All posts tagged Creationism

Creationists Grill Nye

HT: NBR

What did creationists want to ask Bill Nye?  In Tuesday’s big debate, we heard a series of audience questions, but there must have been many audience members who still wanted to ask more.

Journalist Matt Stopera was there, and he asked self-identified creationists what they would wanted to have asked Nye.  Whatever your analysis of the debate, these questions help us understand what creationists thought of Mr. Nye and his presentation of the evolutionary worldview.

Some of the questions demonstrate ignorance of mainstream evolutionary science.  One respondent, for example, wondered why there were still monkeys if we came from monkeys.  That’s not what evolution says.  This is the sort of simple, naïve ignorance that too many non-creationists think makes up all of creationism.  A couple of other questions asked similarly naïve questions.  How can there be a sunset without God, one asked.  Another asserted that since the world was “amazing,” there must be a God.  It doesn’t take a Bill Nye to poke scientific holes in that sort of naïve creationism.

But that’s not all there is to the intellectual fabric of American creationism.  The other questions show the diversity among creationists.  One question asked simply, “What about noetics?”  Another woman wondered how we can understand salvation if we believed in evolution.  Another challenged Nye: “Are you scared of a divine creator?”  Two people asked about the Lucy fossils.  Some asked what caused the Big Bang.  When this came up in the debate itself, Bill Nye frankly and enthusiastically responded that he did not know, but that non-knowledge and the excitement of discovery lay squarely at the heart of real science.

stopera nye

Some of the questions showed that creationists have learned science, but a very different science.  For instance, one woman wanted to know how evolution could account for an increase in genetic information.  This is a question mainstream science can answer, but it is often presented by creationist scientists as a decisive disproof of mainstream evolutionary science.  What does it matter?  It shows that some creationists are not simply unaware of mainstream science.  Rather, their knowledge about evolution has been occluded by a compelling–if not scientifically accurate–counter-knowledge.  This is different from people who just don’t know about evolution.

Several questioners wanted to ask Nye about schools.  “Are you influencing children in a positive way?” one asked.  Why not teach more than one “theory” of origins, a couple more wanted to know.

Thanks to Stopera for sharing this fascinating gallery of creationist conundrums.

 

9 Comments
by Adam Laats on February 6, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on February 6, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/02/06/creationists-grill-nye/

Debate Analysis

So, the Ham-on-Nye has come and gone.  For those of you who missed it, you can still watch the debate for a couple of days.  Or you can follow our comments and discussion from last night.

I’m very curious to hear people’s reactions.  For me, as someone convinced that humanity had its roots long ages ago in a process that did not need (or receive) any divine guidance, I certainly did not hear anything from Ken Ham to make me question my beliefs.  Though I did find Mr. Ham to be engaging and warm.  Speaking from the “evolutionist” side, I thought Nye did a good job, though I wished several times that he had taken different approaches.  For example, I think it is a bad strategy to focus on the unlikelihood of Noah’s Ark.  As Steve Carrell can tell you, such questions can all be answered with a steadfast belief in the power of the supernatural.  They do not need to make naturalistic sense.

As I describe in my upcoming book, William James Bryan handled this “village atheist” objection nearly a century ago.  When arch-skeptic Clarence Darrow put Bryan on the stand at the 1925 Scopes Trial, Darrow pressed Bryan on the believability of the Bible.  How could Joshua have told the sun to stand still?  Didn’t Bryan know that such a feat would cause the Earth to melt?  Bryan’s reply shut down Darrow’s attack, IMHO.  As Bryan put it, to cheers from the audience, if Darrow had trouble believing in miracles, the problem lay not with the miracles, but with the man.  It does not seem as if Nye understands this fundamental epistemological attitude among many religious people, not only young-earth creationists.

How about you?  Did any creationist readers find Mr. Nye’s arguments new or worth consideration? 

Were there any other parts of the debate that you found surprising or intriguing?

Personally, I thought the best part of the evening were the last section, when both speakers took audience questions.  Questions two and four were the best.  Each asked Nye to explain a fundamental mystery of origins, to which Nye replied in each case, “Don’t know.  It’s a remarkable mystery.”  Then, in each case, Ham rebutted that it was not really a mystery at all.  It was explained in the Bible.  It was a humorous exchange, and illuminated the difference between mainstream science and Biblical knowledge.

16 Comments
by Adam Laats on February 5, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on February 5, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/02/05/debate-analysis/

Time for Ham on Nye!

Getting ready to watch the debate.  For those who are just emerging from their winter hibernations, I’m talking about the debate at the Creation Museum between young-earth creationist Ken Ham and “The Science Guy” Bill Nye.  You can watch live via debatelive.org.

I’ll update this post throughout the evening if anything comes to mind.  All are encouraged to put in their two cents in the comments column.

Here are some of the things I’ll be looking for:

  • Will Ham harp on the “observational” vs. “historic” science argument?  If so, will Nye call him out on the non-scientific nature of that argument?
  • Will everyone keep smiling?  If not, who will crack, and how?
  • Along those lines, will the Creation-Museum crowd give Ham an enormous home-field advantage?
  • Will Nye make the bad argument that creationism somehow prevents people from learning mainstream science and engineering?
  • Will Nye demonstrate his lamentable ignorance about the culture and history of American creationism?
  • What will either side say about other sorts of creationism, such as intelligent design, evolutionary creationism, or old-earth creationism?  I’m guessing neither will even mention them.

OK, nuf sed!  I’m going to go eat a taco and open a beer.  See you when the debate gets started.

