Who would hire these graduates

I’m surprised by the “Chicken Little” reaction from opponents of creation science. Do you really think this degree program is going to create a deluge of secondary teachers who denounce evolution in public school classrooms across the nation ?

The graduates of this program will be hired by Christian schools. Putting aside the creation science debate, this online degree program will likely improve the overall level of education in thousands of Christian schools across the country.

Tom, at 8:20 am EST on December 17, 2007

Not just Christian Schools

Tom —

It is untrue that only Christian schools will hire these potential graduates of “science". There is already a majority — unbelievably — of Americans who don’t believe in evolution.

There are many public school teachers who, either lacking science degrees and teaching science because the district cannot attract qualified applicants — often in rural or poor urban districts — or science teachers who have drunk the Kool Aid and “teach the controversy” despite the fact that Creationism cannot be tested according to the scientific method.

Ray Paredes is a smooth politician, as one with any influence in Texas has to be to survive. What’s clear is that he is slicing and dicing and very evasive in his comments. He mentions giving them accreditation but maybe in another discipline, not science. What is not clear is whether the Commissioners as a whole will either fold to the Christian Taliban in Texas or stand up for legitimacy and sanity.

Philip, at 9:30 am EST on December 17, 2007

Educational Freedom

As an American citizen who has worked overseas among people with very different world views, I find the concern over ICR’s educational program to be unnecessary. People around the world do use education to teach everything from atheism to creationism. Many public schools outside of the USA also teach thier local religion in the classroom. What it ultimately comes down to is the right of free citizens to teach and to study at institutions whose world view or philosophy of education they accept. It is faulty to compare belief in a flat earth with belief in God or creation. Technology readily verifies the earth’s current situation. What happened in ancient history, on the other hand, is based on various assumptions and on what sources of information one views as reliable.

Alan White, at 9:50 am EST on December 17, 2007

This is just the beginning (no pun intended)

I’m sure President Huckabee will be giving the main address at the opening convocation....

Peter, at 11:30 am EST on December 17, 2007

“Creation science college” in Texas

So many times the debates over “creation vs evolution” appear in the light most of the writers here cast them in: either/or. Eithr you are a “real” scientist, and have NOT ONE QUESTION about evolutionary mechanisms (because, even in grad school, one can be “run out on a rail” for asking any) or you are characterized as an idiot. Why do non-beleivers insist that any belief, even based on tons of personal experience of answer prayers, etc., makes one “stupid?”

To most thoghtful Christians, a belief without understanding is useless. And, too often, what’s really going on in evolutionary biology classes is a form of rote memorization of what phylogenetic tree leads to what. If a student says “Well, where did the 28 enzymes needed for glycolysis come from?” they’re derided as if an ignoramous instead of encouraged to go and try to find out!

Let’s try a different track-back in the 70’s we used to say “Question authority.” Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on International science tests is we simply will not encourage them to question-especiallly the details of evolutionary mechanisms. Don’t thorw out the theory, just start getting kids used to saying “I wonder how that happened?” again instead of saying “life HAD to evolve from a chemical soup, because there’s no other way it could have gotten here.’ God works better for me than panspermia-and no lab experiment since the famous 1957 work of Stanley Miller has yet succeeded in making life from non-life. Why not encourage kids to question why that is so, instead of demanding they accept it happened “because we said so?”

Dr. Tony Husemann, Academic Administrator at CCA, at 11:45 am EST on December 17, 2007

Belief vs Fact

The quotes in this story highlight several of the issues that some proponents of creationism like the Institute deliberately seek to obscure when they argue for the inclusion of intelligent design and other creationist viewpoints in science classrooms.

First, they correctly identify that creationism is a belief system. The tenets of this belief system are built on faith, not on the rigorous scrutiny and development of the system through methods of scientific inquiry.

