Creationists

Why do they clamor about and scream 'academic freedom'? Creationists and ID proponents use their airtime and article space to complain about academic freedom, instead of ever offering their solid, scientific evidence for why they should be given time in a SCIENCE classroom.

I'm so tired of it - here's a tirade I commented on a blog by infamous ID'er Casey Luskin in US News and World report today. I hope you understand my frustration:

How is it that someone who thinks that the world is trying to censor their point of view, takes almost 7000 words in an opinion piece to never ONCE put forth the evidence for their claim?

You act like science is a democracy. Science is, in fact, NOT a democracy - it is constantly discriminating against ignorance and poor methodologies, logical fallacies and plain old ideologies. Theories and models MUST hold up to scrutiny and observable fact. When they do not, they are discarded for newer, updated models that better explain our natural world/universe.

The fact that the universe is 13.6 billion years old, that our planet is ~4.6 billion years old, that single-celled organisms can be found ~2 billion years ago, that the fossil record shows emerging organisms with greater complexity over time, that we're all related genetically in proportion to our morphological similarities and complexities, that religions, myths, and ancestor worship has been around since cro-magnon man, best support a model of evolution and a natural means of origin of life.

If you want to take the unknown and say that a god did it, fine. Humans have been doing that for eons. You're just playing the 'god of the gaps' - whatever mystery exists, whatever we don't understand, you're claiming is just a god. Nevermind that people can't agree whether it's Zeus, or Thor, or Apollo, or Athena, or Jehovah, or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. For years we've been closing the gaps on these gods, explaining things like where the rain comes from, why the grass is green, why developmental defects occur, how the sun 'comes up' every day, how we evolved from simpler life forms. But if you want to hold out your superstition, there's no logical argument that says you're committing some intellectual fallacy.

However, getting backed into a corner and exclaiming, "Well, you can't PROVE a god DIDN'T do it!" doesn't do anything to help your case. With that kind of reasoning, I'm as justified in declaring, "Well, you can't PROVE that Santa Claus DIDN'T do it!" It's equally nonsensical.

Of course, this is when it always hits me. I realize it. You don't believe in 'intelligent' design because of any scientific reason. You believe it because it supports a model that you want to be true - that you WANT to believe in. And therein lies the rub.

Ultimately, I can't reason someone out of something that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place.

And on that note, have fun on sunday suppressing the truth for your magicman in the sky.