subscribe to our mailing list:
Science and Non-Science:
An Epistemological Conflict
By M. E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP
Posted April 5, 2006
Associate Professor, Information Assurance
Program Director, Master of Science in Information Assurance
Norwich University, Northfield, VT 05663-1035 USA
A small minority of religious people are confusing the public about
fundamental differences between science and religion. This essay is
intended to help clarify the issues and to support educators,
politicians and ordinary people opposing the imposed introduction of
religion into science classrooms.
Version 9. Updated November 2005.
In mid-2005, my father-in-law, Dr Percy Black, Emeritus Professor of
Psychology at Pace University in New York, forwarded an interesting
question to me from one of his psychology discussion lists.
The psychologist asked whether the meaning of the words science and
scientist had changed over time. Yes indeed. In historical times, a
science was very much what is still defined in a popular dictionary as a
general field of knowledge:
sci·ence (plural sci·ences) *noun* *
1. study of the physical world: the study of the physical world
and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and
experiment (often used before a noun)
2. branch of science: a branch of science of a particular area of
study [;e.g.] the life sciences
3. knowledge gained from science: the knowledge gained by the
study of the physical world
4. systematic body of knowledge: any systematically organized
body of knowledge about a specific subject [;e.g.,] the social sciences
5. something studied or performed methodically: any activity that
is the object of careful study or that is carried out according to a
developed method [;e.g.,] treated me to a lecture on the science of
dressing for success. 
This definition reflects the popular, non-technical use of the word. It
is this generic, non-specialized definition that is used by the
antievolution forces in Kansas and other areas of the country to force
inclusion of creationist mythology into biology classes.
The scientific method is described in part as follows in a popular
Definitions of scientific method use such concepts as objectivity of
approach to and acceptability of the results of scientific study.
Objectivity indicates the attempt to observe things as they are,
without falsifying observations to accord with some preconceived world
view. Acceptability is judged in terms of the degree to which
observations and experimentations can be reproduced. Scientific method
also involves the interplay of inductive reasoning (reasoning from
specific observations and experiments to more general hypotheses and
theories) and deductive reasoning (reasoning from theories to account
for specific experimental results). By such reasoning processes,
science attempts to develop the broad laws -- such as Isaac Newton's law of
gravitation -- that become part of our understanding of the natural world. 
The critical words here are tested, verified and falsified. The
fundamental distinction between a scientific model and a nonscientific
model is that the former can in theory be disproved through prediction
and observation whereas the latter cannot, even in theory/, be
disproved through observation. 
Here's a non-threatening example to illustrate the distinction. Imagine
that two people, Alice and Bob, both propose that little green men (LGM)
are responsible for propelling their automobiles. Alice predicts that
if you open the hood of her car, you will see the LGM hard at work
pumping the pistons up and down. Bob, however, says that although he
knows there are LGM under his hood, they are very shy and hide from all
human observation. In fact, he is confident that there is no way to
see the LGM under any circumstances or to disprove their existence.
Alice's model can be described as a scientific one, even if it doesn't
last very long under investigation; Bob's cannot.
The word prove once meant to test, as in the old phrase, "The proof
of the pudding is in the eating." Today it means to show that
something is true. We can prove the truth or falsity of propositions in
formal mathematical systems based on assumptions of starting principles
and rules.  The assumptions (axioms and rules) cannot
themselves be proven. For example, all of modern science rejects the
solipsistic belief that the universe is a dream. 
Everything in science depends on the beliefs (note the careful and
deliberate use of this word) that the universe exists apart from the
perceiver and that the patterns of interaction (loosely and misleadingly
referred to as ?laws of nature?) of matter and energy (and whatever else
may be involved in the external universe) are consistent rather than
capricious or arbitrary (and that consistency includes quantum
We cannot prove assertions about the natural world. All we can do is
propose models (hypotheses) and then show that they are wrong. If we
work very hard and very well at showing that the hypotheses are wrong
but cannot do so for the time being, the hypotheses are provisionally
accepted as being useful. A shorthand comment is that they are true
but that phrasing is just a convenience for discussion purposes. It is
a pity that non-scientists misinterpret the meaning of that word -- the
conflict over its usage leads to confusion and hostility between people
who use fundamentally different ways of approaching knowledge. The
theory of knowledge is known as epistemology. The conflict between
creationists and scientists is epistemological. 
Some creationists view models about the origins of life as inherently
impossible to test or to disprove; for example, one revealing comment in
an anti-evolution article provides valuable insights into ways of
knowing that are incompatible with the scientific worldview:
...[W]e can know -- through observation -- that the Sun is the center of
our planetary system, whereas the question of origins is outside
observational and testable science (i.e., there were no human witnesses
to the origins of living things). 
Despite the writer's naive assertion, we do not "know -- through
observation -- that the Sun is the center of our planetary system...."
This assertion is not merely a simple matter of observational fact.
That writer seems to believe in absolute truths -- literally correct,
immutable descriptions of the universe that are isomorphic with reality.
 In contrast with tenets of absolute faiths, where
absolute truths are revealed by divine inspiration (i.e., revealed by
G-d, usually directly into the ears of the writer's particular religious
sect alone), from a scientific perspective there is no center to our
planetary system. Since the time of Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) 
and Johannes Kepler (1571-1630),  we have
modeled the solar system economically by visualizing the Sun at one
focus of a set of ellipses that efficiently describe the motion of the
planets -- if we choose to ignore the movements of our planets around the
galactic core and the movement of the Milky Way galaxy with respect to
other galaxies. Viewed from a different frame of reference, the
movements of planets are epicycles through space, not ellipses. There
is no absolute truth about planetary motions: the only truth is the
observations; the models are conveniences that depend on the way we
choose to define our frame of reference. For that matter, it is
possible to model a wholly geocentric view of the universe -- but it is
so complicated to include the retrograde movements of planets and so
devoid of coherence and mathematical elegance that no one with any sense
would insist on using that model. We?d much rather use Kepler's laws
than have to deal with the innumerable and pointless complexities that
would result from a geocentric model.
So is the heliocentric model of our solar system true and the geocentric
model false? What do you think? I think that using the concepts of
true and false for such models is an inappropriate use of the
words. I'd much rather call the heliocentric model more elegant or
more parsimonious and the geocentric model more complicated and
Another problem raised in the passage at hand is the notion that past
events are impossible to study scientifically; were this belief true, it
would be a serious disappointment to cosmologists, geologists, and
evolutionary biologists. I have no conception of how hard-line
creationists cope with reports on scientific cosmogony ,
geological stratigraphy , and the immense mass of
information emerging from comparative DNA sequencing studies .
Supporters of special creation put together lists of observations that
support their model; however, it is impossible for them to define any
observation whatsoever which could possibly disprove their model,
since they start with what they posit as the absolute truth and think of
science as the process of accumulating observations that fit their
model. That very lack of disprovability removes their model from the
realm of science.