_____________________________________________________________________________

6:30: While we’re waiting, I encourage everyone to consider looking into the history of creation/evolution debates.  As usual, the best source for these things is with my grad-school mentor Ron Numbers.  Ron’s blockbuster book The Creationists includes great source material about the long tradition of public debate about evolution.  Even more nerdily compelling, Ron edited a collection of debates themselves.  The volume is harder to find, but anyone with a decent-sized university library nearby should be able to find it or request it via inter-library loan.  For all with an interest in the history of these debates, it’s vital reading.

_____________________________________________________________________________

6:30: I gotta give the Creation Museum credit.  The other day when I tried to register to watch, I was a little skeptical that they would have it working properly.  But now they’ve got a nice set up with the format listed along the right side and an exciting countdown clock going.

_____________________________________________________________________________

6:45: We’ve got music!  And a visual of the Nye-Ham weigh-in…  I like the titles: Ken Ham, AIG CEO; Bill Nye “The Science Guy”

_____________________________________________________________________________

6:53: Ugh…whoever wins this debate, it won’t be the person who picked this elevator music…

_____________________________________________________________________________

7:00: Here we go! What’s going on?  A Ken Ham cartoon?  Kids come free–an ad for the Creation Museum.  We’ve been welcomed!  “Hundreds of thousands watching online.”  That’s us!

_____________________________________________________________________________

7:02: Who knew the moderator could make jokes?  Where did we come from?  He came from DC on a plane! Yuk yuk.  And a coin flip?  Perfect for a Broadway Joe Superbowl joke…

______________________________________________________________________________

7:04: Did Ken Ham just say, “I’m a Nazi?”  Oh… “I’m an Aussie…”

Ham’s lead-off: evolutionists have “hijacked” the name of science to squeeze out creationism.

And he’s got experts: Stuart Burgess.  I’m not familiar with Burgess.  Anyone else?

______________________________________________________________________________

7:07: Sure enough, Ham is leading with his main argument: “observational” vs. “historical” science.  Not the best approach.  But a better argument: we don’t need evolution to be good technologists.  A middle path: forcing evolution on school children is actually a religious argument.

______________________________________________________________________________

7:09: Nye’s turn at bat: He leads with a joke about bowties.  And a long anecdote for a guy with only five minutes to talk.  Grandpa and his bowtie.  Maybe that will be a good way to make “evolutionists” seem less terrifying.

Oooh.  Nye is changing the question.  His new version: Does Ken Ham’s creation model hold up?  Looks as if he’s taking on Ham’s observational/historical distinction.  Wow!  Nye is great.

If CSI can tell about the past from clues, then so can scientists.  All of them use the SAME science.

Uh Oh, Nye is breaking out his less-powerful argument that creationists can’t be good technologists or engineers.  That one just doesn’t hold up!

______________________________________________________________________________

7:16: Raymond Demadian.  A young-earth creationist and inventor of the MRI.  Now Danny Faulkner, AIG astronomer with PhD.  This is what worries me about Nye’s argument that creationists BY DEFINITION can’t do science or technology.  It is easy to find people who can poke holes in that assertion.

This bit drives mainstream science bonkers.  This is why the NCSE does its Project Steve.

7:20: Ham’s “We weren’t there” argument just doesn’t do much.  I think Nye’s CSI intro was a great way to predict this and defang it in advance.

NOW A GOOD ONE: a challenge for Nye–can Nye name a single technology that couldn’t be designed by creationists?

And snappy graphics: cartoon Nye vs. cartoon Ham.  The same evidence, interpreted differently.

7:25: Ham spends some time explaining the fact that evolution occurs, but only within biblical “kinds.”  That is, two ur-dogs on Noah’s ark created wolves, foxes, dogs, etc.

7:29: Whoops! Ham insists that public-school science teaches religion, since they teach evolution that has no basis in observational science.  Based on belief, not on observations.

Is it just me, or does Ken Ham seem nervous?  I’m surprised, since he is such a polished performer and public speaker.

7:32: Smart tactic, Mr. Ham.  He takes on Darwin as a racist thinker.  Biblical creationism, in contrast, insists that there can be no real racial differences.  Of course, he doesn’t explore the notion that today’s evolutionary scientists no longer argue that evolution proves the differences between races.  Nevertheless, as a political tactic, this makes good sense for Mr. Ham to focus on.

7:35: not as powerful: Ham keeps insisting (as we thought he would) on the intellectual paucity of “historical science.”  It would be a stronger argument to non-creationists like me if Ham kept it simpler–asked mainstream science to admit that there is SOME belief implicit in mainstream science.  But that belief does not inhere in mainstream science’s use of “historical science.”

7:37: Now Ken Ham enters into the theological roots of his belief system.  “We make no apology” for our religious roots.

7:40: Looking at Texas textbook battles.  Ham says the news slants the coverage, pitting “creationists” against “academics.”  Says that Kathy Miller of the Texas Freedom Network is really the one imposing religion on public school students.  By insisting on evolution, kids are indoctrinated in a belief system instead of discovering truth on their own.

7:42: More preaching to the choir.  Evolution leads to more abortion.

And, what’s the real point?  According to Ken Ham, young people must learn first and foremost that God loves them.

______________________________________________________________________________

7:45: Now it’s time for Nye’s longer presentation.  Starting with limestone.  “We are standing on millions of layers of ancient life.  How could those animals have lived their entire lives in just four thousand years?”

7:48: As an “evolutionist” who reads creationist literature, I can hear the voices of creationist disputing Nye’s anti-flood, anti-young-earth examples–though there might be ancient trees and ancient rock layers.  But that does not refute the central argument of Ham and other YECs that such things are not observed, but assumed.

Oh, wait!  This fossil stuff is great.  There is NO EXAMPLE OF FOSSILS THAT CHANGE THE ORDER OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY.  A flood would have produced much more turbulence.  Will this convince any YECs in the audience?