Second, they incorrectly insinuate that science is a belief system. Science deals with fact rooted in the natural, observable universe, not with beliefs. To say that one “believes” in science reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how science functions and its place in society. Science is a tool that humans use to explore and describe the principles that govern the operation of the natural, observable world. One can accept or reject facts as they are determined by science, but expressing a belief or disbelief in science itself is tantamount to expressing belief or disbelief in a hammer, lawnmower, computer program or any other tool. It doesn’t make any sense.

Finally, the quotes clearly illustrate that some actors in this movement hold to the principle that popular opinion should determine the content of material covered in academic disciplines. The more one thinks about this contention, the more ludicrous it seems. The content of academic disciplines is determined by the practitioners of the discipline in the same way that the rules of a sport are determined by the governing body of that sport. Neither the courts nor the court of popular opinion are ever going to define the scope of scientific knowledge. That is for scientists alone to decide.

Joe, at 1:00 pm EST on December 17, 2007

The proposal to offer Master’s degrees in “creation science” is indicative of the fact that we have become a nation of idiots. As someone pointed out the “teach the controversy” approach is a ploy developed by the Discovery Institute to push their nonsensical religious agenda. It is particularly sad that they are targeting the children of our country. So rather than actually teach science we have individuals like Tony Housemann suggesting that classes in evolutionary biology taught by actual scientists are simply rote memorization of phylogenies. This is absolute rubbish. In fact my students learn to question anything that is not based upon emipirical evidence as well as the important concept of falsifiability (see Karl Popper). I teach them (among other things) that phylogenies are hypotheses of evolutionary relationships that are based upon empirical data and also that all hypotheses are subject to additional data collection and interpretation. In all cases they are encouraged to disagree and discuss anything I teach them. After all science is based upon challenging new hypotheses that are advanced in light of how well they are supported by experimental evidence. To date there is no empirical evidence that God even exists let alone actually created anything. If anyone has any, I and the rest of the world are waiting. The little voice in your head or the feeling you get when you see the sunset or read the scripture are subjective evidence and do not count in matters of science. For thousands of years we have begun to understand the universe in terms of natural phenomena. As we have learned more we have banished most religious nonsense to the scrapheap of superstition where it belongs. I agree with Garry Yeager and Tony Housemann in that when a genuine controversy exists we should teach it but to accord creationism, intelligent design, or so called “creation science” as valid alternatives to evolution is like saying I should teach reproduction along with the alternative- the spontaneous generation of life. I wonder if I would be shouted down if I enrolled at the Institute for creation science and started to question their belief in the inerrant truth of the Bible. Get with it folks it’s the 21st century not the 14th.

Jim Bonacum, Assistant professor of Genetics at University of Illinois at Springfield, at 1:30 pm EST on December 17, 2007

Asking questions about evolutionary mechanisms, enzyme evolution and all the rest is just what one does in science education, especially biology graduate school. Contrary to Dr. Husemann, *not* asking questions would get you nowhere in science. But giving up and saying “Never mind. The Designer did it” is scientifically useless. Go forth and find evidence of a Designer doing things, then come back and tell us about it.

Pete Dunkelberg, at 1:30 pm EST on December 17, 2007

Thin edge of the wedge

“What it ultimately comes down to is the right of free citizens to teach and to study at institutions whose world view or philosophy of education they accept.”

Sounds great but is simply a dodge, as are the other “Oh, let’s just be fair to the ‘other side’” or “let’s question the scientific dogma” comments.

Biblical fundamentalists should be and are indeed free to study and teach whatever they want. They can and do set up their own schools and publish their own “scientific” textbooks. And so it goes.

The difference here is that these so-called scientists (and their ideological think tank colleagues) now want the state to certify their dogma as science, even though it is in no way testable or vaguely scientific.

Having failed (so far) in Kansas and Pennsylvania, the inerrantists are heading to Texas, where they believe they will have a better chance of getting the thin edge of the wedge inserted into the discussion over legitmate science education.

Teach creationism where it belongs, in a comparative religion or philosophy class. Just don’t pretend it’s science. It’s not “the other side” to evolution. It’s a non-scientific, religious worldview that has no place in public science classrooms.