The assumption about the impossibility of applying scientific
methodology to past events also puts dogmatists into a difficult logical
position when their fellow apologists for non-rationalism present
fragments of undigested scientific information about the geological past
that they claim support their model. 
 Isaak begins by pointing out that there are many varieties of
thought lumped into the "creationist" camp. In the summary below, I use
Isaak's typology but leave out his extensive references, which are
available in the original article online:
- Flat Earthers believe that the earth is flat and is covered
by a solid dome or firmament. Waters above the firmament were the source
of Noah?s flood. This belief is based on a literal reading of the Bible,
such as references to the "four corners of the earth" and the "circle of
the earth." Few people hold this extreme view, but some do.
- Geocentrists accept a spherical earth but deny that the sun
is the center of the solar system or that the earth moves. As with
flat-earth views, the water of Noah's flood came from above a solid
firmament. The basis for their belief is a literal reading of the Bible.
"It is not an interpretation at all, it is what the words say." Both
flat-earthers and geocentrists reflect the cosmological views of ancient
Hebrews. Geocentrism is not common today, but one geocentrist (Tom
Willis) was intrumental in revising the Kansas elementary school
curriculum to remove references to evolution, earth history, and science
- Young Earth Creationists (YEC) claim a literal
interpretation of the Bible as a basis for their beliefs. They believe
that the earth is 6000 to 10,000 years old, that all life was created in
six literal days, that death and decay came as a result of Adam & Eve's
Fall, and that geology must be interpreted in terms of Noah?s Flood.
However, they accept a spherical earth and heliocentric solar system.
Young-Earth Creationists popularized the modern movement of scientific
creationism by taking the ideas of George McCready Price, a Seventh Day
Adventist, and publishing them in The Genesis Flood (Whitcomb & Morris
1961). YEC is probably the most influential brand of creationism today.
- The Omphalos argument, first expounded in a book of that
name by Philip Henry Gosse (1857), argues that the universe was created
young but with the appearance of age, indeed that an appearance of age
is necessary. This position appears in some contemporary young earth
creationist writing. . . . The position is sometimes satirized by
suggesting that the universe was created last week with only an
appearance of older history.
- Old-Earth Creationists accept the evidence for an ancient
earth but still believe that life was specially created by God, and they
still base their beliefs on the Bible. There are a few different ways of
accommodating their religion with science.
- Gap Creationism (also known as Restitution Creationism):
This view says that there was a long temporal gap between Genesis 1:1
and Genesis 1:2, with God recreating the world in 6 days after the gap.
This allows both an ancient earth and a Biblical special creation.
- Day-age creationists interpret each day of creation as a
long period of time, even thousands or millions of years. They see a
parallel between the order of events presented in Genesis 1 and the
order accepted by mainstream science. Day-Age Creationism was more
popular than Gap Creationism in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
- Progressive Creationism is the most common Old-Earth
Creationism view today. It accepts most of modern physical science, even
viewing the Big Bang as evidence of the creative power of God, but
rejects much of modern biology. Progressive Creationists generally
believe that God created "kinds" of organisms sequentially, in the order
seen in the fossil record, but say that the newer kinds are specially
created, not genetically related to older kinds.
- Intelligent Design Creationism descended from Paley's
argument that God?s design could be seen in life (Paley 1803). Modern
IDC still makes appeals to the complexity of life and so varies little
from the substance of Paley's argument, but the arguments have become
far more technical, delving into microbiology and mathematical logic.
In large part, Intelligent Design Creationism is used today as an
umbrella anti-evolution position under which creationists of all flavors
may unite in an attack on scientific methodology in general (CRSC,
1999). A common tenet of IDC is that all beliefs about evolution equate
to philosophical materialism.
- Evolutionary Creationism differs from Theistic Evolution
only in its theology, not in its science. It says that God operates not
in the gaps, but that nature has no existence independent of His will.
It allows interpretations consistent with both a literal Genesis and
objective science, allowing, for example, that the events of creation
occurred, but not in time as we know it, and that Adam was not the first
biological human but the first spiritually aware one.
Isaak also identifies two forms of evolutionary thinking that contrast
with all the others in erecting a distinct barrier between theology and
- Theistic Evolution says that God creates through evolution.
Theistic Evolutionists vary in beliefs about how much God intervenes in
the process. It accepts most or all of modern science, but it invokes
God for some things outside the realm of science, such as the creation
of the human soul. This position is promoted by the Pope and taught at
mainline Protestant seminaries.
- Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in
saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution. It is not
necessarily atheistic, though; many Materialistic Evolutionists believe
that God created evolution, for example. Materialistic evolution may be
divided into methodological and philosophical materialism.
Methodological materialism limits itself to describing the natural world
with natural causes; it says nothing at all about the supernatural,
neither affirming nor denying its existence or its role in life.
Finally, Isaak's last category also violates the division between
theology and science by making assertions that cannot be disproved, even
- Philosophical materialism says that the supernatural does
not exist. It says that not only is evolution a natural process, but so
is everything else.
The Fundamentalist Assault on Science
The New York Times published a review of the fundamentalist Christian
attack on science in a series of articles in August 2005.
Jodi Wilgoren reports on the role of the Discovery Institute, a
well-funded organization organized by political conservatives to push a
faith-based explanation of biological diversity and the origins of
different species. Their efforts to introduce theistic elements into
science classes are described by the author as following "a path laid in
a 1999 Discovery manifesto known as the Wedge Document, which sought
'nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural
legacies' in favor of a 'broadly theistic understanding of nature.'"
The Institute has focused on bypassing US Supreme Court restrictions on
introducing creationism into public school science classrooms; their
method is to push "criticism" of evolution as if they are engaged in
scientific debate. 
Kenneth Chang points out that
Intelligent design proponents are careful to say that they cannot
identify the designer at work in the world, although most readily
concede that God is the most likely possibility. And they offer varied
opinions on when and how often a designer intervened. Dr. Behe, for
example, said he could imagine that, like an elaborate billiards shot,
the design was set up when the Big Bang occurred 13.6 billion years ago.
"It could have all been programmed into the universe as far as I'm
concerned," he said. But it was also possible, Dr. Behe added, that a
designer acted continually throughout the history of life. Mainstream
scientists say this fuzziness about when and how design supposedly
occurred makes the claims impossible to disprove. 
Although they embrace religious faith, these scientists also embrace
science as it has been defined for centuries. That is, they look to the
natural world for explanations of what happens in the natural world and
they recognize that scientific ideas must be provisional -- capable of
being overturned by evidence from experimentation and observation. This
belief in science sets them apart from those who endorse creationism or
its doctrinal cousin, intelligent design, both of which depend on the
existence of a supernatural force. 
As analysts of the situation in Kansas have noted,
Science uses empirical methods to study the relationship among things in
the physical world. The Intelligent Design/creationists want to redefine
science to include supernatural causation. . . . Scientists start with
empirical observations, then make and test hypotheses, and eventually
form theories about some aspect of the physical world. Many theories
contain inferences about things that are not directly observable.
