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

[starfallz.livejournal.com]

PEER pressure?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Be fair; the other books will remain on the shelves. This little bit of pseudo-science will stand there with the others, forlorn and lonely all by itself.

It illustrates an observation I made a long time ago: the books on the science shelves all more or less agree with each other, the books over on the religion aisle not only disagree with one another, they disagree vehemently and on arbitrarily designated principles.

[solarbird]

"Creation science" is pure fraud justified by religion. Endorsing it as a "natural science" - particularly given that earlier, tour guides were told to stop talking about the age of the canyon - is corruptive of the very ideas of both empericism and scientific truth. Fuck that. This is obscene.

[mistwolf.livejournal.com]

I gotta side with the bird on this one, this is just over the line in my book, and yet another indication that this administration is just way tooo scarey.

BTW, elfs, great to meet you. Long time fan, first time saying so! =)

[shadarack.livejournal.com]

Creation science: the creation of science fiction and declairing it science fact?

junk science..

[(Anonymous)]

I used to work for a religious college..and a surprising number of them considered creationism(at least the fundamentalist version) junk science. Science searches for truth. Religion all too often makes it up as they go along-which is fine,as long as you call it what it is,and don't try to pass it off as fact.Scott

[banner.livejournal.com]

Look, I think we can all pretty much say that it's hokum, but I don't see anyone looking at the -other- side of the coin: Censorship. Now you all say 'but this is so obviously wrong! It shouldn't be allowed!'

Well who determines what's right and wrong? What's allowed and what isn't? Especially if you aren't allowed to buy it or read it. This is a government store selling books, if we ban this book (and like it or not, a ban this is), what other books will we then see banned?

Don't you realise you're advocating censorship?

You could write about how Paul Bunyion (did I spell that right?) created the Grand Canyon by dragging his axe behind him, and make a really nice book covering it and put it up for sale there as well. Is it right? No, obviously not. But should the Government be the one saying you can't sell that book there? Hell no! Let the people decide! (And if your book has nice pictures of Paul and Blue, heck I'll buy a copy! Would be a great table book).

Re: junk science..

[banner.livejournal.com]

I once had a very religious science teacher, and someone asked him about how he reconciled the biblical description of the creation of the universe with the scientific explaination. His words were very insightful: he said he saw no descrepency at all.

Simply put he reminded us of the education level of the people who the old testiment was originally told to. Their knowledge and experience of the world. They would not have understood current science, or any of the theories of the modern world. So if you wanted to tell them about creation, you'd have to simplfy it, dumb it down a bit. He believes that the biblical accounts of creation are perfect examples of this, look at the very opening: 'Let there be light!' Sounds like the Big Bang theory to me, doesn't it to you?

The bible is full of so many parables, that I always find it interesting when people try to take the creation literally. I mean how can we know how long a day and night are when the light hasn't even yet been separated from the darkness? (sounds like stars forming to me!), or the 'Firmement' being made (Planets forming!)

I personally find that just how much Genesis and the Bible agree with modern theory when you look at it in this light to be rather amazing.

[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...).

[avram]

It’s the government’s store, so the government gets to say what’s sold there. If it were my store, I’d get to say; if it were yours, you’d get to.

Nothing’s keeping these guys from having their creationist claptrap sold in Barnes & Noble or Borders, or on Amazon.com.

[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.

[banner.livejournal.com]

And your point is? People want this book sold there, if it sells and makes money for the store then having it there was a good decision. If it doesn't sell I suspect it will get sent back to the publisher.

That's what a regular bookstore would do. The only problem here is that if the government refuses to sell it after people have asked for it, claims of censorship can be reasonably be made. And if the case were reversed, you know they would be.

[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.

[avram]

Really? So if I can get a bunch of people together who want, say, cookbooks and D&D manuals and How To Program Java books sold there, then the store should sell those too?