A blog reader sent me an e-mail a couple of weeks ago taking me to task for calling any groups who oppose evolution “anti-science.” The writer wants to know why I say “anti-science” instead of simply “anti-evolution.” Here is my response:<\/p>\n
Thank you very much for your thought-provoking e-mail. I can understand that you and others might take offense at the descriptor “anti-science,” but I do use the term with a purpose.<\/p>\n
First, in your e-mail you note that I reference groups that do not support evolution as being anti-science. That is not accurate. The difference is that the groups I refer to are not just non-supportive, but rather actively fight against the teaching of evolution. The distinction may seem like nit picking, but I believe it’s not. There are plenty of movements, activities and such that I don’t support, but I don’t actively attack them. The groups I reference do attack evolution … and how! If you are not one of those who attack evolution, then one can safely say that you may not be anti-science.<\/p>\n
But why take that extra step into anti-science rather than just anti-evolution? Because those who do attack evolution do so through the use of publicity, public relations spin, big tent revivals, books targeted at the general public, etc. What they refuse to do is any actual science. I would think that if these folks had anything to contribute in the realm of science, they would do the actual work and quit harping about it in the public eye, at least until they have some actual science to harp about. Want to get into the science textbooks? Then do some experiments. Contribute to the body of scientific knowledge.<\/p>\n
During the Dover, Pa. court case that tested whether intelligent design (ID) should be mentioned in the high school biology classroom, Michael Behe testified on behalf of ID. While being questioned, he admitted that the very definition of science itself would have to be changed to accommodate ID. Yes, I would call that anti-science.<\/p>\n
Too many people want to express an opinion about evolution without first having any type of grounding in basic science first. The big warning sign that this is the case is when someone denigrates evolution as just a “theory.” This clearly demonstrates that the complainer doesn’t have sufficient background to be speaking knowledgeably about the subject. The word theory in science does not mean a guess or hunch. Quite the opposite. Theory is an explanation of a body of facts. The theory of evolution has withstood vigorous testing and has not only stood the test of time, but has strengthened. So, for someone to brush off a century and a half of research as “just a theory” certainly qualifies as anti-science in my book.<\/p>\n
Thank you for your time and interest,
\nBrandon Haught<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A blog reader sent me an e-mail a couple of weeks ago taking me to task for calling any groups who oppose evolution “anti-science.” The writer wants to know why I say “anti-science” instead of simply “anti-evolution.” Here is my … Continue reading