Refusal vs Refutation

Refusal to believe theories that logically follow from evidence does not constitute refutation. This point is missed by creationists when they deny the evidence that led to evolutionary theories, or when they fail to understand that there is not one single theory that seeks to explain the fact of biological evolution, or when they mistake acknowledgement of incomplete explanation for a complete failure of explanation.

There are undoubtedly numerous explanations for the cognitive errors and illogic of collective creationist positions. Most obvious is the impact of poor science education in those areas of the U.S. in which fundamentalism is deeply entrenched.

Individuals who have been raised with insistent belief in special creation experience dissonance when faced with scientific facts, so they are likely to close their minds to those facts. The handfull of scientists who make their living through the advocation of anti-science promotion of ID theory cannot be accused of lack of science education per se, so their motivation in promoting creationism must stem from cognitive bias founded in inculcated religious convictions.

The problem of dissonance is, of course, compounded for most creationists by anti-science policies adopted by those in charge of education in Bible Belt states. Such policies lower the standards of science education to deplorable levels for a supposedly advanced nation [NSTA, NSES, 8th grade, PISA]. For example, US students ranked between 20th and 27th of 4o nations in a 2003 comparison of scores on science testing (Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OECD PISA (Program for Student Assessment) 2003 database.)

The low level of science education of many creationist debaters is compounded by their repetition of information found in books and on websites with pro-creationist/anti-science bias. With little apparent comprehension of the scientific principles under discussion, and without apparent awareness that the information that they parrot is incomplete, biased, or inaccurate, creationist debaters are ill-equipped to refute the logic of science. They remain blissfully, if irritatingly ignorant of the theories that they attack, and most show no signs of willingness to acquaint themselves with those facts or to subject their own beliefs to scrutiny.

One glaring example of creationist ignorance of evolutionary science is illustrated by an insistence upon treating all evolutionary theory as beginning and ending with Darwinism coupled with an apparent lack of awareness of any form of mutation other than the point-mutation. They alone know whether they adopt this position of anti-science ignorance out of lack of acquaintance with scientific principles and/or with insistence upon the safety of attacking straw men. However, considering the anti-science education position espoused by the ID platform, coupled with poor standards of science education and evident antipathy to science and to intellectualism, it seems probable that most of the cognitive errors and illogic displayed by most creationist debaters stem from obdurate ignorance of science (at the very least).

Another example of ignorance in creationist debaters relates to their failure to distinguish between abiogenesis – the theory that life arose in primordial chemicals – and biological evolution, those events that altered the frequency of alleles down through successive generations of live organisms. Although biological evolution acted upon the products of biopoiesis (abiogenesis), the two are no more the same than rusting is equivalent to automobile manufacture.

On the teaching of Pseudoscience

SCIENCE POLICY: ON THE TEACHING OF PSEUDOSCIENCE: "To understand why intelligent design constitutes an insidious menace to medicine, it is helpful to trace its roots. In part, it evolved from creationism, which takes the Genesis story of creation literally. Creationism has been discredited, however, by indisputable physical evidence -- carbon dating, for example. In 1987, the teaching of creationism in public schools was forbidden by the US Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard). Still, a large part of the public believes in creationism and yearns for a return to God in public schools. At its root, intelligent design is a medieval theological proposition that is based on faith, not logic, and certainly not science. It is theology dressed up as science, but it cannot be easily dismissed."

Comments:
A large part of the ~American~ public believes in creationism – the public in other Western nations is less indoctrinated to believe in creationism.

The so-called "intelligent designer" is merely God in a not-so cunning disguise. When proponents of ID claim that they do not speculate on the identity of the designer they are prevaricating, or, to put it bluntly, outright lying. The designer is supposedly the creator of life's complexity = Creator of Life = God. Apparently prevarication is not regarded as a sin when the purpose is to defy the separation of church and state.

Scripture vs Scholarship

10.05.2005 - In the matter of Scripture v. scholarship:
"The public debate over the relationship between religion and science in the classroom figures prominently in a lawsuit against the University of California filed recently on behalf of applicants for admission from Christian high schools. Filed in federal court in Los Angeles on Aug. 25, the complaint claims that UC violated the First Amendment rights (specifically those guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion) of some Christian schools and that it practiced 'viewpoint discrimination' against their students by finding that some of the schools' courses do not meet UC requirements for college preparation.

The plaintiffs are the Association of Christian Schools International, the Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, Calif., and six Calvary Chapel students (or their parents on their behalf).

At issue in the lawsuit are academic standards for admission to the university, specifically UC's process for assessing high-school courses to verify that they meet the system's college-preparatory course requirements (known as the a-g requirements). For a new or substantially revised course to be approved for the a-g list, a high school must submit a request, listing the course curriculum, textbook information, and supplemental materials, to UC for approval. Staff at UCOP review such applications to make sure that courses meet UC academic standards established by the systemwide Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (BOARS).

UC also disallows science courses that rely solely on BJU and A Beka Books textbooks. At issue, the fact sheet says, "is not whether they have religious content, but whether they provide a comprehensive view of the relevant subject matter...." In the BJU Press and A Beka Books science textbooks, it goes on, "the publishers themselves acknowledge that the primary goal is to teach religious doctrine rather than the scholarship that is generally accepted in the relevant fields of study."

