Creationist Wisdom #333: Retired Preacher

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in The Advocate of Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It’s titled Evolution is its own religion. We’ll give you a few excerpts, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. As we usually do we’ll omit the writer’s name and city, but at the end of his letter we’re told that the writer is a retired pastor. Okay, let’s get started:

Oh my, there she goes again. In her letter included in your newspaper dated May 18 entitled “HB116 promotes creationism,” Barbara Forrest continues to promote one version of origins as the only acceptable one for public educational institutions.

He’s referring to this, which we’ve mentioned before: HB116 promotes creationism, by Barbara Forrest. It’s about a bill pending in the Louisiana legislature, about which we wrote: Another Weird Creationism Bill. Okay, back to today’s letter:

I make three points in response. First, it appears to me that the biblical information does not necessarily resolve the old- versus new-earth issue, even for Bible-believing people.

That’s fine, but we already know that there are creationists in both camps, so how they read scripture to determine the age of the Earth isn’t that important an issue. Let’s read on:

Second, empirical science never has — nor can it — resolve the issue of origins. Empirical science observes and studies what is and what has been found from the past. The interpretation of this data, so as to form a conclusion(s), requires the use of certain philosophical presuppositions, thus philosophical science.

Uh huh. And if those “philosophical presuppositions” include the belief that scripture is the final word about science, then yes — whatever science says about origins can’t possibly be true. We continue:

Third, and most important, it appears to me that Forrest is actually doing exactly what she says she is trying to prevent — that is advocating that government schools, funded by the taxpayers of all presuppositional viewpoints, should teach as science a view of origins and developmental processes that require commitment to one religious view.

Religious view? What’s he talking about? The rev attempts to clarify for us:

Yes, I said religious view. Humanistic evolutional theory has the characteristics of a religion. Carl Sagan in his best-selling “Cosmos” begins with these words: “The cosmos is all there is or ever will be.”

So what? The rev clarifies further:

This represents a statement of faith, having nothing whatsoever to do with empirical science. He also said, “our loyalties are to be to the species and the planet.” This sounds like worship. Sagan appears to be a very committed man of faith, proclaiming the gospel of the cosmos.

Ah yes, “the gospel of the cosmos.” Here’s more:

It seems clear to me that such thinking adheres to the fundamental elements of religion. It consists of faith (the cosmos as eternal reality), worship as the reasonable obligation of faith (loyalties owed to the cosmos), and revelation of the intricacies of that faith (the prophetic material of Sagan’s Cosmos).

Faith, worship, and revelation. Oh yeah — that’s Carl Sagan! Moving along:

For decades now Forrest and so many like her in the scientific/academic arena have with “evangelistic” zeal used their bully pulpits to dominate the discussion regarding appropriate curriculum in government schools.

There oughta be a law! Oh wait — there is. The government can’t establish a religion. Hey — wouldja believe it — even the Louisiana Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, says: “No law shall be enacted respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Anyway, here’s how the retired preacher concludes his letter:

Our children deserve better. Honest critical thinking requires it.

Yeah, honest critical thinking — like the kind you get with that good old fashioned, down-home, foot-stompin’, psalm-singin’, floor-rollin’, rafter-shakin’, old-time creationism. Nice letter, Rev!

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Writing Tips from Casey Luskin

Those of us who write about The Controversy between evolution and creationism are always dealing with the issue of how to write about the subject at hand so that it will be: (1) accurate, and (2) accessible to the general reader.

We do our humble best, but we are always impressed by the way authors like Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins strike a balance between readability and technical comprehensiveness so that their work can be be appreciated by a large audience.

But is there anyone in the universe who cares about how Casey Luskin — our favorite creationist — plies his craft on behalf of the Discovery Institute? Both he and they are described in the Cast of Characters section of our Intro page. We already know he’s a dedicated Discoveroid, so what else is there to know about him?

Well, there’s always the psychological angle. Some people may be curious about what goes on inside the head of such a person. Those skilled in such things may be able to make something out of what Casey just posted at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog: Striking the “High Accuracy” and “High Readability” Balance with the New Discovering Intelligent Design Curriculum.

It’s about the Discoveroids’ new book, authored by Casey (who is now the Discoveroids’ “research coordinator”) and two lesser-known intellects, Gary and Hallie Kemper (described as “home school educators”). We wrote about it four days ago when it was first announced. See Hey Louisiana — Here It Is! and then one more time: Discovery Institute Redefines Evolution.

Since their first announcement, the Discoveroids have posted an incredible six more times about the book, one of which was an “interview” with Casey — which we didn’t bother to read. Upon reflection, despite his new post’s promising title, it’s unlikely that Casey provides any revealing insights regarding his motivation or his skills. Anyway, we’ll take a look. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us and Casey’s links omitted:

Over the past couple of months, readers may have noticed I haven’t posted quite as many articles here as usual. This is partly because I’ve been working with my co-authors, Gary and Hallie Kemper, to put the finishing touches on a new introductory ID curriculum, Discovering Intelligent Design.