Dan Kline, at 1:55 pm EST on December 17, 2007

Tony Husemann’s argument is disingenuous. This should have nothing to do with one’s attitude, positive or negative, towards religious beliefs. That’s a matter for comparative religion class. We are concerned about what gets taught in science class. It actually doesn’t have much to do with whether you think life originated by Divine Providence, panspermia, or chemical reactions in a primordial sea either. Evolution, the theory, also describes what happens after life originates — how species change and new ones arise. Creationism has a different view. It’s one thing to hold it as a belief, but not acceptable to pass it off as content worthy of a science class.

If somebody told you that their religious beliefs dictated that steel is three times stronger than aluminum because of Divine Providence rather than because of its atomic and crystalline structure, and that they wanted to teach their metallurgy class that way, would you allow it to count for a degree in structural engineering and send the students off to build bridges?

If I were faced with that person, I’d say you can believe what you want but you better _teach_ the students the crystalline structure. And if your beliefs won’t let you teach the crystalline structure, you need to think about whether you are qualified to teach this material. Even though you accept that steel is in fact three times stronger than aluminum. It’s not enough to teach the facts right, you have to teach the generally accepted theory right as well.

Assistant Research Cynic, Enormous State University, at 3:00 pm EST on December 17, 2007

How “intelligently” was I designed?

I am a reasonably religious person. I am not sure of an “after-life,” but I like to keep my options open. Suppose there is. As I have grown closer to that time when I might know for sure, I realize I have a fake hip, a few stents in my heart, and my prostate has been zapped. Was the first me more intelligently designed, or is this revised one better? Which one will enter heaven? (I do believe the other location will be overcrowded with those darned atheists, so housing will be available to me.) I just read that we are getting closer to replacing genes that might be the cause of breast cancer, so what about all the women who undergo this little improvement? Wait a sec, am I discussing how our species might be evolving? Impossible, remember we were “intelligently” designed. Hmm, I do have a couple of friends who resemble cro-mangens.

Fred Flener, Retired, at 5:10 pm EST on December 17, 2007

Go Creationists—Beat State!

I bet they’ll have a terrific football team, too. They’ll ride out onto the field on unicorns and throw passes that travel for 40 days and 40 nights. If a humanist team gets to the “red zone,” it will go all Red Sea on them. Rah, rah!

CAN, at 5:50 pm EST on December 17, 2007

Tony, graduate programs don’t encourage _debate_ on evolutionary theory, because it is too well established to debate. They ought to explain it, but they don’t have an obligation to devote lots of class time to things that are wrong or have no explanatory power (ID being one such). The same goes for my example about the metallurgy of steel and aluminum. Now, if you want to say that your professors did not engage you in a polite explanation of why evolution is well supported by the observations, maybe you have a valid complaint. But that does not mean that you get to teach your _beliefs_ about evolution and call it science.

I’m an astrophysicist, not an evolutionary biologist. I frequently encounter people who have misconceptions about astronomy, or even think there’s some kind of grand conspiracy to cover up that the Big Bang didn’t happen. I figure I have an obligation to try to educate them. But frankly, they are wrong and their theories usually can’t withstand even modest scrutiny. While I’m happy to answer questions, I’m not going to present their views in class as an acceptable alternative. Just because somebody believes some idea does not make it a valid deduction about the natural world.

Assistant Research Cynic, Enormous State University, at 5:50 am EST on December 18, 2007

Funny thing about questioning. . .

Dr. Husemann writes: “Maybe one reason Americans KEEP doing so bad on International science tests is we simply will not encourage them to question. . . .”

My university did not require a statement of faith in order for me to gain admission. I notice that your K-12 school requires a statement of faith of both your prospective students and your prospective teachers. Your employment application also specifically asks prospective teachers to state their position on evolution vs. creationism before you will hire them. Interestingly enough, so does the Institute for Creation Research.

Your words are pretty. Maybe your actions should mirror them.

Icarus, at 8:40 am EST on December 18, 2007

expelled the movie

Let’s make this short and sweet. It would be taken for granted by any serious historian that any ideology or worldview would partake of the culture in which it grew up and would also be largely influenced by the personality of the writer of the theory.