7:52: here’s another good one: If animals were all on the Ark, where are the kangaroo fossils on the way from Mt. Ararat to Australia?

How could one family have built an ark so big?  That doesn’t make sense.  Other great shipbuilders could not build a wooden ship that lasted in seas.  How could eight people have built a sea-worthy wooden ship?  Of course, the YEC answer here is easy: God can make anything happen.  I’m worried Nye here is not reaching any listeners.  Same with other arguments that Nye is not making: How could Jonah survive for days in a fish?  Etc.?  The answer is easy, and was the argument made by William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 Scopes Trial: Miracles are easy to believe if one has faith.

Plus, if all 16,000,000 species evolved in the last 4,000 years from the 7,000 “kinds” that went on the ark, that would mean we’d be seeing 11 new species every day.  Where are they?

I wonder if these mind-blowers will cause any creationists in the audience to reconsider their beliefs.  Or will they just dismiss them as bitter ravings from a confused non-Christian.

8:02: Nye overuses the word “remarkable.”  He uses it both in the usual sense, and as a veiled criticism of Ham’s scientific model.

Also, I wonder if Nye’s repetition of his sex argument (he’s making the point that some animals get genetic benefits from reproducing sexually, even in some fish species that are capable of asexual reproduction) will make some YECs uncomfortable.  Implies that Nye is a little too comfortable with sex.

8:13: good call, Mr. Nye.  The US Constitution says we should promote science.  But don’t specify this is only an issue for Kentucky, Texas, and Tennessee!

______________________________________________________________________________

8:14: Time for rebuttals.  Ken Ham first.  How does he rebut radioactive dating?  Dates done by this method produce inconsistent results.  Stuff in the same layers show very different dates.  Plus, dating methods assume constant rates.  How do we know this?

And watch out for Christians who believe in an ancient earth.  Death cannot have happened before Adam’s fall.

______________________________________________________________________________

8:20: Nye’s rebuttal.  Dating methods ARE reliable.  Why is the translated Bible a better source.  To Nye, that reliance on the Bible is “unsettling, troubling.”  But, again, why should it convince YECs if Nye is unsettled?

Nye condemns Ham’s argument as “magical.”  How will that convince someone who agrees wholeheartedly that it is miraculous?

If we use the Bible as a science text, what does that mean?  That Mr. Ham’s words are somehow to be more respected than what people can observe themselves.

Also, evolutionary theory is not racist.  Rather a simple matter of historic ethnocentrism.

______________________________________________________________________________

8:25: Ken Ham counter-rebuttal.  Bears are vegetarian.  But they have savage teeth.  Fruit-bats, too.  That does not prove that lions might not have been vegetarians before the flood.  And why couldn’t Noah have built a better ark than we could later?  Don’t assume that people in the past were not as smart as modern people.

______________________________________________________________________________

8:30: Nye counter-rebuttal.  Says Mr. Ham did not come close to addressing the huge problems with the numbers raised by the idea of a young earth.  Where did all the species come from?  There just isn’t enough time.  Nye says it is not “reasonable” to think Noah and 7 helpers could have built an ark.

What’s the central issue?  Ham says we can’t make assumptions about the past.  Nye says these are legitimate, not just made up.  Why should we accept Ham’s word for it that natural law changed completely four thousand years ago, without leaving any record?

And what about all the billions of religious people who disagree with Ham’s vision of the origins of life?

Whoops!  Says Ham’s model is based on the Old Testament, not the New.  That seems like another reach for Nye.  Those are questions YECs and others have debated for a looooooong time.

Great point: real scientists welcome proof.  If there is proof of a very different fossil record, no one wants to see that more than real scientists.

______________________________________________________________________________

8:35: Q&A from the audience.

Question 1: for Ham: How does creationism account for the celestial bodies . . . moving further apart?

Ham: That’s in the Bible.  God says he is stretching out the heavens.

Nye: Where did we come from?  We all ask it.  Astronomy is a science devoted to this question.  They are not satisfied with an answer from the Bible.

Question 2: For Nye: How did the atoms that created the Big Bang get there?

Nye: We don’t know.  Scientists engage in what we call science in order to find answers.  We do not take anyone’s word for it.  Nor even The Word for it.  This is the heart of real science.  This is the problem with Ham’s approach.

Ham: There is a book that tells us the answer.  “That’s the only thing that makes sense.”  How else would there be matter?  It could only come from “intelligence.”

Question 3: Scientists produce evidence for evolution.  Besides the Bible, what evidence can you produce?

Ham: Don’t make an argument based on what the majority of scientists believe.  We can see from history the danger of relying on the majority of scientific opinion.  When it comes to the past, we can’t know scientifically, we can only know through belief.  We’re honest, mainstream scientists are not.

Nye: If any scientist makes a big discovery, that scientist will be embraced.  Science progresses by seeing what works and by always challenging its own assumptions.  It is not true (totally) that science is dictated by majority belief.

Question 4: for Nye: How did consciousness come from matter?

Nye: “Don’t know. This is a great mystery.”  Science is all about the joy of discovery.  We want to find out the answer to this question.  Something about dogs?  And self-doubt?  We must encourage young people to investigate the question of consciousness.

Ham: Goes for the laugh!  There is an answer, Bill.  It’s all in the Bible.  It is not a mystery.  And if it’s all about discovery, what about life after death?

Question 5: for Ham: What if anything would ever change your mind?

Ham: pause….”I’m a Christian.” As such, he goes by God’s guidance.  The Bible is the Word of God.  You can make predictions based on that.  I can’t prove that to you, but I can say, try it.  See if God will reveal Himself to you if you ask Him.  “No one’s ever gonna convince me that the Word of God is not true.”  But that doesn’t mean they don’t keep learning and asking and inquiring.  Would Bill Nye ever change his mind?

