A really, really poor argument by a creationist is to assert that the beauty we find in the world or the universe is proof of a Creator - the God of Genesis. While needlessly creating a universe so immeasurably large that it dwarfs our itty-bitty pale blue dot in scale by comparison, this Creator went out of his way to make us nice stuff to look at and enjoy! Rainbows, flowers, butterflies, nebulas – invisible to the naked eye without the orbiting Hubble telescope, and children are all cited as incontrovertible evidence of this sublime, graphic artist.

This argument by a creationist seeks to focus our attention on the nice stuff, pulling at our heart-strings and appealing to our emotions. But why stop there? We know what beauty is from what is not beautiful. While it is delightfully easy and a joy to cite the good things in life, it is quite discomforting to face the things in life that are not beautiful, but ugly and just plain indifferent to our existence.

Very well. Let's talk about some of the ugly things and ask the question - just how evil and sadistic this designer is?

How do you explain this?

And what about the myriad other birth defects that affect our children and families?

• 1,040,865: congenital heart defects
• 323,904: neural tube defects, such as spina bifida
• 307,897:  haemoglobin disorders, such as thalassemia and sickle cell
• 217,293: Down Syndrome
• 177,032: G6PD enzyme deficiency

In fact, there are almost 8 MILLION children who are born with serious genetic birth defects.

Surely, in proximity to all of His creation, humans are more important than animals. He created us in His image, giving us souls, and took that same form to rescue us from Himself in his divine plan. Therefore, we must be of some importance.

No. The evidence says otherwise.

In the never ending battle to bring religiosity into the public school, the NYT reports:

Now a battle looms in Texas over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes on three words. None of them are "creationism" or "intelligent design" or even "creator."

The words are "strengths and weaknesses."

PZ Meyers, on his blog Phraryngula rebutts with:

....and when they talk about "strengths and weaknesses", they intend to overlook the strengths of modern biology and focus on imaginary weaknesses invented by ignorant creationists."

The problem is, even if evolution proves to be false, the answer is not necessarily intelligent design. There could be other, natural forces at work, so the basic tactic that a creationist uses is to bifurcate between two limited choices. People like easy answers. People don't, by and large, like to think over choices and suspend judgement where it's okay that natural ignorance presides.

Adherence to Biblical literalism, or religious dogmatism damages peoples abiltity to reason, even if they do have a science degree. Take the new rangling over the teaching of evolution and biology standards in Texas School and the statements from Ken Mercer:

“There are issues in the evolutionary process that have been proven wrong,” he said. “Evolution is not fact. Evolution is a theory and, as such, cannot be proven. Students need to be able to jump to their own conclusions.”

Of course, the conclusion that Mercer wants a student to make is God.

Again, this is a lie. There is plenty of evidence that substantiates evolution and we have plenty of transitional fossils, and of fossil DNA which is decidedly conclusive. The only valid refutation of evolution must be made from science which shows some other natural mechanism. Supernatural explanations have no testable merit, and even if there was some super space alien that designed us, that alien would have evolved from primitive lifeforms too. Again, all ID can do is argue from ignorance.

Besides, we went through all of this in the Dover trial. Mercer's positioning of "theory" effectively makes any pseudo-science a scientific theory.

Behe, of the Discovery Institute, under questioning in the Dover trial revealed:

Question: Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

Behe: Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Question: The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

Behe: That is correct.

Question: But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

Behe: Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Behe makes one long special plead and can not argue against astrology as in turn that would be an argument against ID. Furthermore, evolution is not a theory of life. It is a theory on origins of species.

The only thing Mercer will accomplish is another lawsuit which will end up costing the school board money.

What you are about to read will play a role in determining the future of the world. Yes! No kidding! Hyperbole you say? I'll explain in a moment why not.

Introductions first. Hello, I am MC Pickard, a new community blogger at Lake Country Living.com. I've lurked on these blogs for months now, reading, but never participating. I decided to change that, because there is much that is not being said and much that should be said on this forum. I would like to add my voice.

So just how will my blog at Lake Country Living.com play a part in determining the future of the world? By the pseudeoscholarship that I hope to provide. What is pseudeoscholarship and who are pseudoscholars? Benard M. Patton, in his book, Truth Knowledge or Just Plain Bull, observes that the pseudoscholar "controls the church and state, the educational systems, the press, and the economy." And just who are these psedoscholars? It is us.We are not the specialist. And if you ever attempted to read an abstract in JAMA, you know what I mean. Despite this, concepts do trickle out, like Einstein's Theory of Relativity (ToR). Other than acknowledgment of the iconic equation of E=mc2, do you think the majority of people really understand the wider and deeper implications of the ToR and how it came to eclipse Newtonian physics? Probably not. (I don't pretend to either.)