However, the Intelligent Design/creationists claim that the historical
non-historical sciences because we can't observe the past, and that
therefore belief in evolution is a matter of faith. . . . A
scientific theory is a broad explanation that integrates a wide range of
observations into a meaningful and coherent whole: that is, theories
explain facts. However, in popular usage, theories are speculative and
facts are certain. This confusion is exploited to cast doubt on
evolution. They claim evolution is only a theory, and therefore other
theories such as Intelligent Design/creationism deserve equal time. 
Some creationists dismiss parallels between modern-day pressures to
suppress the teaching of evolution and the medieval Church's repression
of astronomical advances; e.g., the same writer who claimed that science
cannot address issues of historical events and processes wrote, "Also,
the magazine's editorial lamely presented the hackneyed analogy that a
belief in the Bible's version of creation resembles the 300-year-old
dogma that the Sun revolved around the Earth." 
Despite this writer's dismissal of the parallel between creationist /
Intelligent Design imposition of their views into science classrooms and
the use of the Church's power to suppress heliocentric astronomy in the
17^th century, it is important for modern readers to understand exactly
what happened in Florence around 1615: the parallels with today's
debates are striking. Here are some excerpts from an encyclopedia entry
about the heliocentric controversy:
By December 1609, Galileo had built a telescope of 20 times
magnification, with which he discovered mountains and craters on the
moon. He also saw that the Milky Way was composed of stars, and he
discovered the four largest satellites of Jupiter. He published these
findings in March 1610 in The Starry Messenger (trans. 1880). His new
fame gained him appointment as court mathematician at Florence; he was
thereby freed from teaching duties and had time for research and
writing. By December 1610 he had observed the phases of Venus, which
contradicted Ptolemaic astronomy and confirmed his preference for the
Professors of philosophy scorned Galileo's discoveries because Aristotle
had held that only perfectly spherical bodies could exist in the heavens
and that nothing new could ever appear there. Galileo also disputed with
professors at Florence and Pisa over hydrostatics, and he published a
book on floating bodies in 1612. Four printed attacks on this book
followed, rejecting Galileo's physics. In 1613 he published a work on
sunspots and predicted victory for the Copernican theory. A Pisan
professor, in Galileo's absence, told the Medici (the ruling family of
Florence as well as Galileo's employers) that belief in a moving earth
was heretical. In 1614 a Florentine priest denounced Galileists from the
pulpit. Galileo wrote a long, open letter on the irrelevance of biblical
passages in scientific arguments, holding that interpretation of the
Bible should be adapted to increasing knowledge and that no scientific
position should ever be made an article of Roman Catholic faith.
Early in 1616, Copernican books were subjected to censorship by edict,
and the Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine instructed Galileo that he
must no longer hold or defend the concept that the earth moves. Cardinal
Bellarmine had previously advised him to treat this subject only
hypothetically and for scientific purposes, without taking Copernican
concepts as literally true or attempting to reconcile them with the
Bible. Galileo remained silent on the subject for years, working on a
method of determining longitudes at sea by using his predictions of the
positions of Jupiter's satellites, resuming his earlier studies of
falling bodies, and setting forth his views on scientific reasoning in a
book on comets, The Assayer (1623; trans. 1957).
In 1624 Galileo began a book he wished to call "Dialogue on the
Tides," in which he discussed the Ptolemaic and Copernican hypotheses
in relation to the physics of tides. In 1630 the book was licensed for
printing by Roman Catholic censors at Rome, but they altered the title
to Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems (trans. 1661). It was
published at Florence in 1632. Despite two official licenses, Galileo
was summoned to Rome by the Inquisition to stand trial for "grave
suspicion of heresy." This charge was grounded on a report that Galileo
had been personally ordered in 1616 not to discuss Copernicanism either
orally or in writing. Cardinal Bellarmine had died, but Galileo produced
a certificate signed by the cardinal, stating that Galileo had been
subjected to no further restriction than applied to any Roman Catholic
under the 1616 edict. No signed document contradicting this was ever
found, but Galileo was nevertheless compelled in 1633 to abjure and was
sentenced to life imprisonment (swiftly commuted to permanent house
arrest). The Dialogue was ordered to be burned, and the sentence
against him was to be read publicly in every university. 
Much as in the 17th century, creationists have tried to impose their
religious beliefs to forbid the teaching of evolution and have tried to
distort the position of evolution in science by using laws and
litigation. So far, I know of none who has proposed burning teachers at
the stake. An extensive list of bills, proposals, lawsuits and
political action campaigns is available at Wesley Elsberry's
Antievolution Website.  A small sample of the chronology
of laws and bills drawn from those materials follows:
- 1923, Florida, An anti-evolution resolution based upon William
Jennings Bryan's views was adopted as law on May 25th, 1923. This marked
the second anti-evolution law enacted within the USA ....
- 1923, Oklahoma, An anti-evolution amendment attached to a free
textbook bill passed, marking the first enacted anti-evolution
legislation in the USA .... The free textbook law and its
anti-evolutionary sucker were repealed shortly after 1925.
- 1925, Tennessee, The Butler Act, This law outlawed the teaching
of evolution as the descent of man from lower animals. As the most
famous example of early anti-evolution legislation, it also provides us
with information about what really bothered the anti-evolutionists: the
teaching of the continuity of descent of man from non-human primates.
This is the real issue that all later legislation would like to address,
but does so only obliquely.
- 1926, Mississippi, Mississippi was the first state to adopt an
anti-evolutionary law following the Scopes Trial ....
- 1928, Arkansas, Arkansas voters approved the anti-evolutionary
Initiative Act 1 on the November ballot ....
- 1973, Tennessee, Senate Bill, This bill mandated both the
labeling of evolution as "a theory" and the devotion of equal space in
textbooks to "other theories", explicitly citing the Genesis account of
creation as one of these. The bill, with a number of amendments, became
law without the governor's signature ....
- 1976, Kentucky, Kentucky passed, as a non-controversial law,
legislation that allowed teachers to instruct students already believing
in biblical creation the tenets of biblical creationism, and allowed
such students to earn credit for correctly learning the material ....
- 1981, Arkansas, Act 590 "Equal-Time" legislation,
- 1981, Louisiana, "Equal-Time" Legislation,
- 1922, Kentucky, An anti-evolution bill was introduced by Rep.
George W. Ellis. Ref: ..., which notes that 45 more anti-evolution
measures were introduced in the next ten years across the USA.
- 1923, Tennessee, Anti-evolutionary bills were introduced in
both the house and senate, but neither passed ....
- 2001, Arkansas, House Bill 2548, A bill proposed by Rep. Jim
Holt of Arkansas would make it illegal for public funds to be used to
purchase materials containing known false or fraudulent claims. A list
of putative false or fraudulent items was included in the text of the
bill. These items were apparently produced by Holt going over the
anti-evolutionary literature in a series of short skips and hops.
Certain items in the text of the bill were exact quotes of the Jack
Chick cartoon tract, "Big Daddy?" Holt enlisted the assistance of Kent
Hovind, who testified before the Arkansas State House as an "expert".
