For those who've not had the pleasure of learning that Ben Stein has completely lost his mind, I recommend having a look at the website for his new film. I wish it was fiction.
Succinctly, the film is an outcry that the hegemony of Darwinian evolutionary thought has lasted too long. Definitely worth mentioning is Stein's own blog, found on the film's website, which contains his ramblings about evolution (or the lack of evidence for it) and his dire concern for the underrepresented "theories" of Intelligent Design (or repackaged Creationism).
The essential problem with treating Creationism scientifically is that it is completely untestable.
Question: "What is a theory called that can't be tested?"
Answer: "Not a theory."
Creationism has no theories because its adherents believe that they already have all the answers they need. For them, the only concerns are persuasion and coercive legal action.
"Whenever there's a question we can't answer, It's in the Book!"
"My uncle ain't no monkey, wanna know how I know? It's in the Book!"
"How old's the Earth? We don't need no geolo-logicist. Why? Cause, it's in the Book!"
There is a disturbing resiliency to Creationism. Every time it's re-sold, it appears increasingly scientistic. It's individual tenets are renamed with well sounding terminology like "Catastrophic Plate Tectonics," "Rapid Radioactive Decay," and "Baraminology." This tactic gives the uninformed an impression that these people are studying something other than the Bible. Creationism is argumentative. It attempts to be persuasive. Creationism is not science. It is not even good philosophy.
The credit given to Creationism's proponents is outrageous. Completely without any demand for facts, people accept these ideas and even argue for them with others. These are the marks of a sham religion. It provides no facts, no evidence, yet demands complete belief.
On NOVA - Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial
The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time
by Jonathan Weiner
The Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates
by Michael Ruse
Posts
4 comments:
Not to argue with you because I enjoy your opinions and that you have them...but isn't Evolution still a theory rather than a theorem?
I'm not so sure that we evolutionists can argue our theory with the other theory. They both have value, both have science and imagination and creativity involved in the "evolutionary" development of them.
Each theory began as a literary Creation in the mind of a person (Darwin, Genesis), then grew into branches of science.
Science is always proving itself outdated, always evolving, and Creationism is always creating, arguing... These two seemingly disparate ways of looking at the world seem quite similar and are both backed by a type of religious zeal!
Thanks for the comments...
The central distinction between the literary origins of both theories is that Darwin was observing the world and using human reason to understand it. He was using evidence to direct his conclusions. The fairy tale in Genesis may well represent a similar attempt for its time.
Today, however, Genesis lacks scientific credibility mainly because it does not seek to be a scientific theory. Instead it is a collection of fuzzy "facts." If it were bona fide science, it would have testable hypotheses.
Brilliant. I never knew you were so smart Sean, you were always so low key. I am now charged with answering the same question (for Ann). Now that I know what an 'A' looks like, I'll be lucky to get a 'C'. Thanks a lot!
Thanks for read Harry. It's good to hear from you! I'm glad that someone thinks I have an A answer for something. :)
Post a Comment