Nye: All I’d need is one piece of evidence.  One fossil in a different layer.  One piece of evidence that stars appear to be far away, but they’re not.  Says he would change his mind immediately.  GREAT ANSWER.

Question 6: for Nye: Is there evidence for the age of the earth besides radiometric evidence?

Nye: Deposition rates, seen by Lyell so many years ago.  Plus, radiometric evidence is very strong.  The weight of the evidence is so strong that creationists need to find a way to disprove it somehow.

Ham: The age of the earth came from studies of meteorites, not earth rocks.  Every dating method is faulty.  But most dating methods say the earth is much younger.

Question 7: For Ham: Can you reconcile the change in the rate continents are now drifting, to the rate they would have had to have traveled 6,000 years ago?

Ham: This also proves my point about historical vs. observational science.  Our researchers look at this often.  Plate movements today don’t necessarily equal the rates in the past.  That is an unwarranted assumption.  We believe in catastrophic plate tectonics.  A big shift at one point in time.

Nye: The evidence for sea-floor spreading is clear.  It leaves a record in the rocks.  We can measure rates of continental drift.

Question 8: for both: favorite color?

Nye: Green.

Ham: Blue.

Question 9: for Nye: How do you balance the law of evolution with the second law of thermodynamics?

Nye: Energy is always lost to heat.  Entropy increases.  Here’s the kicker: the earth is not a closed system.  The sun is always delivering energy.  Day and night.  Ha ha.

Ham: Energy or matter will never produce life.  God imposed information.  Matter could never do it alone.

Question 10: for Ham: Could evidence of an ancient earth make you change your belief in God and Jesus?

Ham: Science could never prove such a thing.  It would be “historical” science and therefore based on possibly faulty assumptions.  Therefore, the question doesn’t make sense.  I believe in a young universe because the Bible says it.  Frankly and openly.  But there is nothing in real science to contradict that.  There is nothing that will make me change my belief.

Nye: You CAN prove the age of the earth using observations.  Ham thinks everyone should take his word for it.  His vision of a book translated into English.  How does he know that life cannot come from something that is not alive?

Question 11: For Nye: Is there room for God in science?

Nye: Billions of people are religious and yet embrace science.  Does anyone here not have a phone?  Anyone here who doesn’t use medicine?  Anyone who doesn’t eat?  Science makes life possible.  That has nothing to do with religion.  People can be religious, for example Francis Collins.  Ham is the exception, not the rule, for religious people.

Ham: God is necessary for science.  I love technology.  All of that has to do only with “observational” science.  God makes science possible, since God created logic and natural processes.  The Bible and science go hand in hand.

Question 12: for Ham: Should the entire Bible be taken literally?

Ham: “Literally” has many different interpretations.  I take the Bible “naturally,” i.e., in the sense in which it was intended.  One can’t insist on Old Testament rules as laws today.

Nye: Only certain parts of the Bible are to be taken literally?  Others are assumed to be just poetry?

Question 13: for Nye: Have you ever believed that evolution was accomplished through way of a higher power?

Nye: The idea of a higher power can’t be proven or disproven.  We can’t know some things.  But intelligent design is a different matter.  ID has a “fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of nature.”  The watchmaker analogy doesn’t hold.  Nature adds complexity through natural selections.  Better designs survive.

Ham: Are there any examples of new functions that arose from genetic material that was present?  It doesn’t happen.  The information has to have been already present.  Information is not created.  Just switched on or off.

Question 14: for Ham: Name one institution. . . other than a church . . . that uses . . . creationism to produce its product.

Ham: Any scientist uses creationism.  They all use the laws of logic, which only make sense in a God-created universe.  Otherwise, how can we count on natural law if we don’t assume an all-powerful creator?  This is the only way to raise a generation of innovative youth.  Teach them to trust natural laws created by God.  Plus, creationist scientists publish in secular peer-reviewed journals.

Nye: Creationism does NOT have a predictive quality.  A Biblical worldview is only shared by a few people. What about everyone else?  Were they condemned?

Question 15: for Nye: If evolution says that humans are getting smarter, what about smart people in the past?

Nye: Wait: that is not evolution.  It does not mean that people are getting smarter.  Natural selection does not mean the best.  It means those that fit in the best.  The right germ could kill millions.  No matter how smart.  Those who are resistant will survive, not those that are smartest.

Ham: Evolution says that some fish will lose their sight.  That’s not an improvement.  Evolution never provides new information, new function.

Question 16: LAST QUESTION: for both: What is the one thing. . . upon which you base your belief?

Ham: Easy.  The Bible.  Salvation relies upon it.  Test it for yourself.  Look at the evidence.  It all proves what the Bible says.  God can prove it to you, too, if you seek after Him.

Nye: I believe in the process we call science.  It is always a process of discovery.  It is a process of always seeking new answers.  We can all do it.  We are all seekers after knowledge.  Closing point: if we abandon science, we will lose out to other countries.  The USA must embrace science education.

______________________________________________________________________________

You can see the whole thing at debatelive.org for several days.

I’m going to bed.  Emotionally exhausted.  I’ll offer some thoughts soon on this debate.  In the meantime, thanks to all for playing along.  Please let us know what you thought.

  • Did one side come out on top?
  • Did anything surprise you?
  • If you started the debate strongly on one side or the other, what was the strongest argument you heard from the other side?  What drove you bonkers?

 

63 Comments
by Adam Laats on February 4, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on February 4, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/02/04/time-for-ham-on-nye/

Join ILYBYGTH for the Debate

You know you’re going to watch the debate tomorrow between young-earth creationist Ken Ham and science popularizer Bill Nye.  So why not join us as we live-blog throughout the event?

It will be streamed live at 7 PM New York time and will be found at debatelive.org.

