Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

texas board of education

Texas BOE is a blight on this country

May 18th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

The Texas Board of Education, internationally known and mocked for its absurd battle against science, particularly evolution, has now worked over the social studies curriculum in a similar manner. They’ve been talking about it for awhile now… removing references to Thomas Jefferson and the like… but they finally too the vote and decided to go ahead with their plan to rewrite history in a way that more closely follows their strict ideological philosophy.

The New York Times reports on the vote and what it means. Since Texas is one of the largest textbook consumers, publishers tend to follow Texas guidelines on what to include in their books. What that means is that students in other parts of the country will possibly have to deal with the consequences of the Texas BOE’s ignorance.

The article mentions this influence, but also notes a bright spot.

The board, whose members are elected, has influence beyond Texas because the state is one of the largest buyers of textbooks. In the digital age, however, that influence has diminished as technological advances have made it possible for publishers to tailor books to individual states.

On one hand, it’s good that Texas won’t necessarily be foisting its idiocy onto the rest of the country. On the other hand, it’s a bit disconcerting that publishers would tailor their books to individual states. Does that mean that different states will teach a different “version” of history… or science… or math?

An interesting point of note about the Texas BOE is this (from the same article):

There were no historians, sociologists or economists consulted at the meetings, though some members of the conservative bloc held themselves out as experts on certain topics.

That fits the mentality of former board chairman Don McLeroy, who famously stated that someone needs to “stand up to these experts.” His thinking is fairly representative of the thinking of more than half the board. This is a group of right-wing, religious ideologues who want to force their twisted interpretation of reality onto our country’s children.

Some of the more disturbing quotes from the article follow.

The conservative members maintain that they are trying to correct what they see as a liberal bias among the teachers who proposed the curriculum. To that end, they made dozens of minor changes aimed at calling into question, among other things, concepts like the separation of church and state and the secular nature of the American Revolution.

“I reject the notion by the left of a constitutional separation of church and state,” said David Bradley, a conservative from Beaumont who works in real estate. “I have $1,000 for the charity of your choice if you can find it in the Constitution.”

Interestingly, his contingent’s idea of the United States being formed based on Christian principles and favoring Christianity is nowhere in the Constitution, so it seems a little hypocritical for him to accuse his opponents of making stuff up. At least the “separation of church and state” is a valid interpretation of the First Amendment. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about favoring Christianity.

Other changes seem aimed at tamping down criticism of the right. Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include “how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.” The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.

So they want McCarthy to be one of the good guys? Seriously?

Mavis B. Knight, a Democrat from Dallas, introduced an amendment requiring that students study the reasons “the founding fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring the government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion above all others.”

It was defeated on a party-line vote.

Wow. I’m wondering how David Bradley can justify that vote.

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

These people are ideologically twisted religious fundamentalists who have no business deciding education standards. Their own educations seem to be monumentally lacking in any sort of reality-based concepts, whether relating to science or history. Their sole goal seems to be to shove their narrow-minded, right-wing, self righteous religious zealotry down the throats of children. Their goal isn’t to provide a decent education.

Their goal is to self-perpetuate their divine ignorance.

Tom Tomorrow rounds up the crazy

Apr 1st, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Tom Tomorrow rounds up some denialist, right-wing, anti-science, creationist crazy… all in one comic.

This Modern World by Tom Tomorrow

Texas makes the USA sad… and ignorant

Mar 19th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

The Texas Board of Education is at it again. Having failed to achieve a complete victory in their efforts to instill their anti-science views on their children (and, by nature of their undue influence on the textbook publishing industry, the nation’s children), they’ve moved on… but not very far.

The new target is the history curriculum, onto which they want to slather their revisionist, right-wing coating of make-believe. You can read more about it from Phil Plait (and a multitude of others).

It’s absurd and they should know better… but they don’t. The influence Texas wields over textbook publishers makes the problem a national one and since it’s unlikely that the Texas BOE members in question will change their tune anytime soon, perhaps it would behoove us to look to textbook publishers instead.

Roger Ebert has the right idea and this quote is what spurred me to write about the issue.

Publishers with any pride would tell the Texas Board of Education to publish their own textbooks.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Hooray for Texas!

Mar 3rd, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Don McLeroy is no longer on the Texas Board of Education.

Congratulations, Texas. It’s a step in the right direction, though you’ve still got a long way to go.

Texas and The Flintstones

Feb 19th, 2010
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

Most of Rationality Now’s readers are probably quite familiar with the influence Texas has on our country’s textbooks… and the mind-numbing inanity of some Texas Board of Education members, like Don McLeroy, who wield that influence. Fortunately, there are some school board members who have their feet firmly planted in reality, but they’re in the minority (still?) and they’ve got a continuous battle on their hands to keep Texas education standards from drowning in an anti-intellectual, anti-science, and anti-reality flood of woo.

Sadly, they get far too little support from the general population of their state, at least according to a University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll. 51% of Texans surveyed disagree with the statement that humans developed from earlier species. 22% say that they believe life existed in its present form since the beginning of time. Almost a third (a third!) believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time… or, as A Simple Prop says, a third of Texans apparently think The Flintstones is a documentary.

That a horrifyingly large number of people who blatantly reject scientific facts in favor of ancient mythology.

Perhaps that’s not fair. Perhaps they aren’t rejecting facts. Perhaps they are ignorant of the facts. Perhaps they’ve never spent the time to do any actual research (apart from reading the bible, which doesn’t really count). Perhaps they’ve just been taught that the bible is all they need to know and so haven’t been exposed to the actual facts.

So perhaps it’s not an arrogant rejection of facts. Perhaps it’s just an ignorance of facts. However, I would wager that the ignorance is, in most cases, suffused with a strong bunker mentality built of bibles and hallelujahs… a nearly impenetrable wall designed to keep out any reality that contradicts the bronze and iron age dogma so prevalent in Texas.

However, arrogance or ignorance, it’s a disgrace that people who reject reality have any influence whatsoever in the education of our children and the running of our government. It’s bad enough when the influence is on a local level, but when that influence is able to reach every corner of our country, as it is with Texas education standards and textbooks, it approaches a level of crippling absurdity that threatens to flush our country’s intellectual integrity into the sewers.

…if it hasn’t been flushed already.

More Trouble for Texas Education

Jul 15th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
No comments yet

schooldesk Texas just hosted a long, drawn-out debate about science standards (specifically pertaining to biology and evolution) which resulted in a mixed bag of results. Some major points were made in favor of actual science while other points in favor of non-science (ie… creationism) were slipped in as minor addendums to the policy.

It seems that the shenanigans are now heading over to the subject of American history.

Outside “experts” (quoted because obviously some of them aren’t) reviewing the Social Studies curriculum in Texas evidently want to make changes in the history classes. As this article in the Wall Street Journal states:

Three reviewers, appointed by social conservatives, have recommended revamping the K-12 curriculum to emphasize the roles of the Bible, the Christian faith and the civic virtue of religion in the study of American history. Two of them want to remove or de-emphasize references to several historical figures who have become liberal icons, such as César Chávez and Thurgood Marshall.

This is beyond absurdity. These are people who are obviously driven by a fundamentalist agenda that want to insert their religious dogma into, it seems, every aspect of public education in an attempt to force it down the throats of our children. Not only do they want to indoctrinate their own children with their baseless beliefs, but they want to indoctrinate everyone else’s children, too.

There are some voices of reason involved in the issue, fortunately.

But the emphasis on Christianity as a driving force is disputed by some historians, who focus on the economic motivation of many colonists and the fractured views of religion among the Founding Fathers. “There appears to me too much politics in some of this,” said Lybeth Hodges, a professor of history at Texas Woman’s University and another of the curriculum reviewers.

However, if the science debates were any indication, some on the Texas Board of Education (think McLeroy, who thankfully is no longer the board chair) think that there needs to be someone who stands up to these real experts. It seems they think we can’t have experts making determinations about issues relating to their fields. That would evidently be crazytown.

In that one little WSJ article, there is so much infuriating ignorance. Here’s a small sampling.

  • The conservative reviewers say they believe that children must learn that America’s founding principles are biblical. For instance, they say the separation of powers set forth in the Constitution stems from a scriptural understanding of man’s fall and inherent sinfulness, or “radical depravity,” which means he can be governed only by an intricate system of checks and balances.
  • “The foundational principles of our country are very biblical…. That needs to come out in the textbooks.”
  • “We’re in an all-out moral and spiritual civil war for the soul of America, and the record of American history is right at the heart of it,” said Rev. Peter Marshall, a Christian minister and one of the reviewers appointed by the conservative camp.
  • Reviewer David Barton suggests swapping out “republican” for “democratic” in teaching materials. As he explains: “We don’t pledge allegiance to the flag and the democracy for which it stands.”

Evidently, David Barton is ignorant, not just of American history, but of the different between “democratic” when used to refer to a form of government and “Democratic” when used to refer to a political party.

This nonsense has to stop. Texas, because of its size, has a huge influence on the textbook market, and the crass, ignorant, fundamentalist proselytizing by these right-wing school board members and their advisors is hurting not just children in Texas, but children across the country. I wrote recently about how education is the key to overcoming theistic intrusion into our government, schools, and private lives… but I specified that it needs to be real education, not this kind of god-soaked, ideological make-believe that some of the Texas BOE are proposing.

Texans should be up in arms over this.

(thanks to Hemant at The Friendly Atheist)

Judging theories on their merits

Jun 8th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

Darwin's Tree of Life DrawingIn Friday’s The Daily News Online in Batavia, NY, John Cantillion wrote a letter to the editor in response to a piece by Reverend Fred Jensen a few days before. I didn’t read the original piece, but the reply by Mr. Cantillion was just so awash with misinformation and theological chest thumping that it was virtually screaming for a response.

The original topic by Reverend Jensen was “Science and religion should cooperate as well as co-exist.” Jerry Coyne and Chris Mooney are currently having their own debate, but I come down pretty squarely in Coyne’s camp. However, they’re both scientists and (I think) atheists, so they’re not that far apart generally. Cantillion, however, seems to have wandered off into the “science and religion go hand in hand and compliment each other” field, one that I don’t believe Coyne or Mooney endorse.

Cantillion starts off with a bang in the first paragraph, claiming biblical scientific credentials because the book of Job describes the water cycle, something he says was not “scientifically” described until the mid 1500’s. For those of you who are biblically challenged, here are the verses in question from Job chapter 36 (NSRV).

27 For he draws up the drops of water; he distils his mist in rain,
28 which the skies pour down and drop upon mortals abundantly.
29 Can anyone understand the spreading of the clouds, the thunderings of his pavilion?

I’m pretty sure those verses don’t qualify as being “scientifically” described, either, but that’s Cantillion’s first bit of evidence for biblical science. More quoting from Job, this time from chapter 26, verse 7.

He stretches out Zaphon [or the north] over the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.

This passage, he states, is “an apt description of the earth in space.”

I’m pretty sure it’s not.

After his first paragraph of proselytizing, Cantillion continues…

There is a legitimate case for fear when a portion of science is eliminated because it does not agree with the worldview of those in power. Science looks at all the views, and based on empirical evidence, chooses the best one. Declaring one theory to be illegitimate and then forcing all evidence to fit the theory that has been declared to be legitimate is not science.

I wholeheartedly agree with that entire paragraph (as long as it remains out of the context of the rest of his letter). Science should be based on empirical evidence and should not be twisted to suit the political agenda of the day. It should be based on observable facts, should be testable, and should be peer reviewed.

What’s the problem with Cantillion’s view, then? The problem is that, after that one paragraph, the rest of his letter is mind-numbingly anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-rationality.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory, not scientific fact. It has strengths and weaknesses.
[…]
Creation science is a theory just as evolution is. Let it stand or fall based on its merits, or lack thereof, as demonstrated through empirical evidence, not prejudice.

Here’s where things take a turn into creationist-land. The “just a theory” line is a classic creationist talking point and shows a complete lack of understanding of what a scientific “theory” actually is. When the statement is used in conjunction with evolution, not only does it show a lack of understanding of the definition of the word, but it shows an even greater lack in understanding of evolution… what the theory states, and what the evidence is. When that line is trotted out, it’s a pretty safe bet that it will be followed up with Ray Comfort’esque ramblings… which in this case, is excruciatingly true.

Creation science is not “a theory just as evolution is.” Creation “science” isn’t even “science.” If it was to stand or fall based on its merits, it would have fallen decades ago, as it has with reputable scientists, but that’s not what creationists really want. What they want is for creationism to be what is taught in schools. They want creationism to be taught as fact. They want creationism to be exempt from any sort of real scientific scrutiny so that they can claim it as true.

Cantillion continues with this

If evolution is really so superior to creating, why is every effort being made to eliminate the theory of creation from public awareness so that only the theory of evolution is known and believed? If the theory of evolution is truly so superior over creation, then put them side by side and let evolution destroy creation once and for all.

First, nobody is trying to eliminate the biblical account of creation from public awareness. What rational people are doing is removing it from (or rather keeping it out of) the science curriculum, where it has no business. The science curriculum should be teaching science, a branch of which is biology, a part of which is evolution… by natural selection. Evolution is not a matter of “belief” or “faith.” It’s a matter of scientific evidence processed using the scientific method.

As for the second part, evolution and creationism have been put side by side and evolution has destroyed creationism. Sadly, it hasn’t been “once and for all” because the creationists won’t accept anything but the overwhelming victory of their biblical (or Koranic) version of creation over any scientific, evidence-based alternative. So no matter how much evidence is presented, no matter how much “proof” is piled up and presented to a creationist, it makes not a lick of difference because it doesn’t match their beliefs, to which they desparately cling despite the contradictions between the facts and their beliefs.

Cantillion asks…

The strategy being used [to support evolution] is not science, but politics. Why is politics needed to prove and establish the theory of evolution, unless it cannot be established by empirical evidence?

I find Cantillion’s statement strange because what’s actually happening is the exact opposite of what he claims. Evolution is completely supported by science. Creationism is what is desparately seeking political support because that’s the only support it can possibly muster in a scientific world. Cantillion doesn’t seem to get the dependencies correct. Evolution depends on science. Creationism depends on politics.

He goes on to criticize Reverend Jensen for what he seems to think are poorly chosen examples of God’s hand in creation and then really goes off the deep end.

Everyone has a religious faith of some sort. Even an atheist has religious faith. An atheist cannot prove that God does not exist. Therefore, it takes at least as much faith for an atheist to believe that there is no God as it does for a religious person to believe that there is a God. So then, not mentioning God and not praying is not being neutral regarding religion but is, in fact, promoting atheism. All religious faiths do not get us to the same place, unless atheism is true. Then everyone just winds up dead. Atheism, not science, is at the root of evolution.

I find it difficult to not use profanity here. Lack of a belief in a god is not, in any way, shape, or form, religious faith. It’s true that atheists cannot prove that God does not exist. However, most atheists do not make an irrefutable claim of absolute knowledge regarding the existence of God (as Creationists do), so no proof is necessary. As an atheist, I’m not stating that a god does not exist. I’m stating that I have no evidence for the existence of a god… any god. So, no… it takes no faith to be an atheist.

So, contrary to the absurd conclusion at which Cantillion arrives, not mentioning God and not praying is definitely neutral regarding religion. Leaving out religious actions is neutral to religion. Praying, reading bible verses, singing hymns, and teaching creationism are all actions that are most assuredly not religion-neutral.

As for the last sentence, the claim is just absurd. Evolution is based on evidence… factual, observable, testable evidence. Again, Cantillion gets his cart before the horse. Atheism is not the root of evolution. Evolution is, however, quite a gaping hole in the creationists’ claims.

Cantillion goes off on Reverend Jensen again at this point in his letter, but starts his criticism with this bit.

All the religions of the world cannot be held in equal esteem. Christ, Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, and other great spiritual leaders are not equal and are in contradiction with one another.

I have to agree that great spiritual leaders contradict one another. I’m not sure what point Cantillion was trying to make here, but he inadvertently (I assume) brought up one of the main arguments atheists use regarding the truth of religion. There are so many religions, all of which claim to be true, that it’s not difficult to conclude that the most likely answer is that none of them are.