Holt also claimed to have been influenced by Jonathan Wells' book,
"Icons of Evolution". A critique of HB2548 documents likely
anti-evolutionary sources for much of the text of the bill, points out
conceptual and factual problems, and provides links to further information.
- 2001, Georgia, House Bill 391, This bill directs teachers to
distinguish between "philosophical materialism" and "authentic science",
and extends to teachers the "right" to present and critique any
scientific theory of the origins or life or species. Not expected to be
considered in 2001.
- 2001, Louisiana, House Bill 1286, This bill directs that the
state shall not print or distribute any material containing claims known
to be false or fraudulent. It also specifically provides for any citizen
to be able to sue the state using the provisions of this bill.
- 2001, Michigan, House Bill 4382, A bill proposed by Rep.
Gosselin (House Bill 4382) seeks to amend 1976 PA 451, "The revised
school code". The bill directs that all references to "evolution" or
"how species change through time" should have additional words added
that students should be informed that evolution is an unproven theory
and that students should explain the "competing theories" of evolution
and "the theory that life is the result of the purposeful, intelligent
design of a creator."
- 2001, Montana, House Bill 588, House Bill 588 by Rep. Joe
Balyeat, R-Bozeman, was presented as an "objectivity in science
education" measure, and would have directed the approval of evolution
and creationism materials by an appointed six-member committee. Failed
in committee, 14-4 vote, 2001/02/20.
- 2001, US Senate, SB1, AMENDMENT This amendment was drafted by
Discovery Institute Advisor Phillip E. Johnson for Pennsylvania Senator
Rick Santorum. Santorum offered it as an amendment to Senate Bill 1,
which is known as the "No Child Left Behind" bill. It was removed from
the bill in the conference committee, and thus is not part of the law,
but the language was put into the conference report. The important point
to remember is that the amendment was specifically considered and rejected.
- 2001, Washington, Senate Bill 6058, The Washington State Senate
considers a bill to require the same "disclaimer" that Alabama required
for their textbooks.
- 2001, West Virginia, House Bill 2554, An "equal-time" style
The passion applied by supporters of creationism and intelligent design
to the efforts to insert their religiously-based views into science
classrooms may, for some, be rooted in insecurity about the relation
between religion and reality. These people are fixated upon what they
call a literal interpretation of scripture -- i.e., of modern-language
translations of Greek and Latin translations of ancient Aramaic and
Hebrew writings in which there were no vowels written down and where
Jewish scholars to this day still debate specific interpretations.  Some extreme Christian fundamentalists even claim that only
the King James version of the English-language Bible is "truly" sacred.
Some fundamentalists cannot countenance metaphorical or spiritual
interpretations of religious texts and are openly threatened by
alternative views of reality rooted in science: "But if men and women
are nothing more than material substance?which organic evolution
teaches -- whether or not Christ died for us has absolutely no meaning. If
there is nothing in man which survives death, the death of Christ was
unnecessary and cruel." 
Interestingly, the insistence on literal, word-for-word, historical
interpretation of Biblical text is a relatively recent development.
Karen Armstrong, writing in The Guardian Weekly, explains that
Protestant fundamentalists... claim that they read the Bible in the same
way as the early Christians, but their belief that it is literally true
in every detail is a recent innovation, formulated for the first time in
the late 19^th century. Before the modern period, Jews, Christians and
Muslims all relished highly allegorical interpretations of scripture.
The word of God was infinite and could not be tied down to a single
interpretation. Preoccupation with literal truth is a product of the
scientific revolution, when reason achieved such spectacular results
that mythology was no longer regarded as a valid path to knowledge. 
Armstrong also points out that what we call scripture today has its
roots in the oral tradition. Recitations of the traditions were
integrated into social interactions; for example, writes Armstrong, "In
Judaism the process of studying Torah and Talmud with a rabbi was itself
a transformative experience that was just as important as the content."
She emphasizes that the Qur'an (a name meaning recitation) was
expected to be read aloud, with assonances linking one passage to
another in a rich tapestry of meaning. In contrast, "Solitary reading
also enables people to read their scriptures too selectively, focusing
on isolated texts that they read out of context, and ignoring others
that do not chime with their own predilections."
Intolerance of Uncertainty
"But science changes all the time" is viewed as a telling criticism of
the scientific method by people who believe that G-d speaks directly to
them, personally, every day, to tell them absolute truth. My colleague
Lars Nielsen comments, "In fact, during the late Middle Ages, the
problem of the 'double truth' existed, an overt cleavage of 'knowings',
one that we might consider scientific, the other from faith, and this
double truth was actually championed by theologians because they found
any sort of link between natural science and knowledge about God to be a
constraint on divine omnipotence."  Some fundamentalists
carry this certainty further and believe that they can and should impose
their vision of absolute truth on everyone else.
In the 1940s and 1950s, social psychologists developed a sense that some
people exhibited a cluster of beliefs, attitudes and behaviors that came
to be described as the authoritarian personality. A well-known
textbook on social psychology summarizes the research as follows:
In the 1940s, a group of University of California, Berkeley, researchers
-- two of whom had fled Nazi Germany -- set out on an urgent research
mission. They wanted to uncover the psychological roots of an
anti-Semitism so poisonous that is caused the slaughter of millions of
Jews and turned many millions of Europeans into indifferent spectators.
In studies of American adults, Adorno and his colleagues (1950)
discovered that hostility toward Jews often coexisted with hostility
toward other minorities. Moreover, these ethnocentric people shared
authoritarian tendencies -- an intolerance for weakness, a punitive
attitude, and a submissive respect for their ingroup's authorities, as
reflected in their agreement with such statements as, "Obedience and
respect for authority are the most important virtues children should
Frenkel-Brunswik (1948) argued that intolerance of ambiguity constituted
a general personality variable that related positively to prejudice as
well as to more general social and cognitive variables. As she put it,
individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity
are significantly more often given to dichotomous conceptions of the sex
roles, of the parent-child relationship, and of interpersonal
relationships in general. They are less permissive and lean toward
rigid categorization of social norms. Power-weakness,
cleanliness-dirtiness, morality-immorality, conformance-divergence are
the dimensions through which people are seen. . . . There is
sensitivity against qualified as contrasted with unqualified statements
and against perceptual ambiguity; a disinclination to think in terms of
probability; a comparative inability to abandon mental sets in
intellectual tasks, such as solving mathematical problems, after they
have lost their appropriateness. Relations to home discipline and to
the ensuing attitude toward authority will likewise be demonstrated
quantitatively. (Frenkel-Brunswick, 1948, p. 268)
. . . . Intolerance of ambiguity, by increasing cognitive and
motivational tendencies to seek certainty, is hypothesized to lead
people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and
to impose simplistic clichés and stereotypes. In a review of research
on ambiguity intolerance, Furnham and Ribchester (1995) provided the
following list of consequences of this tendency:
Resistance to reversal of apparent fluctuating stimuli, the early
selection and maintenance of one solution in a perceptually ambiguous
situation, inability to allow for the possibility of good and bad traits
in the same person, acceptance of attitude statements expressing a
rigid, black-white view of life, seeking for certainty, a rigid
dichotomizing into fixed categories, premature closure, and remaining
closed to familiar characteristics of stimuli. (p. 180).