We will offer live commentary and invite readers’ comments as the debate moves along.

We’ll be especially interested to see what sorts of arguments each speaker will bring out.  As we’ve discussed before, this debate might have the effect of imposing a limited definition on the meanings of “creationism.”  But will it?  Watch it with us and let’s see.

2 Comments
by Adam Laats on February 3, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on February 3, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/02/03/join-ilybygth-for-the-debate/

Registration Is Open!

You are invited.

In a few weeks, Binghamton University’s Graduate School of Education will be hosting a terrific event.  Documentarian Trey Kay will be sharing his new radio documentary, “The Long Game: Texas’ Ongoing Battle for the Direction of the Classroom.”  You probably remember Trey from his award-winning documentary about the textbook battle in West Virginia, 1974-1975.  In his new work, Trey explores the themes so close to the hearts of ILYBYGTH.  Should schools teach creationism?  Should they teach sex?  If so, how?  And what sorts of history should public-school students learn?  Should students be taught that America is awesome?  Or that the United States has some skeletons in its closet?  There has been no place more interesting than Texas to see these politics in action.

long game

After the listening session, Trey will offer a few comments.  He’ll be joined by the world-famous historian Jonathan Zimmerman of NYU.  ILYBYGTH readers will likely know about Zimmerman’s books, including especially his seminal work Whose America.  In addition, BU faculty member Matt McConn will say a few words.  McConn is new to New York, fresh from a long career as a teacher and school administrator in Houston.

There will even be cookies.

So please come on down if you’re in the Upstate area.  It will take place on Thursday, February 27, at 6 PM, in room G-008 in Academic Building A, on the beautiful main campus of Binghamton University.

We’d love to have you.  The event is free and open to all, but registration is required.  To register, please go to the BU registration site.

4 Comments
by Adam Laats on February 1, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible and Prayer in the Classroom, Child Parent State, Evolution/Creation, Freedom & the Free Market, Schools in Black and White, Teaching Sex and Sexuality, Tradition in the Classroom
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on February 1, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/02/01/registration-is-open/

Charter Schools SHOULD Be Religious

H/T CS, JS, TK

Thanks to alert colleagues, I’ve been following the great series of articles in Slate about creationism and charter schools.  Most recently, we find a map of charter schools that seem to be teaching creationism.  According to this survey by Chris Kirk, plenty of tax-funded charter schools across the nation are teaching creationism.

But is there anything wrong with charter schools teaching creationism?

Don’t get me wrong: I think all students should learn the best science, even if they go to non-tax-funded schools or homeschools.  That should not be a legal requirement, but rather simply a goal for common education and citizenship.  In traditional public schools, we should demand a rigorously pluralist ethos.  No student from any religion or non-religion (or race, or gender identity, or etc.) should ever feel squeezed out due to his or her background.  And I don’t dispute Kirk’s accusation in this Slate piece that lots of charter schools are likely teaching creationism.  As Kirk puts it,

If you live in any of these states, there’s a good chance your tax money is helping to convince some hapless students that evolution (the basis of all modern biological science, supported by everything we know about geology, genetics, paleontology, and other fields) is some sort of highly contested scientific hypothesis as credible as “God did it.”

But let’s step back a moment and examine the real legal, educational, and constitutional issues here.  Let’s not forget that charter schools were created in order to offer more authentic diversity of educational models.  Should that diversity not include religious diversity?

According to a note in the Yale Law Journal a few years back, the proper line between religion and publicly funded charter schools is not as clear cut as journalists and policy-makers often assume.  In that 2008 piece, Benjamin Siracusa Hillman argues that charter schools ought to be allowed or even encouraged to include religious practices and beliefs.

Recent US Supreme Court decisions, Hillman argues (see esp. page 576), support a notion that school districts may legitimately include religious schools without violating the famous 1970 “Lemon Test.”  If a state or school district has a secular purpose in setting up schools—including even religious schools—those schools are more likely to pass constitutional muster.  The goal must not be to serve only one sort of religion.  Nor must school districts hope to exclude non-religious students, or students from other religious backgrounds.  Religious schools may fit into a broad charter school/voucher school network, the Court has suggested, as long as the first purpose is to improve education for all.

Hillman also analyzes the decision of a Michigan court in which parents sued a charter school for cramming religion into their publicly funded school.  The school, according to this federal court ruling, did no wrong in including religion, since it did not force students to engage in religious practice or adopt religious beliefs.

So can publicly funded charter schools teach creationism?  Or, even more provocatively, SHOULD charter school networks work to include schools that teach creationism?

The recent string of Slate articles implies that such practice ought to raise alarm bells.  But if we view creationism as an expression of a religious belief, it seems the rule is not quite so cut-and-dried.  Public school districts have much more leeway to include religious schools than many people seem to think.  Such ignorance can be politically useful.  For example, no one will mobilize to fight against teaching that might be perfectly legal and even desirable.  But some sections of our chattering classes might have better luck with breathless exposes of religion in publicly funded schools.

 

 

 

4 Comments
by Adam Laats on January 31, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation, Freedom & the Free Market
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on January 31, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/01/31/charter-schools-should-be-religious/

Creation Debate Update: Squeezing Out the Middle

Forget the Super Bowl.  Next Tuesday, February 4th, at 7 PM New York time, we’ll all be watching the debate between young-earth creationist Ken Ham and science popularizer Bill Nye.  It looks as if Nye and Ham agree on their goals: squeezing out the middle.  Both debaters want to draw attention to young-earth creationism, and their agreement threatens to exacerbate the divide between evolution and creationism.

The debate host, Answers In Genesis’ Creation Museum, will be streaming the action live for all of us to see.

