• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 413 0

’s explanatory filter, because it assumes probabilities that cannot be determined in practice, this is nothing more than a thought experiment, not something that can be used practically in science. Furthermore, rejecting all regulatory hypotheses and chance events (in steps one and two) assumes that we know them all, which, of course, we do not. But even if we did, and rejected them all, the design inference does not follow. Design, as it is commonly defined even by IDers, means purposeful and intelligent creation, not simply the elimination of regularity and chance. In other words, design is not simply a default conclusion when all else fails to explain. Design requires positive evidence, not simply the rejection of negative evidence. Finally, even if positive evidence for design were presented, by the logic of the explanatory filter, it is reasonable to apply the filter to the design claim. Assuming regularity and chance are rejected for the design claim, the logical conclusion would be that the design was designed, and that design was designed, ad infinitum, including and especially the Intelligent Designer himself!

9. Science Education and Debating Evolution. Creation theory, especially ID theory, provides an alternative to evolution theory, and science education involves hearing both sides of a debate. Science textbooks should carry disclaimers, such as this one now posted inside every biology textbook used in Georgia public schools: “This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.”

As innocuous as this argument sounds, it is easily seen through, even by evangelical Christians such as former U.S. president and Georgia resident Jimmy Carter: “As a Christian, a trained engineer and scientist, and a professor at Emory University, I am embarrassed by Superintendent Kathy Cox’s attempt to censor and distort the education of Georgia’s students. The existing and long-standing use of the word ‘evolution’ in our state’s textbooks has not adversely affected Georgians’ belief in the omnipotence of God as creator of the universe. There can be no incompatibility between Christian faith and proven facts concerning geology, biology, and astronomy. There is no need to teach that stars can fall out of the sky and land on a flat Earth in order to defend our religious faith.”

There is another, deeper flaw in this argument from “debate,” and that is, which creation theory is to be debated with evolution theory? The world’s foremost expert on creationism, Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, explains, “I encourage people to reject the creation/evolution dichotomy and recognize the creation/evolution continuum. It is clear that creationism comes in many forms. If a student tells a teacher, Tm a creationist,’ the teacher needs to ask, What kind?’” To get our minds around this concept, Scott has developed a powerful visual heuristic in the creation/evolution continuum (for a fuller explication go to http://www.natcenscied.org/) that reveals at least ten different positions on this continuum, including:

Flat Earthers. The shape of the earth is flat because a literal reading of the Bible demands it. The earth is shaped like a coin, not a ball. Scientific views are of secondary importance.

Geocentrists. They accept that the earth is spherical, but deny that the sun is the center of the solar system. Like flat earthers, they reject virtually all of modern physics and chemistry as well as biology.

Young-Earth Creationism (YEC). Few classical YECs interpret the flat-earth and geocentric passages of the Bible literally, but they reject modern physics, chemistry, and geology concerning the age of the earth, and they deny biological descent with modification. In their view, the earth is from six to ten thousand years old.

Old Earth Creationism (OEC). From the mid-1700s on, the theology of Special Creationism has been harmonized