Forum

Huff Post has a piece by Peter Hess on Creationism in Tennessee of The National Center for Science Education. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-m-j-hess-phd/monkey-business-in-tennessee_b_1431273.html?show_comment_id=148999970#comment_148999970.

He is reasonably moderate, but he is just saying the same old bad things about evangelists that unwashed quasi-scientists always have.

Here is my posting in reply:

Aren't you preaching to choir? And offering the same old solution?

Imagine the novelty of the headline blaring: "Supporter of evolution condemns attempts to teach creation science and/or intelligent design?" NOT!

How about something new: Working towards an understanding.

Evangelicals don't trust evolution because of the profoundly unscientific aspects of its supporter's claims that it proves man to be an animal and religion to be false. And until the falseness of those aspects are addressed - and seen to be addressed - the profound distrust that they engender will continue. And science would benefit immensely by ridding itself of folks try to make it into a quasi-religious origins narrative.

Or the drumbeat of antagonizing criticism can continue - constant comments, jokes, jeers, about how dumb these folks are. Even a six year old knows that this doesn't win hearts and minds.

The price for continuing full speed down this failed approach to creationism is very high - it is the rising distrust that underlies the failure to get our country to address the issues of global warming.

So pick your poison. You can continue to lambast the creationists for being ignorant for not believing you when you are making your unending criticisms of their stance - and making the problem much harder to solve - or you can swallow your pride and listen to what they are actually saying - and stop making quasi-scientific statements about religion and man as an animal - and earn the criticisms of Steven Pinker.

More Answers:

Man biologically is animal - no question - but intellectually and socially he is not. Read your E.O. Wilson or just think about the huge number of empirical metrics that more than amply show the difference.

Thinking about this point is important. Without any scientific backing, people make these - lets face it, basically silly - theologically-charged statements as if they were scientific facts under the guise of claims they are facts of evolution.

So, yes "creationists want is to hijack science into saying that their religious beliefs are true...that there is scientific proof for Christian belief". But they are doing it because before them all kinds of "public intellectuals" of the anti-religious ilk - and we are talking about real Victorians as well as modern neo-Victorians - hijacked science into saying that their quasi-religious scientific beliefs are true.

In other words, the anti-religious crowd did it first and the creationists are just honoring their example. All of this is obvious if you just read the literature.