whatever
the underlying cause, the data suggest a really simple, minimally
disruptive and cost-free modification to teaching practice: teach
genetics first. This will at least increase evolution understanding,
if not acceptance. As with many emotive subjects, it
takes more than teaching the facts to shift hearts as well as minds.
So
there you have it. They are not coy about their intentions – they
want to indoctrinate our kids. They are just angry that parents and
religious liberty keeps getting in their way!
Related
articles
3 comments:
I read an anecdote years ago: on a merchant vessel, the first mate showed up on watch drunk one morning, and the captain noted it: "the first mate was drunk today." The first mate retaliated by noting in his own log that "the captain was sober today."
Context can alter the meaning of a word, a phrase, or entire sentences. Noting that the captain was sober implies that this was a noteworthy departure from his usual practice -- which was untrue, even though the entry itself was true.
By the same token, noting that "This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered,". in regard to evolution, but not in regard to, say, heliocentrism, or atomic theory, or the Holocaust as an historical event, implies that evolution is especially problematic, weakly supported by evidence, or controversial among honest people acquainted with the evidence. I realize that you would like to believe that this is true, but it is quite false. The statement is true, but it is used to imply a falsehood.
It sometimes seems that geocentrism is on the rise today. Perhaps in a few years heliocentrism will be another scientific theory with its own lobby. You only need people arguing to keep a scientific idea in the curriculum if there are people agitating to keep it out. There is no scientific reason to question evolution; there are only theological dogmatic ones (this is why, e.g. you have a post titled "evolution: a religion of death;" if there were scientific reasons to oppose evolution you would not need to keep calling people who accept it death-worshiping racist totalitarian perverts).
And, of course, this is why Bill Nye thinks it is not enough to reach minds; facts are useless in persuading people who think that theology trumps data.
In fact, all of science shows creationism is wrong, because creationism goes against pretty much every founding principle of and every basic fact uncovered by science.
I'm not sure that Plait's conclusion follows from his premise -- but his premise is correct. Every "creation science" outfit I know of has a statement of faith that says, essentially, that Genesis (read in the plain sense) is inerrant and that no possible evidence could ever show otherwise. "No possible evidence could possibly show otherwise" is, in fact, the denial of every founding principle of science. If you agree to such a statement of faith, you've pledged not to do science (and to the extent that you say you are, you've pledged to lie -- which seems somewhat in tension with biblical principles as traditionally understood, but that's not today's problem).
And note that young Earth creationism implicitly denies a lot (though surely not quite all) of modern science. You want to deny that radiometric decay rates are constant? You're contradicting quantum mechanics and every one of thousands of experiments confirming it. Want to insist that house cats, cheetahs, and tigers could diverge from a single pair of ur-felids living 4500 years ago? You're denying pretty much every observation ever made of mutation rates and evolutionary divergence. Insist that the visible universe is six thousand years old, give or take? You're implicitly insisting that decades of work establishing stellar distances is garbage (and that our entire understanding of what distant galaxies even are, is wrong), or that light doesn't behave the way every tested theory in science assumes light behaves. And so forth and on.
Computers are proof that evolution is correct?
That's not what Plait said; he said it is proof that (young Earth) creationism is wrong. It's an omnipresent theme of of modern YECism that we must distinguish between "origins science" and "operational science" -- that we cannot know that the laws of nature are uniform in time, or that straightforward applications of results of "operational science" to questions about the past yield reliable knowledge (e.g. we're not justified in assuming that radioactive decay rates, or the speed of light, have not changed over time).
But by what conceivable principle could we limit this agnosticism to the distant past? If we can't assume the uniformity of natural law across time, we aren't justified in assuming that a transistor built according to physical laws as they worked in a lab last year will continue to work next year. We have no reason to assume that a measurement of the voltage requirements or temperature tolerances of a circuit board today will have any relevance to the computer's operation five years from now. There is nothing but arbitrary wishful thinking that can justify the particular distinction between "operations science" and "origins science" that creationists want; any attempt to apply the principle consistently would make science impossible in principle.
Also, of course, it would render all forms of forensic science -- crash scene investigators, police crime labs, autopsies, etc. -- pointless, but that point wasn't raised by Plait.
Steven J,
You mentioned heliocentrism. I'm sure when you learned about the solar system in school, you were told about a time when people thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. I remember being taught that and, hopefully, this still happens today. Being told why people believed in geocentrism, what problems that model had, and how heliocentrism better explains the evidence doesn't just give kids a history lesson, it engages their critical thinking skills. I don't have any problem with it but can you see how discussing these things in science class could be viewed as “giving time to flat earthers”?
When it comes to creation and evolution, in the US, as many as ½ of the students could be creationists. I don't mind public schools teaching that evolution is the prevailing scientific theory. What I am bothered about is that nothing critical of evolution is allowed to be discussed at all! By the way, this is probably why this school district felt the need to create the sticker in the first place. They were probably tired of evolution being presented as an absolute fact and wanted kids to know they can learn about it without feeling forced to believe it. A teacher can't even say something like, “A lot of people don't accept the theory of evolution. Some reject it for religious reasons but they do cite problems with the theory like x, y, and z.” Even Darwin included a chapter in his book discussing difficulties with his theory. Yet neither Plait, nor Nye, nor the NCSE, nor any other militant evolution would suffer 1 minute of criticism of evolution. This is why I say there are indoctrinating – encouraging students to accept their theory uncritically.
To your next point, you may have mischaracterized what Plait said. It's hard to say because he has the same annoying habit many evolutionists have in that he confuses the words “creation” and “creationism.” “Creation” describes the miraculous act of God creating the universe. “Creationism” is the belief that creation happened. Of course “creationism” is true because there are people who believe God created the universe. Does he mean to say, “if creation were true”? I think that's his intended premise and that's the point I was addressing. If God created the universe, He also created the predictable laws that make science possible. It's make no sense to say that if God created the universe, we can't invent anything.
You seem to be saying that creationists (people who subscribe to creationism), tend to have attitudes that retard science. In other words, you are taking Plait's comment literally - “creationism” makes science impossible. That can't be true either because many people who are creationists (both in the present and the past) have made great contributions to science.
I don't get bent out of shape about requiring people of a group to agree to a statement of faith. I would expect a group of atheists, for example, to only have atheist members. They don't drag people in and compel them to agree to atheism. Instead, they only accept members who already agree. See the difference? That's what Answers in Genesis and groups like them do as well.
Thanks for your comments. God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment