Skip to main content

A Holy War

Image
By
It's a new year, but there is nothing new about the battles that we can expect from the creationists and their proxies. 2012 was a rough year, and, while a lot of truly terrible candidates lost, the creationists have far too many friends remaining in the Republican Party. Marco Rubio, a rising star within the Tea Party fringe, made some noises that weren't exactly evolution-friendly, seeming to think that the age of the earth is a matter of "dispute amongst theologians." A House Republican, on the Science Committee no less, was caught on video saying that the big bang, evolution, and (oddly) embryology are "lies straight from the pit of Hell." And Michele Bachmann, a known evolution-denier, narrowly survived re-election. There was good news out of Louisiana, remarkably, as a parish school rejected creationism, but the forces of unreality are unceasing in their efforts to dilute and hinder the teaching of real science in the classroom, with their inane critiques of evolution and their disingenuous pleas of "teach the controversy."
 
Their fight is nothing less than a holy war against modern science and what they perceive to be the intrusion of secular humanism in the classroom and the church. Their crusade is not about science, not really, it is about faith, and they are waging a guerilla campaign against what they believe to be the "religion" of secular humanism and its "holy book" The Origin of Species. While they may dress up their beliefs in the language and terminology of science, at least as far as they understand it, many creationists truly believe that acceptance of evolution is a "faith" just as much as Christianity or Judaism. I've been recently encountering this on some creationist message boards where some demand that evolution-defenders admit their "faith" in millions of years and macroevolution. Ken Ham, of course, thinks that it takes more faith to accept evolution than to believe in creationism, a falsehood if there ever was one! No matter the setbacks, no matter how many times they lose in court (nearly always), the creationists and their lackeys in the Intelligent Design movement aren't stopped by little things like court decisions or the complete lack of evidence for any of their positions. No matter what, they have no choice but to keep fighting because it is a matter of faith. They believe quite literally that souls are at stake.
 
They won't be giving up anytime soon. Neither can we. While no one can know where the next battle will pop up, we know it will. The creationist organizations are many and they are quite well-funded. We can only be ready for them. Read a book about evolution, follow a blog or two if you can--Jerry Coyne's blog can be quite interesting, and he keeps an eye on the creationists. When the time comes, when the next little anti-evolution brushfire erupts in a school board or state board of education, be ready to get involved. The education of American students depends upon constant vigilence, and the quality of their education is precisely what is at stake here.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Herla cyningJanuary 3, 2013 at 6:25 PM

    Hear, hear!

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM

    Creationists miss the fact that 99.99% accepted in the scientific community has a little more weight than 0% accepted (like the young Earth theory). They've been lied to their whole lives by their elders in the Christian community who misled them into thinking there was some sort of debate about evolution where there is none, so it makes sense that they keep repeating the same nonsense like "it takes more faith to believe in evolution." This is why it's so important to stop this bullshit wherever it pops up, so we can have a future of scientifically educated generations, not misled and uneducated creationists (who just so happen to run the country) like today.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJanuary 4, 2013 at 10:37 AM

    I'd also like to add that Marco Rubio's comments weren't alarming because he's a Christian and atheists want to fight his personal beliefs (as is the favorite strawman argument from his defenders), they were alarming because somebody serving on the House Science Committee, and a favorite for Republican Presidential Candidate in 2016, doesn't have a clue how science works. These are powerful people in charge of powerful legislation on concepts such as climate change; we CANNOT trust them to govern our response to such drastic threats.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Today I Am Ashamed of My Alma Mater

By
Over a week ago, my alma mater, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, released what it touted as a "bold" and "ambitious" workforce plan for the next several years. The backlash was both strong and immediate, forcing the University Administration, currently headed by President Karen Whitney, to release a " Frequently Asked Questions " for its plan. The outrage on social media, as well as a MoveOn.org petition with several thousand signatures, doubtless have already channeled the displeasure of the community, alumni, and students with the plan. The University is accepting public feedback, but this seems to be only a political window-dressing for a plan that Whitney herself was  quoted  as saying "...is 95-98% a done deal." For over a week I debated over what form a blog on the topic would take, and while I realize that what I have to say here is little different from what I and others have already stated elsewhere, I feel the need to address thi...
18 comments
Read more

How I Left Creationism

By
There is a discussion going on right now in the science community about whether or not we should debate creationists: it is a debate within a debate, if you will. There are good arguments on both sides, but I have to think that we should debate creationists, and we should do it as often as we can stand it. Why do I think this? Last week, I saw that Michael Shermer posted a link to a story of a woman who argued this very point. As a former creationist, it was going to debates between Shermer and Kent Hovind that began to convince her of the legitimacy of evolution and of science. I too was once a creationist. Without ever having read anything about it, without it ever having been mentioned in class (I never heard a word about evolution in high school), I was ready to pounce at the merest mention of the topic as false and godless, two of the favorite creationist talking-points. I look back at this self in amazement, at how ignorant and proud of that ignorance I was, how I failed to ...
23 comments
Read more

The Hovinds...Still Poking at Straw Men

By
Kent Hovind, the false "Dr. Dino", and his ilk are at it again. In a new article on his website, Hovind (or whoever authored the piece, perhaps his son) claims that while creationists have no problems using miracles to explain events (a habit that perpetually makes them unfit to do real science), evolutionists criticize them for it, even though, in Hovind's mind, they rely on miracles just as much to explain their "religion" of descent through natural selection. This is, at its core, demonstrably nonsense. He claims that a "miracle" is needed to make stars and planets form out of gas, a supposed violation of Boyle's Law because there was no "outside force" acting on the gas and dust. How about gravity, Dr. Dino? That would certainly explain it, no miracles needed here. This attack is a non-sequitur. The objection has everything to do with astronomy and cosmology and nothing to do with evolution, which is the development of new species o...
11 comments
Read more