On 3/13/01, I posted a "Legislative Alert" about the introduction of HB 4382 in a discussion forum that I participate in, and a theistic evolutionist sent me a private email in which he sincerely asked me, "What is so wrong about including a statement that the theory of evolution is not proven? Yes there is good evidence in favour of it, but why do you guys make such a big issue of not allowing part of the population to include such a minor statement which takes their world view into account? Is the U.S. a democratic country?"
I replied to him as follows:
|
Thank you for your note. I appreciate your position as a theistic evolutionist. (Check out my website.)
I sincerely have absolutely no problems with teaching religious beliefs about creation in the public schools in, say, a history, or social studies, or religions survey class. I have no problems with religiously-affiliated private schools teaching (erroneously) in their science classes that young earth creationism is scientific, as many do.
The problem here is that some people who are motivated by their religious beliefs are working to have their religious beliefs taught in science classes in public schools under the rubric of "science" when, in fact, the beliefs are religious and not scientific.
Additionally, I do have very serious concerns about people who believe that the universe, the earth, and human beings have not been in existence for more than about 6,000 years -- all ideas that have been manifestly falsified by empirical observation -- trying to have such false beliefs taught in science classes. These are religious beliefs. If people wish to adhere to such beliefs regardless of their empirical falsification they have every right to do so. They do not, however, have the right to misrepresent their beliefs as being the same as or on a par with scientific examination of the real world itself.
Moreover, as someone who understands the distinction between religious beliefs and scientific examination, and who understands the falsified nature of young earth creationism with respect to objective features of the real world that we have learned about, I too have every right to act politically, as young earth creationists are doing, to oppose their efforts to legislatively "water down" science education in science areas that they happen to dislike. And I am doing so.
Finally, there are three senses of "the theory of evolution," and two of them are quite proven. The first is the historical sense, in the general fact of the change in organic forms through time as seen (spottily) through the fossil record. This is considered factual (by everyone, even all other creationists, except YECs). The second is the biological change sense, which YECs typically refer to as "micro-evolution" (in order to portray a distinction with what they call "macro-evolution"). This is considered factual, even by YECs. The third sense is that there is nothing other than the second sense needed to explain the first sense. Just as one example, a gap in the fossil record is genuinely a gap in the fossil record, and thus a gap in information, and not evidence of a "supernatural intervention." (Of course, YECs also use evolution in a fourth sense to very generally refer to anything and everything non-YEC, whether in astronomy, geology, physics, or any other pieces of science that they do not like. But I won't get into that here.) Will this creationism bill acknowledge such factual items, such that the universe is objectively observed to have been around for at least several billion years, and that the antiquity of the earth (and fossils) is objectively observed by such evidences as the Manicouagan Crater which obviously cannot be a merely 6,000 year old geological feature, and that such transitional forms as Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster) have been around for almost 2 million years? I don't think so. The attempt of the bill, like other creationism legislation, is simply to obfuscate these matters.
When creationists choose to enter their ideas into a political arena and try to masquerade them as something other than what they are, then they certainly deserve the critical scrutiny that they will get.
Sincerely, and regards,
Todd S. Greene
| |
Copyright © 2001 Todd S. Greene.
This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use.
A return link to Greene's Creationism Truth Filter website would be appreciated.
• • •
|