A Pragmatic Constructivist Take on the Case

Abstract

With all due respect to the previous chapter, on its face it seems that the scientific realists have it easy in attempting to “explain” the creationist/evolutionist debate: evolution as we understand it is a product of science. But, as the quotes above reveal, science alone does not tell the whole story. Emotions (Luskin), nonsense (Robertson), and critical thinking (the Louisiana law) are all intertwined with context—both of the material kind and of the “ideas in one’s head” kind.

The dating of Bishop Ussher just doesn’t comport with anything that is found in science and you can’t just totally deny the geological formations that are out there … Anyone who is in the oil business knows he’s drilling down, 2 miles, 3 miles underground, you’re coming into all these layers that were laid down by the dinosaurs,” said Robertson. “And we have skeletons of dinosaurs that go back like 65 million years. And to say that it all came around 6 thousand years ago is nonsense. I think it’s time we come off of that stuff and say this isn’t possible. (Robertson, 2012)

Attempts to persuade people of both evolutionary scientific views and larger materialistic evolutionary beliefs, not just by the force of the evidence, but by rhetoric and emotion, and especially by leaving out important contrary arguments and evidence. (Luskin, 2014)

Promote critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning. (Introduction to the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008)