The introduction to Biology for Christian Schools (2nd Edition, BJU Press) clearly states, for instance, that students' conclusions must conform to the Bible and that scientific material and methods are secondary: "The people who have prepared this book have tried consistently to put the Word of God first and science second. To the best of the author's knowledge, the conclusions drawn from observable facts that are presented in this book agree with the Scriptures. If a mistake has been made (which is probable since this book was prepared by humans) and at any point God's Word is not put first, the author apologizes.""

Answers to Creationist Nonsense

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense -- Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up: "Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as 'intelligent design' to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. "

Comment: In this Scientific American article, the author contends that evolutionists ought to counter creationist claims with scientific facts. While this is good advice, many creationists simply refuse to acknowldge the empirical evidence provided by science. I contend that evolutionists can also specifically refute the illogical arguments of creationists and id-ists by calling attention to the glaring fallacies of logic inherent in those arguments.

See Fallacies of Logic.

Ignorance in Kansas

Those Kansans, creationists, idists, and proids who welcomed the anti-evolution and anti-cosmology decision of the Kansas Board of Education did so at the expense of education in both science and in critical thinking of the schoolchildren of Kansas.

ScienceWeek: "KANSAS, EVOLUTION, AND IGNORANCE IN AMERICA
Concerning the recent decision by the Kansas (US) State Board of Education to purge evolution and cosmology from the science curricula of all Kansas public schools, R.B. Hanson and F.E. Bloom (_Science_) present an editorial, with the authors making the following points:
1) The authors suggest that two aspects of 'this
intellectual cleansing atrocity' are most troubling: a) No political leaders from either party have as yet elected to step forward and challenge the lunacy of removing from the educational opportunities of the future voters of Kansas two of the best established theories of our era. 'Such reluctance emphasizes a growing public ignorance of the methods by which scientific observations are formulated into testable hypotheses and, when sufficiently strongly supported, are elevated into... theories.'
b) Second, and more troubling, is the shrewdness of the strategy used by the creationists in achieving their ends. No longer are they attempting to overturn the series of court decisions that have banned the teaching of creationism as a science. The new strategy, representing a far more threatening menace to future generations, is not only not to teach evolution and cosmology, but to undermine the solidity of their scientific acceptance."

Comment: Politicians care about one thing, and one thing only, and that is to ensure that they are re-elected to public office. When a politician's constituents include a vocal minority of religious fundamentalists and a large number who know nothing of science and care little for scientific truth, then few politicians would care to step forward on the side of knowledge, science, or logic. The battle against ignorance has since been brought to the courts by parents who are concerned about the education of their children. Keeping up with the Jones decision

Ignorance in the White House

Yes, I refer to Giorgio W. Borgia, Idiot-in-Chief who endorsed "teaching alternatives to evolution in public schools".

Ahem, might I point out that there are no alternatives to evolution ... biological evolution is a fact. How can there be alternatives to facts? Nonfacts?

Bush: "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about," he said, according to an official transcript of the session. Bush added: "Part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. . . . You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

Debate is the key word in that statement. Debate falls under the aegis of philosophy, yet debate has little merit and ought to be abandoned when one side of the debate is clearly superior in terms of empirical facts and logic.

Almost four hundred years ago, Francis Bacon promoted empiricism and scientific induction. Science, which derives from the Latin root for knowledge, has long-since supplanted metaphysical philosophy for those who seek to comprehend the physical world. Scientific debate is a process directed toward better understanding of empirical facts.

As I have argued elsewhere, so-called "intelligent design" theory could be utilized as an exercise in philosophy classes. It is not science, it is not scientific, it is religion, it offers NO viable alternative explanation for the observable fact of biological evolution.

Why would Bush endorse an anti-science policy for public education? One can only assume that he is pandering to the conservative voters.

There are abundant reasons to consider Bush a fool who cares nothing for truth. This policy is yet another example. That Bush has blundered into a job far beyond his intellectual capabilities is testament to the problems inherent in the democratic process (voters) and to rigged elections. That Bush is allowed to remain in office despite uncovery of lies designed to instigate invasion of Iraq, when Clinton was impeached over a mere sexual peccadillo, is evidence of the intellectual malaise that has overtaken the US.

The Constitution insists upon separation of Church and State. Is Bush too dense to realize that his declared policy of putting ID theory into science classrooms is in violation of the Constitution? Does Bush not care to uphold the Constitution? Does Bush believe that most voters care nothing for the Constitution? Perhaps Bush knows that conservative voters do not know the difference between fact and fantasy. After all, some deluded souls voted for him.

Scientists comments on "ID"

Happily scientists continue to conduct research related to biological evolution and are little distracted by the anti-science and pseudoscientific flights of fallacy of creationist (including idist) arguments. A search for biological evolution on Entrez PubMed yielded 110473 hits as of 8/15/06.