Ken Ham has suggested that the debate might be a perfect learning opportunity for teachers and students in public school science classes.  From Ham’s point of view, this debate might be a chance to reach students who might not otherwise be aware that mainstream evolutionary science is full of holes.

Bill Nye, too, has explained his reasons for engaging in this debate.  In these pages and elsewhere, evolution-education mavens have wondered if this debate only legitimizes the dead science of the young-earth creationists.  As “The Science Guy” explained, “I don’t think I’m going to win Mr. Ham over.”

So why debate?  Nye says, “I want to show people that this belief is still among us. . . . It finds its way onto school boards in the United States. . . . I’m not going in as a scientist as such . . . I’m going in as a reasonable man.”

So it seems both debaters have the same goal.  Both men want to make people aware of the claims of young-earth creationism.  From Ham’s perspective, such awareness will help keep smart young Christians from leaving the faith.  From Nye’s point of view, if people know what creationism is, they will help fight against it politically.

With such agreement, it seems likely both debaters might succeed.  This debate might elevate the profile of young-earth creationism.  One casualty, it seems, will be other visions of creationism.  Ken Ham’s brand of young-earth creationism, after all, is only one extreme form.  Many religious people believe that humans and life were created at some point by God.  But they do not believe that they must discard the findings of modern science.  The folks at BioLogos, for example, insist that fervent Biblical Christianity can go hand-in-hand with mainstream evolutionary science.  And “old-earth” creationists such as Hugh Ross agree that God did it all, but they don’t insist that he did it only 6,000 years ago.

If this debate succeeds—at least according to the goals of both Ken Ham and Bill Nye—those “other” creationist belief systems will likely get squeezed even further out of the conversation.  That’s a shame.  Too many observers already equate “creationism” with young-earth creationism.  It may make for more lively debates, but it makes for less productive and civil conversations.

 

6 Comments
by Adam Laats on January 31, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on January 31, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/01/31/creation-debate-update-squeezing-out-the-middle/

Faith & Physics, Part III

ILYBYGTH is happy to continue our series of guest posts from Anna.  In her first post, Anna described her shift from creation science to mainstream science.  In her second, she described her early education in the world of conservative Christian fundamentalism.  Anna blogs about her experiences leaving the fundamentalist subculture at Signs You Are a Sheltered Evangelical.  She holds an M.Sc. degree in Astroparticle Physics and currently lives in Virginia with her fiance Chelsey and a cat named Cat.  Good news: She has recently been accepted into a PhD program in physics at a top research university in the United States. 

Why is Creationism so appealing?

Last installment, I spent some time discussing my Creationist curriculum.  Through five years, I learned science alongside Young Earth Creation apologetics.  No small amount of time was spent on discussing the evidence for young earth, explaining the Grand Canyon as a result of a global flood, reinterpreting the geological record, and more.  Over and over, it was repeated and reassured that Creationism was a viable theory based on the evidence alone.  Yes, the Bible made assertions regarding the origin of the world, but all of the text books and apologists emphasized that the theory could stand on its own merits and that even atheists should be able to see the evidence and agree to it.

And yet, when it came down to it, the evidence was truly secondary.  On some level, I think that the most devoted creation “experts” still realize that Young Earth might not stand up to honest scrutiny.  This is why almost the entire YEC battle is fought for children.  Creationists have already lost in the arena of mainstream science.  They can’t influence people there.  But children are easy to influence.  Children are much more trusting.  And if they start kids with these theories early, perhaps they can build walls around them that will keep them there.

And they did.  There were walls built around our minds to ensure that we never wandered too far from the correct doctrine.  Creation apologists were very clear: even if you find yourself doubting the evidence for 6-day creation… even if you realize that secular science has the more compelling arguments… you CAN’T change your beliefs.  You can’t, because the creation story in the Bible is the Word of God, while evolutionary science is the word of men.  To question a literal interpretation of Genesis is to question God himself.

For a young conservative Christian homeschooler, this is the ultimate threat.  While most YEC advocates do not claim that salvation is dependent on disregarding modern science, this is hardly much better.  Conservative Christian culture can be surprisingly cut-throat, and demonstrating a lack of faith in God can be paramount to social and spiritual suicide.  Such people were a by-word among my creationist peers… the “lesser” Christians that would probably lose their faith if they were allowed to go to college.

Indeed, this argument was ultimately more compelling to me than all the evidence that was offered for a global flood, the evidence for “design”, or the convoluted explanations of how the universe could have been created 6000 years ago despite the fact that distant galaxies are visible from earth.  Sure, I absorbed all that information and I believed it.  But I quickly realized that my evidence probably looked puny compared to the vast amounts of data and research in evolutionary biology and cosmology.  But I refused to back down, because I was a Good Christian.  I would not trust flawed humans over God.  I would not cave in to scientific “persecution.”  I would not believe, no matter how much evidence I was given, because to do so, would be to spit in the face of my savior.  The guilt and the fear kept me securely in the Creationist’s camp.

Now, being sheltered and homeschooled probably made me especially susceptible to this sort of fear and guilt.  But I am certain that I am not alone in my experiences.  The fact that YEC apologists place so much evidence on this argument leads me to believe that this fear and guilt is quite intentional.  It is the surest way to make sure that their school of thought survives the opposing evidence.  If you can’t make your case with facts, make it with fear.

To be fair, I’ve seen a little bit of these sorts of tactics used against Creationists in mainstream science communities.  For example, I can’t agree with the claim that “a Creationist cannot contribute to science” and the shame and guilt tactics that this statement employs makes me very uncomfortable.  It echoes a lot of the indoctrination I received from Creationists.  I do think that being a young earth believer limits the contributions that you can make to science, but there are many, many fields of research that do not require a background in evolutionary biology and as such, these sorts of blanket statements are deceptive at best.

