Their arguments are wrong. You can check this out for yourself in Mark Isaak’s “The Counter-Creationism Handbook” or on-line at http://talkorigins.org and http://ncseweb.org. Moreover, these arguments remain wrong no matter how many times creationists repeat them; for they have a tendency to trot out their old arguments no matter how often they’ve been refuted.
Biology is an empirical discipline. Biological knowledge is grounded on empirical facts, not textual citations nor Neo-platonic idealism. Creationists offer no facts to support their contentions. (Apparently, once one is in possession of the “truth,” one can afford to ignore the facts.)
Their arguments are based on a false dichotomy: either evolution is true or a literal interpretation of the Bible is true. For another, many of their arguments are merely variations of the argument from incredulity: “I can’t believe that X is true. Therefore, X is false.”
Moreover, the “debate” for which they so desperately claim that they are clamoring almost always takes place outside of science conferences and peer-reviewed scientific journals, which are the most appropriate venues for it.
I noted above that creationists do not support their contentions with facts, but with biblical citations that they interpret literally. (And, yes, a literal interpretation is still merely one interpretation.)
Creationists are not concerned with science or with empirical truth. If they were, they would not keep repeating their tired, old, oft-refuted arguments. Creationists are out to subvert the Constitution and establish Biblical literalism as the official religion of America. Hence, it makes sense for them to keep repeating refuted arguments because it clouds the issue and makes it appear as if their claims are valid.
These arguments are shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating. Creationists are pushing to use a literal interpretation of the Bible to critique evolution (and eventually, cosmology, paleontology, plate tectonics, physical anthropology and archaeology) in the public schools. But a “science education [that teaches] students to identify assumptions, use critical thinking, make logical deductions and consider alternative explanations” would also enable them to use science to critique creationism (and, indirectly, Biblical literalism). In doing this, students would come to prove for themselves that creationism is pseudo-science. In the ultimate irony, the creationists’ attempt to enhance the authority and prestige of the Bible would end up undermining it.
Wait. Maybe we do want the members of the board of education to be creationists.
ROY TRESSLER, Rome