Actually, we didn’t notice the scarcity of Casey’s posting. We must have filled that intellectual void by watching shows about Nostradamus and ghost hunters on the History Channel. Casey continues:

Having written in this space since the end of 2005, I’ve learned a few lessons about science writing. One of the main things I’ve found is that that it can be a real challenge to communicate complex scientific concepts to a general audience.

What’s so difficult about pushing creationism? Casey explains:

First and foremost, a good science writer needs to make sure what he says is accurate.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Here’s more:

Then comes the next challenge: communicating those scientific ideas to a diverse readership — not just scientists and university students but bank tellers, hotel clerks, soccer moms, priests, rabbis, gardeners and even my dear old grandma. (OK, maybe not my own grandma in particular — she has no idea how to use the Internet.) And above all, teachers and high schoolers (and not just the nerds and geeks, but also goths, punks, vamps, skaters,…and maybe even the stoners and the jocks).

We can’t imagine Casey communicating to the jocks. He seems like the kid they used to take a whiz on in the high school locker room. Moving along, Casey expounds on his struggle between accuracy and reaching a general readership:

At this point, there are a couple options. The “quick and easy path,” as Yoda would say, is to sacrifice scientific accuracy for the sake of communicating to everyone.

That’s precisely what creationists do. Does Casey have any other option? He thinks he does:

Another path that can also be easier (but isn’t always the best choice) is to keep your science writing on a very high level, maintaining strict accuracy, but very likely failing to reach a broad spectrum of less-technical readers.

It seem to us that Casey has chosen the quick and easy path. But he sees things differently:

Given a choice between sacrificing accuracy and sacrificing accessibility, I’ve essentially always opted for the latter. That’s because I can’t stomach the idea of being inaccurate for any reason, even in the noble pursuit of informing my readership.

M’god — is he serious? Here’s another excerpt:

But what if this choice is really a false dilemma? Perhaps there’s a third way, one that communicates scientific information to a broad spectrum of readers yet remains scrupulously accurate. Indeed, I think there is such a third option. It typically requires a lot more time and effort to craft your material. It also usually requires that the science writer himself have a deeper understanding of the subject at hand, and use creativity so as to better explain the relevant ideas. This third way, in my opinion, is the best.

That’s what a good introductory textbook should do — but if it’s written to promote Oogity Boogity, there may have to be — shall we say — some slight sacrifice in the accuracy component. Then Casey says this:

It is precisely the approach we took in developing Discovering Intelligent Design. My co-authors and I worked very hard to make sure that we covered the core topics in the debate over intelligent design, yet communicated the material at an easy-to-read level …

Yeah, okay. We’ll spare you the sales pitch with which the article ends. So there you are, dear reader. Casey claims his new book is not only easy to read, it’s also accurate. It’s the best of both worlds!

We started Casey’s article hoping for some insights. Did we learn anything about Casey’s inner motivations, or his unique writing skills? No, not really. But we can take comfort in being assured that we made no mistake three years ago when we announced that Casey Luskin Is Named a Curmudgeon Fellow.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Evolution: the Biosphere and the Shopping Mall

Some of our readers get upset whenever we discuss free markets and free enterprise; but that’s okay, we’re tolerant. Hey — someone has to say these things, and a slow news day like today is the ideal time. For examples of our prior posts on this topic, see Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Barack Obama, and also Someone Else Understands Darwin & Economics.

So that you’ll know what you’re getting into before you read too far, here’s a quote from Ronald Bailey that we included in one of those earlier posts:

Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.

Now that you know where we’re going, we’ll discuss the same topic, this time in the context of something with which you’re all familiar. Consider the modern shopping mall — or shopping center as it’s also known. It’s a wonderland of merchandise, to which customers voluntary go and where they voluntarily spend their money, purchasing goods that they decide they want, at prices they willingly choose to pay. And it’s all done without coercion.

Okay, that’s very nice, but such a finely-tuned, beautifully functioning thing must have had an intelligent designer, right?

Actually, no. As with any successful organism — no one designed it. Oh sure, a developer built the place — so in that sense our analogy isn’t perfect, but analogies are never perfect. However, developers sometimes build bad malls, or they build them in poorly-chosen locations. Those are swiftly bulldozed away, which is analogous to organisms with unsuccessful mutations or that can’t cope with their environment.

Malls have been built at least as far back as Trajan’s Market in 100 AD. But they’ve evolved considerably since then. Trajan wouldn’t recognize the enclosed, air-conditioned, suburban mall you visit today.