Creationism and intelligent design. modified:
Creationism, the rejection of evolution in favor of supernatural design, comes in many varieties besides the common young-earth Genesis version. Creationist attacks on science education have been evolving in the last few years through the alliance of different varieties. Instead of calls to teach "creation science," one now finds lobbying for "intelligent design" (ID). Guided by the Discovery Institute's "Wedge strategy," the ID movement aims to overturn evolution and what it sees as a pernicious materialist worldview and to renew a theistic foundation to Western culture, in which human beings are recognized as being created in the image of God. Common ID arguments involving scientific naturalism, "irreducible complexity," "complex specified information," and "icons of evolution," have been thoroughly examined and refuted. Nevertheless, from Kansas to Ohio to the U.S. Congress, ID continues lobbying to teach the controversy, and scientists need to be ready to defend good evolution education.
Pennock RT. Creationism and intelligent design. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2003;4:143-63.

FASEB opposes using science classes to teach intelligent design, creationism, and other non-scientific beliefs. [FASEB J. 2006] PMID: 16507756
Was Darwin a creationist? [Perspect Biol Med. 2005] PMID: 16085993
Perspective: evolution's struggle for existence in America's public schools. [Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2001] PMID: 11831654
Why we think it is important to discuss intelligent design. [J Clin Invest. 2006] PMID: 16670752
See all Related Articles...

Don't be stupid about intelligent design.
President George W. Bush and Senate majority leader Bill Frist have recently publicly advocated teaching intelligent design in science classes. Their endorsement of a discredited, nonscientific view could signal a huge step backward for scientific education. It is time for educated, motivated scientists to get involved and to educate others.
Neill US. Don't be stupid about intelligent design. (Free Full Text) J Clin Invest. 2005 Oct;115(10):2586.

Scientists attack Bush over intelligent design. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16094330
Keeping religion out of science class. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16094323
Science agencies get fresh paymasters in Republican revamp. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 15758963
Science and public policy. [Acad Med. 1989] PMID: 2712998
Creationism and evolution: it's the American way. [Cell. 2006] PMID: 16469687
See all Related Articles...

Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action.
We review here the current political landscape and our own efforts to address the attempts to undermine science education in Wisconsin. To mount an effective response, expertise in evolutionary biology and in the history of the public controversy is useful but not essential. However, entering the fray requires a minimal tool kit of information. Here, we summarize some of the scientific and legal history of this issue and list a series of actions that scientists can take to help facilitate good science education and an improved atmosphere for the scientific enterprise nationally. Finally, we provide some model legislation that has been introduced in Wisconsin to strengthen the teaching of science.
Attie AD, Sober E, Numbers RL, Amasino RM, Cox B, Berceau T, Powell T, Cox MM.
Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action. (Free Full Text Article) J Clin Invest. 2006 May;116(5):1134-8.

Expert witness: the scientists who testified against intelligent design. Interview by Geoff Brumfiel. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16267520
School board in court over bid to teach intelligent design. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16193010
Why we think it is important to discuss intelligent design. [J Clin Invest. 2006] PMID: 16670752
Misuses of biology in the context of the paranormal. [Experientia. 1988] PMID: 3282905
Day of judgement for intelligent design. [Nature. 2005] PMID: 16292271
See all Related Articles...

The intelligent design of evolution.
Yoshikuni et al (2006) investigated whether catalytic functionality could be rationally engineered into a protein, without recourse to the high-throughput screening techniques necessary for directed evolution. . . they assumed that the mutations were additive—that the effect on selectivity of combining two mutations could be predicted by adding the effect of each mutation done singly. With this assumption, it was straightforward to predict combinations of single mutations identified as controlling selectivity without decreasing the total productivity.

The striking result of this design is that the simple additivity assumption was validated—the authors obtained several triple to quintuple mutants with nearly perfect selectivities for the product they targeted. Apparently, intelligent design does not need irreducible complexity after all. The success of this exercise is particularly relevant to the field of molecular evolution, where the degree to which mutations are nonadditive has been debated at length. Some believe that recent work in developing protein mutant libraries supports the hypothesis that nonadditivity is the rule rather than the exception, and occurs much more often than believed previously (Zaccolo and Gherardi, 1999). Others have put forth both theoretical and experimental evidence suggesting that, though frequent nonadditivity of mutations is still a possibility in these contexts, its existence is not yet supported well (Drummond et al, 2005).
Styczynski MP, Fischer CR, Stephanopoulos GN.
The intelligent design of evolution. (Free Full Text News and Views) Mol Syst Biol. 2006;2:2006.0020. Epub 2006 May 2.
Molecular Systems Biology 2 doi:10.1038/msb4100065Published online: 2 May 2006 Article number: 2006.0020

Directed evolution of enzymes and pathways for industrial biocatalysis. [Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2002] PMID: 11950559
Directed evolution of (betaalpha)(8)-barrel enzymes. [Biomol Eng. 2005] PMID: 15857781
Discovery of superior enzymes by directed molecular evolution. [Chembiochem. 2001] PMID: 11948874
Optimising enzyme function by directed evolution. [Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2003] PMID: 12948780
Novel methods for directed evolution of enzymes: quality, not quantity. [Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2004] PMID: 15296927
See all Related Articles...