All the same, I cannot fault scientists for being openly frustrated with science deniers.  No theory should have to be shored up with threats of spiritual damage and guilt over betraying a deity.  The thought is almost laughable.  However, until secular scientists begin to appreciate how influential these arguments can be, they cannot fully understand why young earth creation has such appeal to many… and why it can control even very intelligent and learned people.  Many people do not deny science because they are ignorant or stupid, but because they feel like they have no other choice.

But there’s an up-side to this.  We can change.  And those who accept science can help.  Unfortunately, the attitudes that many people display towards science deniers is not helpful.  In the next installment, I’ll try to delve a little into some of my interactions with some of my secular peers and explain which ones helped me on my journey and which ones set me back.

5 Comments
by Adam Laats on January 30, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Child Parent State, Evolution/Creation
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on January 30, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/01/30/faith-physics-part-iii/

Kopplin, Creationism, and Liberal Book Burnings

A network of charter schools in Texas uses religious textbooks.  Bad religious textbooks.

That’s the accusation leveled last week by anti-creationism activist Zack Kopplin in the pages of Slate.

For anyone who has looked at the textbooks cranked out by conservative religious presses, as I have, the charges sound true.  But does this sort of expose rely too heavily on shock value?  Does it really tell us anything about what goes on in those charter schools?  Or does it rely on the dangerous mentality of the book burner?

Kopplin’s investigation uncovered the dodgy content of books used by Responsive Education, a network of charter schools that claims 65 schools and a plan to open more in the coming year.  Kopplin, a young but seasoned activist, found textbooks rife with creationist-friendly ideas.  Moreover, the textbooks promote a religious vision of history and repeatedly promulgate half-truths and lies as historic fact.  The books take a questionable tone about homosexuality and seem to embrace a distressingly patriarchal vision of proper family life.  Worst of all, Kopplin argues, these textbooks are used in public schools, schools that ought to be open and welcoming to all students, not just religious conservatives.  These slanted textbooks are peddling fake science, bad history, and sectarian “values,” and they’re using tax money to do it.

Let me repeat: Kopplin’s charges ring true to me.  I agree that public schools must not push theology.  But as I finish up my current book manuscript about the history of conservative school activism in the twentieth century, I can’t help but notice the disturbing echoes of Kopplin’s crusade.  His anti-textbook campaign seems to revive the worst elements of wartime book burning.

Sound outlandish?  Let me offer some specific examples.

First and most worrisome, Kopplin relies on the tried-but-false McCarthyite tactic of guilt by association.  In his article, Kopplin points out that some ResponsiveEd schools might assign readings from the Patriots’ History of the United States, a skewed and partisan book.  To discredit the book, Kopplin notes that the book is beloved by conservative blabbermouth Glenn Beck.

More troubling, Kopplin tars ResponsiveEd schools with all the sins of every right-wing theocrat with whom they can be associated.  Consider, for example, Kopplin’s takedown of Oklahoma businessman and curricular contributor Tom Hill.  Hill, Kopplin charges,

is a follower of Bill Gothard, a minister who runs the Institute in Basic Life Principles, a Christian organization that teaches its members to incorporate biblical principles into daily life. IBLP is considered a cult by some of its former followers. Gothard developed character qualities associated with a list of “49 General Commands of Christ” that Hill adopted for his character curriculum. Hill then removed Gothard’s references to God and Bible verses and started marketing the curriculum to public schools and other public institutions.

The values taught by Responsive Ed can often be found word for word on Gothard’s website. The Responsive Ed unit on genetics includes “Thoroughness: Knowing what factors will diminish the effectiveness of my work or words if neglected.” The only difference is that Gothard’s website also adds “Proverbs 18:15” after the quote.

What does this really prove?  That some of the origins of ResponsiveEd’s curriculum can be tied to conservative evangelical Protestants?  Is that illegal?  Is that even worrisome?  After all, taken another way, Kopplin’s accusation can be taken as proof that ResponsiveEd’s curriculum has been DE-Biblicized.

This sort of guilt-by-association has a terrifying history in American educational and political history.  Too often, left-leaning or liberal groups earned labels of “subversion” by association with communist thinkers or organizations.  Consider, for instance, the widely circulated “spider-web chart” used by patriotic activists in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s.  Any alleged association with leftist organizations, the chart accused, meant that organizations must not be trusted.

Image Source: Women's and Social Movements in the U.S.

Image Source: Women’s and Social Movements in the U.S.

In the late 1930s, a conservative campaign took off against a set of social-studies textbooks by left-leaning author Harold Rugg.  Time and again, those accusations were based on these guilt-by-association tactics.  Since Rugg taught at Teachers College Columbia, it was alleged, since he was a member of the Frontier Thinkers intellectual group, and since some members of that group had made statements or editorial decisions friendly to communism or Soviet Russia, Rugg was charged with treasonous intent.  His books were charged with all manner of subversive crime.  Just as anti-Rugg activists swung too wildly against Rugg’s books, so Kopplin seems over-ready to ban ResponsiveEd books based on questionable associations.

Another parallel between Kopplin’s article and earlier book-burning crusades is that Kopplin’s charges do not have much to do with actual classroom practice.  As Kopplin admits, he never actually witnessed the teaching in ResponsiveEd schools.  Rather, he relates that one classroom he looked at had the distinctive set up of an Accelerated Christian Education classroom.  Kopplin cites ILYBYGTH friend and guest writer Jonny Scaramanga as evidence that such classrooms teach terrible Bible-based schlock.

