Bush administration continues "creationism is science" stance

[solarbird]

The Bush Administration has decided that it will stand by its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noahs flood rather than by geologic forces, according to internal documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

Comments

[wrog]

uh...

• nobody's saying the creationists can't publish the book, and
• nobody's saying that private stores aren't allowed to sell whatever books they want.

the question is whether the government should be implicitly endorsing the book as science by selling it in its own stores on the "Science" shelves.

Usually conservatives are the first to point out that the 1st Amendment does not obligate government to provide free shelf-space or publishing to everyone (or buy everyone their own radio stations, etc...).

[banner.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the book myself, so I have no idea if it is science or not. But just because they say that the Grand Canyon was created by the great flood, well that doesn't make it NOT science. It depends on how the book is done, the subject approached, etc.

Your basic point is still that you think it's okay to censor it, because you disagree with it. Just because they have the book on the shelf for sale it does not mean they endorse it. That's a rather illogical statement.

[solarbird]

"Creation Science" is a pure fraud, from start to bottom. It's about finding a way to make creationism - young-earth creationism in particular, that says the universe is less than 7,000 years old - look kinda like science, hopefully (from their standpoint) enough that people who don't have clue one about actual science think that it is science and therefore supportable by observable evidence. The only people who believe in it are people who have been fooled or are assured by their religious faith that it must be true, and therefore all evidence against it is invalid.

It's bullshit from start to bottom. It's not science, because they don't follow any scientific principles in making it up. Calling it science is a lie.

The biggest 'creation science' argument for the Grand Canyion having been formed by the receeding waters from Noah's Flood - that I've seen, anyway - is that similar shapes can be made by running water through ash, and that you saw "similar" patterns in the ash left behind by the 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption. While that's true enough, it requires ignoring every observable fact known about geology to pretend the rocks of the Grand Canyon were cut that way. It requires that either erosion properties of rock have changed spontaniously (and continue to do so) or that rock spontaniously changes into completely unrelated kinds of rock of much higher density. And so on.

It's a crock. It's like saying that computers are powered by tiny ants running around paths carrying little 1s and 0s. Seriously. The only way you can buy into it is if your religion is overriding your ability to accept observable data. And since emperical data is the foundation of science, then by definition, this ain't science.

Period.

[banner.livejournal.com]

I'm quite familar with the subject. I think it's a crock too. But the issue isn't whether or not their 'science' is valid. The issue is: can the government censor it?

[solarbird]

I don't think it's censorship to not aid in fraud.