As science, creationism is a hypothesis, severely lacking any kind of evidence. The worst thing is that creationist, specially of the Discovery Institute know this. The trick creationists pull time and time again is trying to poke holes in an established theory, thinking it somehow gives credit to creationism in some way.
Its all the DI does, they place all their effort in trying to discredit the ToE, and get politicians to allow "teaching the controversy" as if there actually is one. Creationists point to the scientists who doubt the validity of the theory, and trump up some bogus list of scientists (where on several occasions several scientists on those lists have pointed out that in fact they do accept the ToE as the most plausible theory, but were tricked in the way the poll question was put forward).
In response, the NCSE put forward a list of its own, with scientists signing that they agree with this statement:
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
At the moment, this list has 1183 names on them. That might not seem much, but there is a catch. The only scientists allowed to sign their support on this statement, have to be named Steve. Even with this huge limitation of who is allowed to sign (it is estimated no more than 1% of American scientists are called Steve) this list still far outnumbers any list creationists have come up with.
The reason the NCSE did this was not to claim that the ToE is correct, but just to make it obvious that people should not be bought in with polls on validity of a scientific theory, because in the end it is nothing more than an argument from popularity, and not science.
I am all for teaching a controversy if there is indeed a controversy to speak of. As it stands however, there is no competing theory or even a hypothesis that has any merit. Teaching creationism or its lab coat disguise ID has no place in the science class until it does. And I am willing to bet that that will not be any time soon.
Its all the DI does, they place all their effort in trying to discredit the ToE, and get politicians to allow "teaching the controversy" as if there actually is one. Creationists point to the scientists who doubt the validity of the theory, and trump up some bogus list of scientists (where on several occasions several scientists on those lists have pointed out that in fact they do accept the ToE as the most plausible theory, but were tricked in the way the poll question was put forward).
In response, the NCSE put forward a list of its own, with scientists signing that they agree with this statement:
"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."
At the moment, this list has 1183 names on them. That might not seem much, but there is a catch. The only scientists allowed to sign their support on this statement, have to be named Steve. Even with this huge limitation of who is allowed to sign (it is estimated no more than 1% of American scientists are called Steve) this list still far outnumbers any list creationists have come up with.
The reason the NCSE did this was not to claim that the ToE is correct, but just to make it obvious that people should not be bought in with polls on validity of a scientific theory, because in the end it is nothing more than an argument from popularity, and not science.
I am all for teaching a controversy if there is indeed a controversy to speak of. As it stands however, there is no competing theory or even a hypothesis that has any merit. Teaching creationism or its lab coat disguise ID has no place in the science class until it does. And I am willing to bet that that will not be any time soon.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