The penchant for seeing and promulgating intelligent design may be an
expression of the intolerance of ambiguity described in these sources.
I have personally encountered evangelical Christians who have criticized
what they describe as the "wishy-washy" nature of scientific discourse
and who have explicitly laughed at scientists' penchant for accepting
our own lack of certainty when discussing models of the world.
Creationists sneer at evolutionary "theory" as if it were merely a
passing fancy to be accepted or dismissed merely as a matter of
preference. I imagine such people shrugging their shoulders as they
intone, "Who's to know if it?s true or not? Let G-d tell you." Prof
Percy Black retorts, "Not who -- how."
The ultimate form of imposition of faith on the unbeliever is theocracy.
 Some people want to impose their personal religious
beliefs on everyone else regardless of others' beliefs. For example,
ANALOG editor Stanley Schmidt pointed out that a growing number of
pharmacists in the USA are refusing to fill legitimate doctors'
prescriptions for contraceptive pills, citing "their personal religious
or moral beliefs."  The arguments are even louder about
abortificients.  Although the religious pharmacists and
their defenders frame the debate in terms of the rights of the
pharmacists not to participate in what they define as abortions, these
people are licensed by the state to perform a critically-important
medical function: carrying out a doctor's orders for the treatment of a
patient. Schmidt puts it succinctly: "A pharmacist whose religion
frowns on birth control pills has no obligation to use them -- and no right
to interfere with someone else whose religious doesn't forbid them." He
points out that telling those refused service to go somewhere else to
find a more cooperative pharmacist are ignoring the realities of
small-town or rural folk:
The small-town woman who can't get her prescription filled may be in
even worse shape than having to drive 90 miles to the next town. That
town may be no different. We already have sizable areas where that
narrow subset of Christians called "Fundamentalists" constitutes an
increasingly aggressive majority. If all (or even most) of the
pharmacists or teachers in a region quietly decide to do what they want
rather than what the law says, they the protections nominally provided
by the law have become meaningless. In such a situation, much of what
people can do, and what is done to them, is determined not by
constitutional law, even if such law exists on paper, but de facto by
an unofficial and unregulated "diffuse tyranny" of people imposing their
personal beliefs on others who do not share them.
- Saudi Arabia enforces a rigid interpretation of the Wahhabi school
of Islam. There are strict interpretations of shari'a (Islamic
law) that impose a narrow religious interpretation on almost all
aspects of individual behavior. "In Saudi Arabia, as in regimes
and movements influenced by its example, questioning the
government can be regarded as tantamount to questioning God;
political opposition can be seen as apostasy or blasphemy, and
punishable as such."
- In Iran, the mullahs who took control of the government after the
ouster of the US-supported Pahlevi regime in 1979 have also
imposed harsh religious edicts on everyone in the country.
"Khomeini declared himself head of government and claimed almost
divine powers; his own words, regardless of their relation to
sacred texts, would define the boundaries of Islam. The Iranian
fundamental law issued in Khomeini's name bars from political
office non-Muslims or Muslims who do not demonstrate allegiance to
the mullahs' rule, which is referred to as the 'guardianship of
the jurist.' The law allows political participation -- the formation
of parties, rights of assembly, a free press -- but only on
condition of its 'compatibility with standards of shari'a, -- a
restriction that has allowed the authorities to suppress almost
every meaningful expression of democratic opposition. The penal
side of Iranian law is equally harsh. For an unmarried
perpetrator, the punishment for adultery is 100 lashes; for a
married one, death by stoning. It is a crime to listen to certain
forms of music or to watch certain movies, and employment is
restricted to those who believe in the 'guardianship of the
jurist.' The penalty for killing a woman or a non-Muslim is less
than that for killing a Muslim man, and there is no penalty at all
for killing 'apostates' or members of unrecognized religious
minorities like the Bahais."
- In Pakistan, "In the 1980's, blasphemy laws were introduced,
subjecting those who 'defiled' the name of the prophet to the
death penalty. More recent legislation makes it possible to
imprison for three years any member of the minority Ahmadi sect
who calls himself a Muslim or does anything that 'outrages the
religious feelings of Muslims.'"
- In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime imposed harsh restrictions
based on their interpretation of shari'a: "Women were forbidden
to go to school, work outside the home, or travel without a male
relative. Apostates and homosexuals were killed, and music was
- In Sudan, strict shari'a laws were introduced in 1983; "In just
the first year of the new laws, 58 public amputations were carried
out in Khartoum province alone, including twelve 'cross-limb'
procedures in which a hand and a foot were cut from opposite sides
of the offender's body. Public floggings were broadcast daily on
national television, and public hangings, followed by crucifixion,
were carried out at sites built especially for the purpose. In
1985, seventy-six-year-old Mahmoud Mohamed Taha, perhaps the
country's leading religious scholar, was hanged, having been
convicted of apostasy for criticizing the new laws. Opposition to
these barbaric practices -- which were inflicted for the most part
on poor Christians from southern Sudan -- renewed a rebellion that,
until the recent peace agreement, claimed more than two million
- In the Zamfara state of Nigeria, imposition of shari'a law on
non-Muslims in 1999 led to closure of "churches and non-Muslim
schools and mandating 'Islamic' dress." In 2002, the theocratic
governor of the state mandated the compulsory use of Arabic, a
foreign language for most of the people in Zamfara; the result has
been widespread civil unrest in which "tens of thousands of people
have died in shari'a-related violence in Nigeria." In addition,
"The governor of Yobe state has said he will defend the new laws
even at the cost of civil war, and Sani has urged the advocates of
shari'a to form their own armies to defend Muslims and promote
Another state that is under internal pressure from theocrats is Israel.
Daphna Baram reported in the New Statesman that even though secular
(non-religious) Jews still form a majority of Jews in Israel, they have
been under constant pressure from orthodox Jews who demand compliance
with their interpretation of Halachah, or Jewish traditional law.  For example, in Jerusalem, it took demonstrations by young
people to overturn the closing of movie-theaters on the Jewish Sabbath.
The orthodox establishment defines who is to be defined as a Jew (for
example, not all conversions by rabbis in the United States are accepted
as legitimate by the Israeli orthodox hierarchy -- and therefore by the
Jewish state), who will be buried in Jewish cemeteries and even whether
young Jews must serve in the Israel Defense Force (orthodox youths
generally do not). Baram ends,
One could argue that the middle-class Israeli seculars have never had it
better: the Orthodox establishment long ago gave up on peering into the
plates of pork-eaters or wasting time trying to shut down corner shops
that operate on the Sabbath. The religious concentrate their energies on
getting state funding for their schools and community enterprises.