But here’s the problem: just as conservative book-burners in the 1940s gave too little thought to the ways Rugg’s textbooks might actually be used, so Kopplin does not offer any evidence about the actual goings-on in ResponsiveEd classrooms.  Anyone who has spent any time teaching knows that textbooks do not dictate classroom practice.  Take the most obvious example: What should we make of public-school classrooms that use the Bible as curriculum?  As religion scholar Mark Chancey has argued recently, the Bible can and should be taught.  But HOW it is taught makes all the difference.

I’m not saying that the ResponsiveEd curricular materials are wonderful.  But I am saying that jumping to conclusions about the practices at any school based mainly on textbooks is a fundamental mistake.

This is getting long, but here is one other creepy similarity between Kopplin’s article and earlier book-burning campaigns.  Like earlier campaigns, Kopplin’s charges have been passed along uncritically by allies seeking to discredit ResponsiveEd.  Intelligent, well-meaning critics such as Diane Ravitch, the Texas Freedom Network, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State have trumpeted the conclusions of Kopplin’s expose.

None of these liberal organizations seems troubled by Kopplin’s sketchy evidence or guilt-by-association tactics.  As an historian who has spent the better part of the last few years stuck in the anti-communist hysteria of the 1930s and 1940s, this knee-jerk boosterism alarms me.  For many patriotic book-burners in the 1940s, Elizabeth Dilling’s The Red Network served as a similar sort of convenient sourcebook for denunciation.  Too many conservative activists—even intelligent, well-meaning ones—repeated outlandish charges and baseless accusations from Dilling’s book.  The fact that a textbook author such as Harold Rugg showed up in Dilling’s pages served as proof positive for many school activists that his books must not be allowed in America’s public schools.

Creepiest of all, Kopplin’s language often echoes almost verbatim the language of 1940s book-burners.  For example, Kopplin engages in a sinister sort of hermeneutic when he says the following: “Some of Responsive Ed’s lessons appear harmless at first, but their origin is troubling.”

In other words, Kopplin admits that the books themselves might not be so bad, but since they came from conservative religious sources, we must automatically attack them.  This smacks too much of what political scientist Michael Rogin has described as “political demonology.”[1]

Consider some of the similar language from the 1930s/1940s anti-Rugg textbook fight.  One of the leaders of that anti-book battle, R. Worth Shumaker of the American Legion, told a correspondent that the dangers of the Rugg books only became clear if one went “back of the scenes.”  Reading the books themselves, Shumaker admitted, made them seem bland and harmless.  But once an earnest researcher discovered Rugg’s leftist connections, the slant of the textbooks became obvious.

Another American Legion activist agreed.  Hamilton Hicks admitted in a 1941 article that “intelligent people” could read Rugg’s book and find nothing wrong with them.  “Dr. Rugg,” Hicks accused, “is far too adept a propagandist to disclose his real purpose in any one textbook.”[2]  Just as Zack Kopplin warns that the ResponsiveEd textbooks might seem harmless until we understand their origins, so anti-Rugg activists admitted that Rugg textbooks might seem fine until their sinister backstory was uncovered.

We verge from activism to hysteria when we denounce textbooks for reasons other than the textbooks themselves.  If textbooks seem harmless, the first appropriate conclusion is that the textbooks are likely harmless.

So what is a liberal to do?  Kopplin makes an important point: public schools ought not cram dead science and bad history down students’ throats.  As organizations such as Texas Freedom Network have done, this situation calls for more rigorous examination.  What really goes on in ResponsiveEd schools?  They should not be allowed to use tax dollars to teach sectarian religion and false facts.  It is important for all of us to remember, however, the profound costs of over-hasty accusations.  Calling for book burnings is never an appropriate tactic.

Kopplin has made some serious charges.  So far, however, those charges have not been backed up by adequate proof.  More is at stake here than just one charter-school network.  If we veer into hysteria rather than activism, we repeat the worst mistakes of our history.

[1] Michael Paul Rogin, “Ronald Reagan,” The Movie and Other Episodes in Political Demonology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987), xiii.

[2] Hamilton Hicks, “Ours to Reason Why,” American Legion Magazine (May, 1941): 6, 51.

5 Comments
by Adam Laats on January 23, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible and Prayer in the Classroom, Evolution/Creation, Freedom & the Free Market
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on January 23, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/01/23/kopplin-creationism-and-liberal-book-burnings/

Save the Date!

Keep your evening free on Thursday, February 27th.  Here on the beautiful campus of Binghamton University in sunny Binghamton, New York, we’ll be hosting a listening session and panel discussion about Trey Kay’s new radio documentary, “The Long Game: Texas’ Ongoing Battle for the Direction of the Classroom.”

Readers may remember Trey Kay’s earlier award-winning radio documentary, “The Great Textbook War.”  In that piece, Trey explored the 1974-1975 battle over schooling and textbooks in Kanawha County, West Virginia.  In that fight–a fight that is also the subject of a chapter in my upcoming book–conservatives worried that a new textbook series presented students with perverted values and distorted grammar.

In his new documentary, Trey looks at ongoing ideological battles in Texas.  As filmmakers such as Scott Thurman and activists such as Zack Kopplin have demonstrated recently, there has been no better field for exploring cultural conflicts in education than the great state of Texas.

The details of our upcoming February 27 event are not yet finalized, but the general plan is clear.  We’ll be listening to “The Long Game,” then Trey and NYU’s electrifying historian Jon Zimmerman will offer a few comments, followed by a general discussion and Q & A.  I’ll post more details as they come available.

2 Comments
by Adam Laats on January 20, 2014  •  Permalink
Posted in Bible and Prayer in the Classroom, Child Parent State, Evolution/Creation, Freedom & the Free Market, Schools in Black and White, Teaching Sex and Sexuality, Tradition in the Classroom
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Posted by Adam Laats on January 20, 2014

https://iloveyoubutyouregoingtohell.org/2014/01/20/save-the-date/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »