I notice a hallmark of pseudoscience is the non-sequitur use of ignorance as evidence. “You can’t explain A, therefore X”
Example 1: you can’t explain this spooky experience I had, therefore ghosts are real.
Example 2: you can’t explain how life first started, therefore my God is real.
Example 3: you can’t explain junk DNA, therefore aliens cloned us.
Not being able to explain something doesn’t explain anything.
“Creation Today” hosts Eric Hovind and Paul F. Taylor asserted that “God’s word” is “the basis of all knowledge,” and that televangelist Pat Robertson is off-base in saying that perhaps the world is more than 6,000 years old.
The two hosts were discussing Robertson’s response to an email he received from a “700 Club” audience member who wanted to know why the Bible doesn’t say anything about the dinosaurs.
“Of course the Bible does cover dinosaurs,” said Taylor, “we have talked about that on this show several times.”
What Robertson said in response to the viewer, however, was that, in spite of what Creationists and Ireland’s Archbishop James Ussher [1581-1656] say, the Earth is not 6,000 years old. Ussher was a Christian cleric who claimed to have pinpointed the moment of Creation to the day.
Hovind and Taylor laughingly dismissed the idea that Ussher could be wrong in any way, with Taylor asking rhetorically of Robertson, “Do you assume then that Archbishop James Ussher had no actual evidence for his proposition when he wrote such a big book. People talk about this 6,000 years that Archbishop Ussher came up with.”
He continued, “Pat Robertson is claiming, then, that 6,000 years comes from Ussher’s book and not the Bible. The point is, where did Ussher get his figure of 6,000 years?” Taylor believes that number comes from deep study of the dates and events named in the Bible.
“Now, then, Pat Robertson,” he said, “are you claiming the Bible is not [divinely] inspired when the Bible clearly tells us that the world is 6,000 years old?”
Check out the video over at the source article if you want to torture yourself.
The suit alleges that the new standards will “promote religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the theistic religious beliefs of plaintiffs, thereby depriving them of the right to be free from government that favors one religious view over another.” The group asked the court to place an injunction on the implementation of Next Generation Science Standards and the corresponding lesson plan handbook, Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts and Core Ideas.
Another group, the Citizens for Objective Public Education (COPE, Inc.) filed suit on Sep. 26 demanding that the new curricula not be instituted. In a press release, CORE said that the science standards would “will have the effect of causing Kansas public schools to establish and endorse a non-theistic religious worldview,” which the group said is a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Brad Dachus of Pacific Justice complained that is a violation of a child’s rights to teach them that Creationism isn’t the truth.
“(I)t’s an egregious violation of the rights of Americans to subject students — as young as five — to an authoritative figure such as a teacher who essentially tells them that their faith is wrong,” he said.
He maintained that to teach science “that is devoid of any alternative which aligns with the belief of people of faith is just wrong.”
COPE, Inc. said that the science standards have a “concealed Orthodoxy” that is bent on undermining the views of the faithful.
“The Orthodoxy is not religiously neutral as it permits only materialistic/atheistic answers to ultimate religious questions,” said the group’s statement. The group maintained that questions like “Where do we come from?” can only be answered honestly by religious dogma.
The statement went on to say that “teaching the materialistic/atheistic ideas to primary school children whose minds are susceptible to blindly accepting them as true” is unconstitutional and dangerous, and therefore the new science standards must be stopped.
I’m afraid these people don’t even know what science is.
Nature is evidence for God like rainbows are evidence for Leprechauns’ gold. Like the rainbow, nature is perceived as having a beggining and an end. But we know that there is no end to a rainbow; that the arc is just an illusion of perspective, and where we can’t see we fill in the gaps with pots of gold and spirits and, in the big picture, gods.
Eugenie C. Scott’s journey to the front lines of the evolution wars began in 1974, when James Gavan, a physical anthropologist at the University of Missouri, accepted an invitation to debate Duane Gish, a biochemist and a leader in the creationist movement.
At the time, Dr. Scott was a newly minted professor of physical anthropology at the University of Kentucky. Dr. Gavan had been her mentor at the University of Missouri, where she earned her doctorate, so she took a few of her students to Missouri to hear the debate.
“We were greatly dismayed,” Dr. Scott recalled in an interview. “The scientist talked science, and the creationist connected to the audience and told good jokes and was really personable. And presented a lot of really bad science.”
She realized then that creationism is “a movement that could have really serious consequences for science and science education.”
Today, Dr. Scott, 67, is nearing the end of a 27-year stint as executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which despite a relatively skimpy budget has had an outsize impact on the battles in courtrooms and classrooms over whether creationism — the idea that the universe was devised as it is by a supernatural agent — or its ideological cousin, “intelligent design,” should be taught in public schools.
“There is no single organization in the United States that has been as important in the battle over evolution as the National Center for Science Education,” Kenneth R. Miller, a biologist at Brown University, said in an e-mail. As its director, Dr. Scott has mobilized “scientists, educators, lay people, religious groups, skeptics, agnostics, believers, scholars and ordinary citizens” to advance the cause of science.
Dr. Miller, an author of a widely used biology textbook, was an important witness in one of the center’s major court victories, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, a federal case decided in 2005. It erupted when a local school board in Pennsylvania directed middle-school science teachers to instruct their students that there were serious scientific challenges to the theory of evolution, and to offer them a creationist text for an alternate view.
The teachers refused, some parents sued, and Dr. Scott and the center helped organize evidence and witnesses, including Dr. Miller, to win a decisive victory. The judge, a Republican, spoke scathingly of the “breathtaking inanity” of the creationists’ arguments.