Nevertheless, the feeling of suffocation is greater than ever. Three
years of intifada, economic deterioration and a widening of the gap
between haves and have-nots have made the seculars feel as if they are
losing their birthright, the haven that their ancestors toiled to
establish in the state of Israel. The sense of siege compromises the
famous Israeli patriotism; and thoughts of immigration, considered
shameful two decades ago, are now openly discussed. Middle-class parents
are openly voicing their wish that their children could have a foreign
passport, "just in case"; Israelis with Polish grandparents who fled the
Nazis in the 1930s are now trying to get them to renew their Polish
passports, which may grant clear passage to the EU. If such migration
turns into a full-scale phenomenon, it would be, for better or for
worse, the end of Israel as we know it.
These reports remind me of a famous science fiction story by the great
libertarian writer Robert Heinlein. In "If This Goes On --" he
describes a United States of America ruled from dictator called the
Prophet Incarnate living in a palace in New Jerusalem and guarded by
graduates of the Academy at West Point assigned to a military unit
called the Angels of the Lord. The culture accepts the stoning of the
ungodly (the "pariahs") when they are caught outside their ghettos after
the curfew. The story progresses through a bloody revolution and the
destruction of the corrupt theocracy. 
Another interesting theocracy novel is Canadian author Margaret Atwood's
The Handmaid's Tale.  Amazon.com reprints a succinct
abstract from Library Journal:
In the Republic of Gilead, formerly the United States, far-right
Schlafly/Falwell-type ideals have been carried to extremes in the
monotheocratic government. The resulting society is a feminist's
nightmare: women are strictly controlled, unable to have jobs or money
and assigned to various classes: the chaste, childless Wives; the
housekeeping Marthas; and the reproductive Handmaids, who turn their
offspring over to the "morally fit" Wives. The tale is told by Offred
(read: "of Fred"), a Handmaid who recalls the past and tells how the
chilling society came to be.
These cautionary tales from two different generations of thoughtful
writers warn us of the danger that rigid dogmatists pose to fundamental
liberties in the United States.
Bereishit (Genesis) and the other books of the Torah and the Hebrew
Bible; I celebrate the Sabbath and raise my voice in praise of G-d. For
that matter, I have enjoyed reading Native American creation myths,
Greek and Roman mythology, and Chinese mythology. I think the jazz
ballet La Crèation du Monde by Darius Milhaud is at least as valuable
a contribution to human culture as other representations of creation.
What I don't do is expect to engage in these activities and discussions
in an astronomy class, a biology class, a geology class or a physics class.
Knowledge may be infinite and it may be borderless, but for practical
purposes, we slice knowledge up into pieces and apply convenient labels
that help us segment it into manageable portions for pedagogical
purposes. Thus we distinguish between physics and chemistry (even
though they overlap), botany and zoology (even though there are
creatures that don?t fit neatly into either gross classification),
history and literature, poetry and music, religion and cultural
anthropology. Would anyone seriously accept pressure to have
astrologers present their beliefs in an astronomy class? Would
astrologers be happy if they were forced to accept astronomers as
unwanted guest lecturers in their astrology courses? Or would
practitioners of homeopathy be happy if chemists insisted on being able
to introduce discussions of molarity, probability and double-blind
clinical trials into their homeopathy courses?
More to the point, how pleased would fundamentalist Christians be if
atheists insisted on introducing challenges to the belief in G-d in
Sunday-school classes on the basis of "fairness" and "open discussion"?
Just imagine the uproar if atheists in Kansas demanded that school
districts put stickers on Bibles reading, "Many people believe that the
writing in this book is mythology, has no accurate descriptive value
about historical events of any kind, and is best understood as having
allegorical and poetic value only."
Although some scientists may make personal comments about their
religious beliefs, science has no position on religious matters that
are not testable. If someone believes that a god created the universe,
science has nothing to say on the matter. However, if someone asserts
as a matter of fact that men have one less rib than women because a
creation myth states that the first woman was created from the first
man's rib, that's a matter of scientific investigation and disproof.
Seeing intelligent design in nature is not a disprovable proposition.
There are no observations which can counter such a view even in theory.
"Intelligent design" is not part of science.
My friend Michael Bopp comments that scientists are determined to limit
the definition of science to what is testable (disprovable) at a
particular time in history. Without strict inspection of proposed
topics for inclusion in science, we run the risk of corruption of the
social enterprise -- much as we saw happen in Soviet Russia when Lysenko
destroyed the rational basis for genetics in the 1920s. 
Incorporating non-science into science without discrimination seriously
threatens the basis for rational application of knowledge to practice.
For example, poor science can lead to errors in social and technical
realms. "If I can build a bridge based on a dream or on instructions
from G-d without having to subject my designs to external, technical
review, I can endanger everyone using that bridge." Perhaps someone can
walk their own bridge, but making others cross it is unreasonable and
dangerous. Science guards a certain realm. It does not claim to apply
to all realms; it just focuses on a narrow range of human knowledge.
Until religious thinkers can present testable propositions, those in the
scientific community are unable to consider their questions. 
My friend and colleague Robert Gezelter points out that another problem
that theocrats never like to address is that they cannot all be right
from their own point of view. It is noteworthy that one never hears of
creationists proposing to include Hopi, Navaho, Vedic or Maori creation
myths into science classrooms. One of the most valuable contributions
of the Enlightenment is the realization that religious pluralism -- the
acceptance of different approaches to religious truth ? is a much better
idea than religious wars. If one group gets to dictate the nature of
truth, it may try to suppress conflicting versions of absolute truth.
That way lies a new dark age. 
The attitudes underlying the attack on science are in my opinion deeply
rooted in an absolutist view of the relations among human beings within
a nation and even between nations. If G-d tells you the absolute truth
about the history of the earth, biological evolution, abortion,
sexuality, gay marriage, and how to run your country, it's not too much
of a stretch to extend one's beliefs into absolute edicts that should be
forced on everyone else on the planet. In this sense, all of these
convictions of absolute truth -- and the obligation to force them on
others -- are religious imperialism that is not particularly different
from the fanaticism of theocrats in other cultures.
From another perspective, the attack on science teaching is an example
of the dangerous and growing political ascendancy of people who feel
that their religiously-based view of the world should be imposed on
everyone else regardless of the principles of religious freedom that
informed the foundation of this country. Seen from this point of view,
defenders of religious freedom -- and of freedom from impositions from
other people's religions -- must justifiably defend the distinction
between science and faith in education.
So the next time you chat with a creationist about educational issues,
listen carefully to your interlocutor and find out whether this person
has any intention of letting you or anyone else live your life free of
the constraints of their personal belief system.
List of Works Referenced in Footnotes
Anonymous (2000). "Special issue of New Scientist not so special
about special creation!" http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4295news5-3-2000.asp
Armstrong, K. (2005). "Unholy strictures: It is both wrong and
dangerous to believe that literal truth can be found in religious
texts." Guardian Weekly (August 19, 2005). http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1546558,00.html
Atwood, M. (1986). The Handmaid's Tale. Houghton Mifflin (ISBN
Baram, D. (2004). "The defeat of the pork-eaters: in Israel,
Orthodox Jews are not only winning the demograph'?s culture, too." New
Statesman (Dec 6, 2004) 133(4717):32.