No less a genius than the evil Karl Marx noted that even after capitalism succumbed to Communism, society would still be imbued with the class artifacts and cultural values of the system that preceded it. Much smarter analysts than I have noted that the whole system of Marxism, especially its sharp attacks on capitalists as a class, was motivated by Karl Marx’s envy of the much wealthier industrialist/capitalist members of the Marx family.

In other words, major theories do not arise out of thin air. They come from the era in which they arose and are influenced greatly by the personality and background of the writer. (In law, this theory is known as “legal realism”. Judges make up their minds on the basis of their prejudices and then rationalize their decisions by pretending to be bound by prior case law. One might call what happens with ideologies “political realism.” Persons make up their ideologies based on their times and their life situations.)

Darwinism, the notion that the history of organisms was the story of the survival of the fittest and most hardy, and that organisms evolve because they are stronger and more dominant than others, is a perfect example of the age from which it came: the age of Imperialism. When Darwin wrote, it was received wisdom that the white, northern European man was destined to rule the world. This could have been rationalized as greed–i.e., Europeans simply taking the resources of nations and tribes less well organized than they were. It could have been worked out as a form of amusement of the upper classes and a place for them to realize their martial fantasies. (Was it Shaw who called Imperialism “…outdoor relief for the upper classes?”)

But it fell to a true Imperialist, from a wealthy British family on both sides, married to a wealthy British woman, writing at the height of Imperialism in the UK, when a huge hunk of Africa and Asia was “owned” (literally, owned, by Great Britain) to create a scientific theory that rationalized Imperialism. By explaining that Imperialism worked from the level of the most modest organic life up to man, and that in every organic situation, the strong dominated the weak and eventually wiped them out,

Darwin offered the most compelling argument yet for Imperialism. It was neither good nor bad, neither Liberal nor Conservative, but simply a fact of nature. In dominating Africa and Asia, Britain was simply acting in accordance with the dictates of life itself. He was the ultimate pitchman for Imperialism.

Now, we know that Imperialism had a short life span. Imperialism was a system that took no account of the realities of the human condition. Human beings do not like to have their countries owned by people far away in ermine robes. They like to be in charge of themselves.

Imperialism had a short but hideous history–of repression and murder.

But its day is done.

Darwinism is still very much alive, utterly dominating biology. Despite the fact that no one has ever been able to prove the creation of a single distinct species by Darwinist means, Darwinism dominates the academy and the media. Darwinism also has not one meaningful word to say on the origins of organic life, a striking lacuna in a theory supposedly explaining life.

Alas, Darwinism has had a far bloodier life span than Imperialism. Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.

Now, a few scientists are questioning Darwinism on many fronts. I wonder how long Darwinism’s life span will be. Marxism, another theory which, in true Victorian style, sought to explain everything, is dead everywhere but on university campuses and in the minds of psychotic dictators. Maybe Darwinism will be different. Maybe it will last. But it’s difficult to believe it will. Theories that presume to explain everything without much evidence rarely do. Theories that outlive their era of conception and cannot be verified rarely last unless they are faith based. And Darwinism has been such a painful, bloody chapter in the history of ideologies, maybe we would be better off without it as a dominant force.

Maybe we would have a new theory: We are just pitiful humans. Life is unimaginably complex. We are still trying to figure it out. We need every bit of input we can get. Let’s be humble about what we know and what we don’t know, and maybe in time, some answers will come.

By Ben Stein

stephen, at 6:20 pm EST on December 18, 2007

Teach the Controversy

If the religious fundamentalists are so keen on teaching the controversy in our public schools, surely they won’t mind if I demand the opportunity to teach the controversy at their churches. Fair is fair!

The State of Texas should not be involved in religion, religious doctrine or accrediting religious school. The Institute for Creation Research should NOT be accredited for science education. They’re wasting my tax money with their accreditation applications, hearings and all the staff time that state employees must put into processing that absurdity.

A Texan, at 8:50 am EST on December 20, 2007