Aside from the mall itself, who planned the assembly of all the individual stores, with all the wares they display? No mall developer could possibly design all that. Even if he started out with a few chain stores in mind as tenants, the roster of retailers currently at the mall is probably quite different from the original tenants, many of whom may have gone out of business and were replaced by new retailers. Not only do the stores gradually change over time, but the goods being sold are probably different from those that were originally on display. In the space of a decade or two, virtually everything is different.

Our point, dear reader, is this: The mall you see today — even if it’s been there for decades — is nothing like the mall in that same location that your mother visited to buy your baby carriage. It’s a whole new organism, as it were, and it wasn’t planned. It’s the result of the work of hundreds of ever-changing store managers over several years, each seeking to improve his performance.

The more astute among you can see the analogy to species scurrying around in their environments, each trying to get food and mates, doing his best to get along. The result can be a flourishing ecosystem that may appear to be marvelously designed — but it wasn’t. The similarity of this economic natural selection and Adam Smith’s invisible hand to Darwin’s theory is so obvious that it’s difficult to miss. We’ve discussed that before too — see Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and Charles Darwin’s Natural Selection. Looking that one over, we’ll have to quote ourselves again:

It has often been remarked that the theory of evolution, according to which life on earth evolves without the guidance of a designer, is remarkably similar to the way a free-enterprise economy develops, with each enterprise doing its best to prosper, yet without the “benefit” of a centralized planner.

We don’t want to spend too much time repeating what we’ve said so often before, so we won’t go on much longer — only enough to annoy some of you. But we want to remind you of this — the next time you visit the mall, take a look — a good look. The structure has been evolving for at least 2,000 years, and the component parts (the stores) have been evolving far longer than that. The overall result, which no one designed, works without a central planning authority. If there were such, then going there would be like shopping in Moscow in the days of the old Soviet Union — where nothing you wanted was ever available.

Free markets work — not perfectly, but far better than any un-free alternative. And please, don’t bother to rant about freakish outliers like Bernard Madoff. He was a crook, and we favor laws against such things; but that’s not the same thing as centralized planning. Those who think the state should control the economy have more in common with the proponents of intelligent design than they realize. Things that work well, albeit not perfectly, may seem to have been designed, but it ain’t necessarily so.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Springboro School Board Wants Creationism

These things probably happen all over the country, but they don’t often come to our attention. We learned of this one at the website of WHIO-TV in Dayton, Ohio, of which Springboro is a suburb.

The news story, Creationism discussion slated in Springboro, says that the topic of including creationism in classroom instruction will come up at a meeting of the School Board tonight. We found their website here, and it indicates that they’re having a meeting on 23 May, but there’s no link to an agenda.

The news article says: “Several school board members want to include creationism in classroom instruction.” That’s pretty raw — they’re not even going stealth by calling it Intelligent Design. Among those who want this new policy is board President Kelly Kohls. We checked her out at the board’s website and she’s a professional nutritionist — besides being a creationist, of course.

The news story also says the board has received a warning letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, but they plan to go ahead anyway. This may be bad for the kiddies, but it’ll be fun for us. We’re also told that:

Sex education, legalization of drugs, evolution/creation, pro-life/abortion, contraception/abstinence, conservatism/liberalism, politics, gun rights, global warming and climate change and sustainable development also would be issues deemed appropriate for discussion in Springboro classrooms, according to the proposed policy.

How very stylish! With all of that going on, when will the kiddies learn anything useful? You know, stuff like math, science, history, maybe even some things like grammar and English composition. Does any of that get taught in Springboro?

Only one member of the Board, Don Miller, has said he opposes the proposed policy. He’s a financial analyst. Looking at the Board’s website, we see that the other Board members are David Petroni, who works for a real estate developer, and Wendy Kull, who has some kind of job in mortgage lending. There’s also Jim Rigano, who has a degree in Chemical Engineering. On paper they don’t look like a bunch of creationists, but that seems to be what they are.

Rigano is quoted as saying that the proposal is “an attempt to ensure we’re not indoctrinating one point of view or another.” Right — gotta teach creationism so the kiddies don’t get indoctrinated.

The article also quotes the Board’s attorney, Hollie Reedy. We don’t know what cases she’s been reading, but they quote her as saying: “Schools may teach about controversial topics and may debate controversial topics in classrooms. Currently, though, Ohio’s science standards teach evolution.”

With advice like that, what could go wrong? If we find any news about what happened at tonight’s meeting, we’ll let you know.

Correction: Hollie says she’s not the Board’s attorney. That being the case, we don’t know why the news story quoted her. But someone is advising the Board, and if that person is doing a good job, it doesn’t look like the Board is paying attention.

Update: According to this, Springboro parents weigh in on creationism debate, most parents at the meeting opposed creationism, and so did teachers. The creationism proposal wasn’t adopted. But the Board president says she’ll bring the subject up again in the future.

Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article