Bopp, M. (2005). Personal communication, November 2005.
Brackett, E (2005). "Morning-after pill protest." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june05/pill_6-30.html
Chang, K. (2005). "In explaining life's complexity, Darwinists and
doubters clash." New York Times (August 22, 2005). Originally
Claiborne, W. (no date given). "What if evolution were true? #1."http://www.gospelhour.net/2079.html
Cowen, R. (2005). "Modern echoes of the early universe." Science News
Dean, C. (2005). "Scientists speak up on mix of God and science."
New York Times (August 23, 2005). Originally posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html
Denton, W. (2005), "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem" http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html
DeRose Keith Website http://pantheon.yale.edu/~kd47/e-page.htm
Elsberry, W. R. (2001). "Anti-evolution and the law." http://www.antievolution.org/topics/law/
Encarta Dictionary Tools "Science." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
Encarta Encyclopedia "Galileo," "Hebrew Language," "Lysenko," "Science," "Scientific Method," "Stratigraphy." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
Gezelter, R. (2005). Personal communication, November 2005.
Heinlein, R. (1940). "If This Goes On -". Astounding Science
Fiction (Street & Smith Publications).
Heinlein, R. (1953, 1986). Revolt in 2100. Baen Books (ISBN
Hilgevoord, J. & J. Uffink. "The Uncertainty Principle." The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2001 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2001/entries/qt-uncertainty/.
Irvine, A. D. (2004). "Russell's Paradox," The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Summer 2004 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/russell-paradox/.
Isaak, M. (2002). "What is Creationism?" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Jost, J. T., J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski & F. J. Sulloway (2003). "Political conservatism as motivated social cognition." Psychological
Bulletin [PsycARTICLES] (May 2003) 129(3):339.
Kansas Citizens for Science (2005). "Summary of Main Issues." http://www.kcfs.org/standards05/Summary.issues.html
Kessler, J. J. (2005). "Giordano Bruno: The Forgotten
Koch, D. & A. Gould (2005). "Johannes Kepler: His Life, His Laws and
Marshall, P. (2005). "The Islamist's other weapon." Commentary
(April 2005) 119(4):60
Myers, D. G. (1993). Social Psychology, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill
(ISBN 0-07-044202-4). P. 397.
Nielsen, L. (2005). Personal communication, September 2005.
Paterson, B. (2000). "A study of IF THIS GOES ON". The Heinlein
Journal v7 (July 2000) http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/novels/ifthisogoeson.html.
Popper, K. R. (1934, 2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, tr.
from German by the author; new edition. Routledge (ISBN 0415278449).
Schmdit, S. (2005). "Diffuse tyranny." ANALOG Science Fiction and
Fact Magazine (November 2005) 125(11):4
also Shermer's How to Debate a Creationist/. Skeptic Magazine Books.
Stewart, D. J. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/what_is_truth.htm
Thornton, S. P. (2004). "Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/solipsis.htm
Wikipedia "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem"
Wikipedia "Theocracy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy
Wilgoren, J. (2005). "Politicized scholars put evolution on the
defensive." New York Times (August 21, 2005). Originally posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html
 Encarta Dictionary Tools "Science." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
 Encarta Encyclopedia "Science." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
 Encarta Encyclopedia "Scientific Method." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
 See, for example, Popper, K. R. (1934, 2002). The
Logic of Scientific Discovery, tr .from German by the author; new
edition. Routledge (ISBN 0415278449).
 Even logical systems may generate propositions that are
not provable. For example, Bertrand Russell showed that formal systems,
especially those that are self-referential, may generate impossible
paradoxes (e.g., positing that a set is a member of itself but also not
a member of itself); see Irvine, A. D. (2004). "Russell's Paradox," The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2004 Edition), Edward N.
Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/russell-paradox/. Kurt Gödel showed that every mathematical system can be used to
create propositions that cannot be proven solely using the rules and
axioms of the mathematical system itself; see Denton, W. (2005),
"Gödel?s Incompleteness Theorem" http://www.miskatonic.org/godel.html and also the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godel%27s_Incompleteness_Theorem
 See for example Thornton, S. P. (2004). "Solipsism and
the Problem of Other Minds." The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 See for example Hilgevoord, J. & J. Uffink. "The
Uncertainty Principle." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2001 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2001/entries/qt-uncertainty/.
 See the Web page by Prof Keith DeRose (Yale University
Department of Philosophy) for extensive pointers to resources about
 Anonymous (2000). "Special issue of New Scientist not
so special about special creation!" http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4295news5-3-2000.asp
 An isomorphic description has elements in a
one-to-one correspondence with elements of the system being described;
for example, a description of how a mechanical clock works can be
isomorphic with the clock because all the relations are deterministic
and known. The relations are deterministic in that there are no
uncertainties; they are known because the description is complete and
correct in all details. In contrast, many models of natural phenomena
are empirical and heuristic. They are empirical in that they are
based on observations in the absence of knowledge of absolute truth;
they are heuristic in that they are intended to advance learning rather
than to represent fixed and unchanging truth.
 Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake on Feb 17, 1600
by the Inquisition on charges of heresy. See Kessler, J. J. (2005).
"Giordano Bruno: The Forgotten Philosopher." http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html
 Koch, D. & A. Gould (2005). "?Johannes Kepler: His
Life, His Laws and Times." http://kepler.nasa.gov/johannes/
 For example, a search of the Wilson Web research
database available through the Kreitzberg Library at Norwich University
using the keyword "cosmogony" immediately brought up articles such as
"Modern echoes of the early universe" by R. Cowen, published in Science
News 167(3):35. The abstract reads, "This week, at a meeting of the
American Astronomical Society in San Diego, California, 2 groups of
astronomers reported the detection of a primordial sound wave from the
early Universe. Shaun Cole of the University of Durham, U.K., and
colleagues analyzed data from the Two-Degree Field Redshift Gravity
Survey; Daniel Eisenstein of the University of Arizona in Tucson and
colleagues examined data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Both groups
detected an acoustic imprint from a time just after the big bang when
the Universe was a foggy soup of radiation and matter. They claim that
the survival of the imprint offers convincing new evidence that the
pattern for the current distribution of galaxies was established by
random subatomic fluctuations at the time of the big bang."
 "Stratigraphy, in geology, the study of rock layers,
or strata, particularly their ages, compositions, and relationships to
other rock layers. Stratigraphy provides geologists with clues about the
earth's past. Stratigraphy also allows geologists to predict what types
of rocks lie below the ground and to understand geologic processes.
