Re: Decision in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education

I just wanted to highlight a few words from Judge
Overton.

Summary: "Creation Science" is fundamentalism, not science.

My edits are enclosed in brackets [].

 , dorman@cochlea.bu.edu (Clark Dorman) writes:

      Below please find the text from the decision by Judge William
 R. Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.  It is also in
 html format at the site

[ Section 4 of the act defines "creation science"...]

  (a) ``Creation-science'' means the scientific evidences for
 creation and inferences from those scientific evidences.
 Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related
 inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe,
 energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation
 and natural selection in bringing about development of all living
 kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits
 of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate
 ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology
 by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood;
 and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living
 kinds.

[ Much more deleted ]

      More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
      (1) It is guided by natural law;
      (2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
      (3) It is testable against the empirical world;
      (4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the
      final word; and
      (5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

      Creation science [...] fails to meet these essential
 characteristics.  First, the section revolves around 4(a)(1) which
 asserts a sudden creation ``from nothing.''  Such a concept is not
 science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which
 is not guided by natural law.  It is not explanatory by reference
 to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable (25).

      If the unifying idea of supernatural creation by God is removed
 from Section 4, the remaining parts of the section explain nothing and are
 meaningless assertions.

      Section 4(a)(2), relating to the ``insufficiency of mutation and
 natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds
 from a single organism,'' is an incomplete negative generalization
 directed at the theory of evolution.

      Section 4(a)(3) which describes ``changes only within fixed limits
 of originally created kinds of plants and animals'' fails to
 conform to the essential characteristics of science for several
 reasons.  First, there is no scientific definition of ``kinds'' and
 none of the witnesses was able to point to any scientific authority
 which recognized the term or knew how many ``kinds'' existed.  One
 defense witness suggested there may may be 100 to 10,000 different
 ``kinds.'' Another believes there were ``about 10,000, give or take
 a few thousand.'' Second, the assertion appears to be an effort to
 establish outer limits of changes within species.  There is no
 scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural
 law and the limitations, whatever they are, cannot be explained by
 natural law.

      The statement in 4(a)(4) of ``separate ancestry of man and apes''
 is a bald assertion.  It explains nothing and refers to no
 scientific fact or theory (26).

      Section 4(a)(5) refers to ``explanation of the earth's geology by
 catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood.''
 This assertion completely fails as science.  The Act is referring
 to the Noachian flood described in the Book of Genesis (27).  The
 creationist writers concede that "any" kind of Genesis Flood
 depends upon supernatural intervention.  A worldwide flood as an
 explanation of the world's geology is not the product of natural
 law, nor can its occurrence be explained by natural law.

      Section 4(a)(6) equally fails to meet the standards of science.
 ``Relatively recent inception'' has no scientific meaning.  It can only be
 given in reference to creationist writings which place the age at between
 6,000 and 20,000 years because of the genealogy of the Old Testament.  See,
 e.g., Px 78, Gish (6,000 to 10,000); Px 87, Segraves(6,000 to 20,000).
 Such a reasoning process is not the product of natural law; not explainable
 by natural law; nor is it tentative.

Chris Wood    christw@lexis-nexis.com   ChrisCWood@aol.com
END**********************************************************************