In response to Charles Johnson’s invitation for Conservative, anti-Creationists to share their thoughts, here I am, letting it rip:

Let me begin with the definition of science as discussed throughout my college years: Science is knowledge through causes. The scientific method, as popularly and academically known, is the process by which causes are investigated and discovered, leading to a scientific theory. From a National Academy Of Sciences brochure, Science, Evolution, and Creationism:

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

A good example is the theory of gravity. After hundreds of years of observation and experiment, the basic facts of gravity are understood. The theory of gravity is an explanation of those basic facts. Scientists then use the theory to make predictions
about how gravity will function in different circumstances. Such predictions have been verified in countless experiments, further confirming the theory. Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence

The most ubiquitous, ridiculous and superficial assault on scientific reasoning is the “it’s only a theory” dismissal. Attacking the Theory of Evolution (ToE) on linguistic grounds serves nothing but muddy the waters for students of science. Arguing the validity of linguistic attacks on the ToE is an opening for ridicule as gravitation remains a theory, and so does atomic theory, which while “only a theory” has been knowledge enough to expand our understanding of physics and chemistry.

I’ve spent the past few years on this site keeping mum about Creationism, Intelligent Design “theory” (which by the way is “only a theory,” right?) and general magical thinking simply because of the way its adherents approach the debate. There is something extremely Post-Modern about their approach, especially ID proponents. The sophistries behind concepts such as irreducible complexity boil down to basically, “we can’t explain it to a complete certainty, therefore, Someone, or Something, is responsible.” The whole debacle is too large for me to discuss in a single blog post, and there’s enough resources online to get into detail.

There is, however, one threat worth addressing, and that is the promotion of Creationism in schools, using carefully crafted legislation with the intent to mandate “fair” exposure to different perspectives on the origins of life on earth. These initiatives are motivated and informed by socially and religiously conservative folk whose general argument stems in that the ToE, along with the vast expanse of EvTheo, is an assault on the dignity of man. I don’t get it. The Catholic Church has made peace with the concept, keeping to the spiritual magisterium while acknowledging discoveries in the natural world.

Allow me to paint with a broad brush and stereotypes here. Social Conservatives who find the ToE to be insulting to the dignity of man and against the revelations of the Lord as written in the Word need to take a step back and think of the sheer irrationality of the approach. The push to teach Creationism in schools in such surreptitious means can be construed as an attempt to push religious education in public schools. The same people who go against Leftist indoctrination in the educational system are not so much pushing against indoctrination in school per se; they would rather have it replaced with something else. These people who are unhappy with the school system teaching a system of values (so they would accuse) against what they would want for their family fall too easily to the temptation to replace it with theirs, instead of taking responsibility for values education in their own home.

I think that this is what truly motivates the Creationist attack on scientific education and scientific thinking comes from two fears: one, which I’ve repeated here a lot, is that the understanding of our biological origins somehow diminishes the dignity of man, and two, that an understanding of the world around us is, if not immoral in itself, opens us to great immorality. The second motivation, in as much as magical thinking can be explained, is beyond any facility of mine to explain.