Consequently, most geologists regularly use basic elements of
stratigraphy in their work." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
 Dr Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human
Genome Research Institute, is a fervent Christian but according to
Cornelia Dean (see footnote 20), "...he acknowledged that as head of the
American government's efforts to decipher the human genetic code, he had
a leading role in work that many say definitively demonstrates the
strength of evolutionary theory to explain the complexity and abundance
of life. As scientists compare human genes with those of other mammals,
tiny worms, even bacteria, the similarities 'are absolutely compelling,'
Dr. Collins said. 'If Darwin had tried to imagine a way to prove his
theory, he could not have come up with something better, except maybe a
time machine. Asking somebody to reject all of that in order to prove
that they really do love God -- what a horrible choice.'"
 For an extended analysis of the fundamentally
non-scientific approach to model-building espoused by creationists, see
"Philosophically based arguments and responses: 25 creationists'
arguments, 25 evolutionists' answers." http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/25_answers.htm
 Isaak, M. (2002). "What is Creationism?" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
 Wilgoren, J. (2005). "Politicized scholars put
evolution on the defensive." New York Times (August 21, 2005).
Originally posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/national/21evolve.html
 Chang, K. (2005). "In explaining life's complexity,
Darwinists and doubters clash." New York Times (August 22, 2005).
Originally posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/national/22design.html
 Dean, C. (2005). "Scientists speak up on mix of God
and science." New York Time (August 23, 2005).
Originally posted at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html
 Kansas Citizens for Science (2005). "Summary of Main
 Anonymous (2000). "Special issue of New Scientist
not so special about special creation!" http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4295news5-3-2000.asp
 Encarta Encyclopedia "Galileo." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
 Elsberry, W. R. (2001). "Anti-evolution and the law."
 "The original Hebrew alphabet consisted only of
consonants (See also Semitic Languages) vowel signs and pronunciation
currently accepted for biblical Hebrew were created by scholars known as
Masoretes after the 5th century [CE]. These scholars are thought also to
have standardized various dialectal differences. The vocabulary of
biblical Hebrew is small. Concrete adjectives are used for abstract
nouns. The paucity of particles, which connect and relate ideas, and the
limitation to two verb tenses (perfect and imperfect) cause an ambiguity
regarding time concepts; various syntactic devices were employed to
clarify relations of time. A past action was indicated by the first in a
series of verbs being in the perfect tense and all following verbs in
the imperfect; for present or future action the first verb is in the
imperfect tense and all subsequent ones in the perfect." From the
Encarta Encyclopedia "Hebrew Language." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
 David J. Stewart, writing in vivid red and white
letters on a black background with liberal sprinklings of capitalization
and a cheerful disdain for grammar, states categorically, "...[S]hould it
be surprising that the devil would corrupt the Bible a little at a time,
with each NEW version being just a little more corrupt than the
previous? Not at all. This is why I reject all modern translations of
the English Bible (there's been over 400 English revisions since the
1611 King James Bible...surely the language hasn't changed that much!).
Only the 1611 King James Bible HONORS the Lord Jesus Christ's deity and
Godhead adequately." http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/what_is_truth.htm
 Claiborne, W. (no date given). "What if evolution
were true? #1." http://www.gospelhour.net/2079.html
 Armstrong, K. (2005). Unholy strictures: It is both
wrong and dangerous to believe that literal truth can be found in
religious texts. Guardian Weekly (August 19, 2005). http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1546558,00.html
 Nielsen, L. (2005). Personal communication, November
2005. Lars Nielsen is Administrative Director of the Master of Arts in
Military History at Norwich University http://www.mmh.norwich.edu/overview.htm.
 Myers, D. G. (1993). Social Psychology, Fourth
Edition. McGraw-Hill (ISBN 0-07-044202-4). Page 397. I have not
copied the references cited in Dr Myers text but the original papers are
readily found using his book, any current textbook of social psychology
or any research database.
 Jost, J. T., J. Glaser, A. W. Kruglanski & F. J.
Sulloway (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Psychological Bulletin [PsycARTICLES] (May 2003) 129(3):339.
Located through the ProQuest database of Kreitzberg Library at Norwich
 The Wikipedia entry on theocracy has useful links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy. The entry states, "In the
most common usage of the term theocracy, in which some civil rulers are
identical with some leaders of the dominant religion (e.g., the
Byzantine emperor as head of the Church), governmental policies are
either identical with, or strongly influenced by, the principles of a
religion (often the majority religion), and typically, the government
claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the
local religion. However, unlike other forms of government, a theocracy
can be unique, in that the administrative hierarchy of the government is
often identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion. This
distinguishes a theocracy from forms of government which have a state
religion, or from traditional monarchies, in which the head of state
claims that his or her authority comes from God."
 Schmdit, S. (2005). "Diffuse tyranny." ANALOG
Science Fiction and Fact Magazine (November 2005) 125(11):4. Using the
GOOGLE search engine with keywords "pharmacists birth control pills
prescriptions refusing" brought up many recent articles about this
 See for example an interview by Elizabeth Brackett
aired on Newshour with Jim Lehrer on June 30, 2005: "Morning-after
pill protest." http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june05/pill_6-30.html
 Marshall, P. (2005). The Islamist's other weapon.
Commentary (April 2005) 119(4):60
 Baram, D. (2004). "The defeat of the pork-eaters: in
Israel, Orthodox Jews are not only winning the demographic war against
their secular enemies -- they are changing the nation's culture, too."
New Statesman (Dec 6, 2004) 133(4717):32. Located through INFOTRAC
database via the Kreitzberg Library at Norwich University.
 Heinlein, R. (1940). "If This Goes On -." Novella
first published in Astounding Science Fiction (Street & Smith
Publications). Heinlein expanded the story into a short novel that was
published as part of the Future History series as Revolt in 2100 in
1953 (reissued in 1986 by Baen with ISBN 0-671-65589-2). There is an
extended analysis of this story by Bill Paterson in The Heinlein
Journal v7 (July 2000) that is available at http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/novels/ifthisogoeson.html.
 Atwood, M. (1986). The Handmaid's Tale. Houghton
Mifflin (ISBN 0-395-40425-8).
 "Lysenko, Trofim Denisovich (1898-1976), Soviet
agronomist, who was the leader of the Soviet school of genetics that
opposed Mendel's law and maintained that acquired characteristics can be
inherited. He was born near Kyiv and educated at Kyiv Agricultural
Institute. His theories received official support; they were taught in
biology courses in the USSR and incorporated, with sometimes disastrous
results, into Soviet agricultural programs. Lysenko held several
important scientific posts during his career, including the presidency
(1938-56) of the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences and
the directorship (1940-65) of the Institute of Genetics, USSR Academy of
Sciences. After the death of Joseph Stalin in 1953, Lysenko was strongly
criticized, and his influence gradually diminished." Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference
Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation.
All rights reserved.
 Bopp, M. (2005). Personal communication. Dr Bopp is
Director of the Four Worlds Center for Development Learning http://www.fourworlds.ca and coaches
research and change processes related to community health and social and
economic development around the world.
 Gezelter, R. (2005). Personal communication, November
2005. Robert Gezelter is a software consultant and a Distinguished
Visitor of the IEEE Computer Society. His Web site is http://www.rlgsc.com/default.html.