Cantillion finished with this…

Jesus claimed to be God. It is Jesus who causes the lame to walk and the blind to see, not religion and not science. Science proves what God has already established.

Unsurprisingly, Cantillion is wrong again. Science has long ago created prosthetic devices allowing the “lame” to walk and, just recently, the blind to see.

Go figure

A Dubious Win in Texas

Mar 31st, 2009
by dlgilbert.
1 comment

DNS StrandThe Texas Board of Education managed to squeak a vote through that shot down the addition of anti-evolution language into their education standards which would have specified the standard nonsense about evaluating the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. However, in a series of equally nonsensical ammendments, the anti-science creationists and IDers added all kinds of detrimental (and somewhat incoherent) language to try to bolster their untenable position.

Don McLeroy didn’t win his big desired change (the “strengths and weaknesses” language), but he was probably reveling in the little jabs that were inflicted by all the amendments. McLeroy displayed a gross misunderstanding of both science and evolution in the now infamous Youtube video. In the ars technica article linked above, John Timmer says…

[In the Youtube video] McLeroy urges the board to join a crusade against the scientific community. “Somebody has to stand up to these experts,” he said, while expressing incredulity about their opposition, stating, “I don’t know why they’re doing it.” Elsewhere, he argued that evolution isn’t science, saying, “it’s an ideology” and “evolution goes back to someone who came up with a philosophical speculation.”

I’m almost speechless… but not quite. How do people like this gain a position that has influence over the education of our children? On one hand, he admits that he’s not an expert, yet he then continues to essentially say that the experts are wrong and that he knows better. I’m not sure where he gets his definition of “expert” but it’s seemingly not from anywhere in this reality.

Timmer also comments:

So, instead of “strengths and weaknesses,” the new standards call for students to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations” based in part on “examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific experiments.” Not only is the grammar fractured, but scientific experiments are usually notable for not supporting “all sides” of an argument.

As might be expected, the age of the universe came in for some questioning. A standard that mentioned the universe was roughly 14 billion years old was amended to require students to evaluate “current theories of the evolution of the universe including estimates for the age of the universe.” Elsewhere, students are instructed to consider how the data “reveal differing theories about the structure, scale, composition, origin, and history of the universe.” Apparently, the board was unaware that our estimates of the age of the universe have narrowed considerably in the last few decades.

The creationists seem to be attacking science on all fronts now, but we seem to be missing the evolution-specific attacks that are so common from them.

Oh, wait… here they are.

Students are expected to consider the “sudden appearance” of lineages in the fossil record, which the creationist literature argues is an indication that these lineages were instantaneously created.

[…]

[The Board] added a new standard, directing students to “analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of natural selection to explain the complexity of the cell.”

[…]

Teachers now have to ensure that students can “analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.”

Wow. So much for science in Texas. Fortunately, high school science teachers tend to ignore this type of language and teach evolution the best they can in the tiny amount of time granted for the topic… sometimes as little as three days, from what I’ve read (can’t find the link anymore. Sorry).

Even so, the addition of language of this nature does nothing to enhance science education… or education in general. Creationists spend so much effort coming up with twisted, devious ways to push their mythical ideas into the agendas of otherwise rational education standards that one would have to begin to question their premise.

If their ideas were so scientific and plausible, why have to be so obscure about their intentions? Furthermore, where is the evidence to support their ideas? Where is the grounded thinking and scientific explanation for even a single one of their postulates?

Nowhere.

They’ve got nothing to go on. I’ve said it before. The only thing they have to work with is an infantile attempt to attack the scientifically supported theory of evolution. They prey upon the uneducated with blatantly false propaganda, knowing that anyone who doesn’t understand real science or the actual theory of evolution might, perhaps, think that their position is tenable. Then they’ll get the “Why not teach both sides?” reactions from people and their battle is halfway done.

The solution is education. Real education… based on real facts and real evidence and real logical thinking. The more our educational system descends into this anti-intellecual, anti-science, irrational way of thinking, the more this country will fall behind in this world, not only intellectually, but influentially. Texas seems to be leading the way into the pit.

