Because scientific
discoveries have turned up a multitude of facts
at odds with a literal interpretation of
scripture, many religious people staunchly oppose the
"evil of godless
science." It is therefore ironic that,
when seeking to validate their scriptural mythology
in the public eye, some religionists have sought to
do so by labeling it "Creation Science."
For although they resent the indifference of natural
science toward the supernaturality of religion, and
choose to interpret this indifference as hostility,
it seems that even fundamentalists grudgingly
acknowledge that the reliability and practical
usefulness of information generated by methodical
objectivity has earned for science the respect of
most intelligent and educated people, as well as a
degree of credibility envied by practitioners of less
stringent disciplines.
But simply tacking the
word "science" onto a legend doesn't make
it science, any more than calling an elephant's trunk
and tail "legs" makes a pachyderm an animal that walks on
six legs. Natural science has a strict discipline, called
scientific method, for systematically examining evidence and
developing testable hypotheses leading to
independently verifiable conclusions accounting for
all pertinent facts. Absurdly,
so-called Creation Science attempts to do it
backward. Starting with a conclusion (the
supposedly irrefutable Truth of religious scripture), it selects
or rejects evidence, not on the basis of reliability,
but on whether it appears to support or undermine the
presumed conclusion. To deal with facts which
remain troublesome, Creation Science contrives highly
imaginative (and typically unverifiable)
explanations.
Creation Science opposes
what many of its adherents have chosen to call
"Evil-ution," since it is Charles Darwin's
theory of biological evolution, often misrepresented
as "the monkey theory," which affords them
the greatest propaganda leverage among the
scientifically illiterate. In fact, however,
the dogma of Creation Science opposes not just a
single theory, but a vast array of independent
disciplines, including archaeology, astronomy,
biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, and
physics. Each of these fields of natural
inquiry has independently exposed gross inaccuracies
of a literal interpretation of religious creation
myth—not because that's what they set out to do,
but simply because that's what the observed evidence
indicates. The more Creation Science attempts
to validate itself through deliberate
misinterpretation of evidence and misrepresentation
of established scientific theory, the more
ensnared it becomes in the growing inconsistency of
its own fabrications and contradictions.
Creationists assert that
the inclusion of so-called Creation Science in public school
curricula, with time and funding at least equal to
that devoted to natural science, is required by what
they call "cultural diversity." Yet
they oppose the teaching of any cultural view other
than the Christian fundamentalist one, despite there
being no evidence to indicate that Judeo-Christian
legends are any more valid than those of the Hindu
faith or Norse mythology. They further demand
that existing science courses be modified to excise
any ideas which might cast doubt upon the Creationist
view (which at this point would require the rejection
of the bulk of scientific knowledge acquired during
the past five centuries). And then they propose
that the choice to study either natural science, or
something else labeled "Creation Science,"
be left to the whims of impressionable
schoolchildren, who haven't yet even a clue what
science is about. And from this merry process
are to emerge the doctors, engineers, technicians,
teachers, and leaders of tomorrow.
Creationists continue to
bemoan the exclusion of their "theory" from
the realm of legitimate science, claiming that such
rejection is due to a supposed anti-religious bias of an evil
scientific establishment. But in fact, it is Creation Science's repeated
failure to satisfy the criteria of
scientific method (required of all scientific theories) that
prevents its acceptance as legitimate theory. From the utter lack of
objective scientific discipline which it has
exhibited so far, it is clear that so-called Creation
Science does not even qualify as "bad
science;" it is no science at all! While the
teaching of creation legend is a legitimate undertaking for families
and churches, to label contrived and unverified apologies for such
stories as "science," even in the face of contradictory evidence, is
dishonest and misleading. Unless and until the proponents of
Creation Science are able to demonstrate its conformance to natural
reality, there is
simply no rational basis for treating it any
differently from other pseudo-sciences, from alchemy
to witchcraft. And as pseudo-science,
"Creation Science" deserves neither
government funding nor inclusion in public school
science curricula.
It is perhaps noteworthy
that virtually all modern-day proponents of Creation
Science (as well as other pseudo-sciences, such as
astrology, numerology, phrenology, and palmistry) are
those who have subscribed to the particular dogma in
question all along—not unbiased people persuaded by evidence and
reason. Despite fervent claims by
some Creationists that their religious beliefs are
somehow reaffirmed by science, it is most telling
that conversions to Creation Science are
extremely rare to non-existent among educated adults
who did not start out with basic mythological beliefs
already firmly in place.
Real science, on the
other hand, appeals to people of all religious and
secular backgrounds, who earnestly seek to discover
the workings of the natural universe, even if that
endeavor should necessitate the reexamination of pet
beliefs which evidence suggests might not be in
accord with reality. Indeed, science does not
demand the rejection of genuine religious belief,
provided the believer is able to deal with the
unrealistic tenets of his faith as allegory or fable
rather than as fact. True science welcomes both
believers and non-believers, from the ranks of those
inclined to trust their own (god-given?)
senses and reason more than a collection of ancient
legends and parables.
=SAJ=