Likewise, with the public understanding of the Theory of Evolution (ToE), Americans are generally misinformed. In 2005, the school board of Dover, PA lost a definitive ruling to teach Intelligent Design (ID) along side of the ToE in science class as a full-fledged science. This overt redefining of creationism as a science not only had implications as to what we mean when we think or practice religion, but how we think and practice science as well. Reason won the day with a solid defense of the ToE, and by uncovering the motives behind the ID movement, thus reaffirming the separation clause of the First Amendment. Creationism has reformulated its attack however, instead of positioning ID and creationism as science, ironically, as an appeal to academic freedom. One such bill is currently working its way through legislation in South Carolina and elsewhere.

Why do court cases like Dover happen? There are numerous reasons of course, but if I had to pick just one, I would say basic human credulity. Reason is one sure hallmark of our species, but we seem to constantly fail in the practice of it. No more apparent  when cherished beliefs are perceived to be threatened. We tend to accept easy answers that confirm our biases, or that comport to an imparted worldview. While Americans are no more credulous than anyone else and public acceptance for the ToE is at a pathetic all-time low, we are still the world's premier superpower industrial society. (For instance, take a look at this study of high school biology students and teachers attitudes toward the ToE and literal, Biblical creationism in the classroom.)

Although, I do condemn the Dover board for their actions, its hard for me to lay blame solely on them. The Discovery Institute (DI) and likewise partisans are just as complicit. The DI, in the late 90's, issued the Wedge Document (Discovery Institute, 1998; Forrest and Gross) to "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." In order to do, as Barbara Forester explains that the goal of the Wedge Strategy was "to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science—and in the minds of policymakers." This was to be accomplished, not through the scientific method and serious peer review study, but with public relations. Meaning, the alleged controversy over the ToE became a self-fulfilling, well-funded, manufactured public controversy abrogating the magisteria of religion with the magisteria of science while undermining philosophical naturalism that science is predicated upon.

Of course, one could argue what the Dover School Board did was a victimless crime. But our beliefs do inform our actions. No more so than the case of Madeline Neumann of Wausau, who died because her parents ignored a noticeable and non-fatal diabetic condition for faith healing by prayer. Likewise, the honor killings of Jasbir and Sunita in Southern India, or the murder of Rand Abdel-Qader in Southern Iraq for a teenage crush. These are tragic, criminal cases against the basic rights of humanity and freedom of conscious, and a logical consequence of these religious belief systems. I don't want to single out the religious only in this regard, as there just as many examples of secular abuses based upon adherence to political dogmas. It's important to recognize that these crimes are based upon irrational worldviews, even though those beliefs are coherent within their own framework.

Let me reiterate, our beliefs do inform our decisions and our actions, and do have real world implications.

So where does this leave the pseudoscholar? Does this mean, that as a society of pseudoscholars that we can not determine the likely-hood of claims and make reasonable, sound decisions regarding their veracity? Yes, we can. Does this also mean that bona fide scholars always get it right? No. The Sokol Hoax and Piltdown Man, exposes just how fallible we humans can be. We are just as susceptible to confirmation bias, errors in reasoning, pseudeo-science, and woo just like the scientific and academic practitioners of our societies. What is important is the methodology by which we use to ferret out specious arguments and claims, like Piltdown. After all, it was science (a methodology) and not creationism that exposed the Piltdown hoax.

I am a pseudoscholar just like yourself, and now you probably now have some idea about the positions I hold dear. Undoubtedly, the values I advocate for will be of great irritation and polemical to some. Confronting our collective myths always incurs outrage. However, I am prepared for the inevitable denouncements and the numerous Pascal's Wagers that I am sure to be peppered with.

So why bother? I deeply care about reality, that is, holding on to as many true beliefs as opposed to false ones. It is by hard work, self-examination, and by a rational methodology that we can do the right kind of things for our society. Although, we've evolved as an altruistic species, we are still an epistemologically immature one. In time, hopefully, we will transcended superstition, credulity, and cruelty as our knowledge of nature deepens and matures. It is my hope that my contribution, from an entirely under-represented view of American civic life, will add value to this public forum and where it matters most - locally. Therefore, I want to craft this blog to be educational, yet critical of current events, pseudo-science, religion, woo, and that of church and state entanglements.

Otherwise, I'm pretty much like yourself negotiating through the world and trying to get by as best I can. We are the masters of the future - let's try to be coherent as possible and make the future as great as possible.

Technorati Profile