Way to go, McLeroy.

Clueless in Texas

Mar 27th, 2009
by dlgilbert.
6 comments

TiktaalikWith the Texas Board of Education narrowly voting yesterday to keep the creationists from adding bogus language to their education standards, the religious conservative frenzy is at a peak. Not only were outrageous (and blatantly untrue) statements made during the school board’s meeting, but creationism-supporting commentators were out in force… and they just keep coming, each one showing just how well they can ignore evidence and misunderstand issues.

The example I ran across today is from Don McDonald, a guest columnist at the Waco Tribune-Herald. His editorial, titled Evolution crowd is censoring science, claims that by disallowing the proposed “strengths and weaknesses” language, the school board is squelching academic freedom and censoring science.

It is heartening to see that in January, the State Board of Education upheld academic freedom when learning evolution by crafting science standards that require students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for evolution, and asking students to consider “the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record.”

Two things come immediately to mind here. First, as Kenneth Miller enthusiastically and eloquently points out, everything in science should be critically examined. That’s what science is all about. Scientific theories change, live, and die by the examination of new evidence. It’s one of the things that makes the scientific method so wonderfully effective at explaining the natural world.

Second, given that all science should be critically examined, why was the proposed language focusing only on evolution? What about astronomy? What about chemistry? What about geology? The reason, of course, is that the language is specifically focused on evolution because it’s being used as a creationist weapon. There is no reason, other than religious zealotry, to use that kind of language focused solely on evolution.

By supporting these amendments, the board supported developing critical thinking skills among students. Anything less than analysis, evaluation, and free discussion of arguments for and against any theory amounts to censorship, and censorship never serves the advancement of science.

The first sentence is bogus for the reasons I already mentioned. The second sentence is almost perfect. The phrase “free discussion of arguments” is far too open to be of any use. Perhaps the “free discussion of evidence” might be better? McDonald is trying to make the point that any alternative ideas to evolution should be given discussion time, regardless of their scientific merit (ie… creationism). However, allowing discussion time for any alternative ideas will only serve to confuse students as to what real science is, and would completely waste valueable and preciously-limited time for real science education.

Objectors to the proposed language in the science standards commonly express fear of “creationism creeping into the classrooms.” But the amendments say nothing of creationism or intelligent design. They are about exploring and discovering science.

The amendments really don’t say anything specifically about creationism or intelligent design. However, what other purpose could there be to focusing solely on evolution? Given the history of the creationism and intelligent design “movement,” it’s blatantly evident that the goal of the language is to target evolution and attempt to cast doubt on a theory that has been tested and challenged for more than 150 years… yet has held up under such intense scrutiny without scarcely a blemish. Details about evolution have changed over the years due to additional evidence and study, but the basic premise has remained intact since its inception.

The creationist attempts to throw doubt on evolution and to introduce supernatural explanations for life’s progression are becoming more and more transparent and pathetic… yet they continue, nonetheless. The phrases “teach the controversy” and “only a theory” have become dogmatic mantras of the unscientific and uneducated. The same long-since-debunked issues come up repeatedly (bacterial flagellum, blood clotting proteins, etc) as “proof” that evolution is not valid. The same tired rhetoric is used over and over, ad nauseum, in an attempt to disguise the religious intent of creationism and ID supporters.

Yet, with all the effort put forth by these anti-intellectual snake-oil salesmen, one thing is glaringly missing.

Evidence.

They have none. There is no evidence to support intelligent design. There is no evidence to support creationism. Not a single piece of evidence exists. Their sole strategy is to attempt to discredit evolution so that they can claim “God did it” as the “obvious” alternative. That’s all they have and that’s all they will ever have. It’s called the “God of the gaps” argument… if we can’t explain it, it must be God.

If they want to believe that, they are free to do so. They can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. They can believe that dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth together. They can believe in talking snakes and virgin births and resurrections as devoutly as they want. They can believe that life was created by an “intelligent designer” and raise their hands to the heavens in tribute.

But do not try to pass it off as science.