By: DAVID RICE To: DAVID BLOOMBERG I wished to expland on the following: DB> Tell ya what,

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

By: DAVID RICE To: DAVID BLOOMBERG I wished to expland on the following: DB> Tell ya what, Andy, why don't you PUT FORTH some of this DB> supposed evidence for the theory of creationism. Oh, DB> before you do that, how about putting forth the theory of DB> creationism, so we can adequately judge what might or DB> might not be evidence in support of that theory. When Arkansas' Act 590 was passed into law, Ms. Marianne Wilson (Pulaski County Special School District science curriculum director) was charged with preparing "Creation- science" material to be taught in the district's science classrooms. She built a team of science teachers and university professors which examined the Creationist material. She had Act 590 Section 4(a) as her curriculum guide (typos are mine): (a) "Creation-science" means the scientific edidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about developement of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only withn fixed limits of originally-created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Seperate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurance of a world- wide flood; and (6) A relatively recient inception of the earth and living kinds. Ms. Wilson and her team sought the help from Creationists in person, Creationist books and pamphlets, and even attended Creationist meetings. Her team worked diligently to try and comply with the court's directive to create a "Creation- science" curriculum that followed the law (as in Section 4(a) above). Needless to say, the team failed utterly. The team could find no evidence of "sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing (a)" in the Creationist literature (quantum vacuum fluctuations and N=8 Superstring theory was not yet considered in 1981). They could find no evidence that life was "created from nothing," in Creationist literature or otherwise. The team was therefore unable to define a science course that contained (a) in Section 4. They moved on to "the insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about developement of all living kinds from a single organism (b)" and discovered that once again the Creationist literature provided no evidence for the claim that there is a limit to genetic change ("mutation") in a population; nor could they find in Creationist literature a scientific definition of "kind." This failure included (c) as (b) and (c) are redundant. There was no evidence to teach, therefore the team was at a loss here as well. For (4) "seperate ancestry for man and apes" the team found no evidence in Creationist literature that demonstrated that there was a "seperate ancestry for [humans] and apes." Since the converse affirmative ("humans and the other primates share a common ancestor") is evolutionary, (4) was irrelevant until Creationists made it relevent. That is, the Creationist who drafted Act 590 (Paul Ellwanger (a respiratory therapist)) did not understand that his inclusion of (4) was an assertion of a positive, and thus would have to be supported by evidence. If I wished to have taught as fact in school that Luna is made of silicates and various metals, that is a positive assertion and I must support it with evidence--- act 590 asserts the equivilent of stating that Luna is NOT made of silicates and therefore, by Act 590 and Scientific Methodology rules, evidence must be provided demonstrating that Luna is NOT made of silicates. Needless to say, there is no evidence that humans and the other primates do not share a common ancestor. There was nothing they could teach for (4). When they tried to find material to teach for section (5) "explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurance of a world-wide flood," they failed to find in Creationist literature any evidence that supported the section. There was nothing they could teach. By the time they got to (6) "a relatively recient inception of the earth and living kinds" I suspect they realized how unlikely they would find evidence for this part. They did not know what "relatively recient" meant, thus they could not gather material to teach it. They did not know what a "living kind" was, thus they could not teach that either. The Creationist material was equally unhelpful on the task. The team finally gave up the task as hopeless, and eventually joined the plantiffs (along with 16 clergy) in the December 1981 trial. The upshot of all this was, THERE IS NOTHING TO TEACH ABOUT "CREATION-SCIENCE." There is no theory; there is no evidence for the assertions made by Creationists; many of their claims have already been falsified. Creationists had their day in court, and they lost utterly. ... 4th Rule of Creationism: Never be specific when you can be vague.

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank