Understanding Creationism: Definition and Relevance in Scientific Discourse

[Nereid]

Slightly OT, but it continues to puzzle me no end ...

As far as I can tell, this whole 'creationism' thing is primarily a phenomenon of (in?) US society, and has only an almost coincidental relationship with christianity or religion.

I mean, are there groups of Hindus, Buddhists, etc who are lining up to write YEC papers? Even within Christendom, do you hear sermons from the Russian or Greek Orthodox church on the Young Earth? How about more western branches (Catholicism, Anglicanism)?

Then out of the mainstream, do you find underground christians in China (for example) including references to YEC in their criticisms of the godless teaching in (Chinese) state schools?

So I concluded some time ago that this whole creationism thing is some kind of political movement, local to some parts of the USA, which takes some religious clothes for expediency.

When I read Janitor's post about "hearing Christian Research Institute president Hank Hanegraaff claiming on his daily radio program that there is absolutely no evidence of transitions between kinds", and Phobos saying that the anti-evolution branch distinguishes between microbes and large multi-cellular organisms - yet all claim to be christians (how does it go, re telling bald-faced lies?) - I count it as yet more data to support the hypothesis that it's a political movement, not a religious one.

Mind you, those wonderful 'tornado in a junkyard' claims are actually very good teaching material ... you know, 'now class, last week we looked at some of the mechanisms driving evolution and the creation of new species; today we'll look at a document {from YEC} and discuss it in terms of those driving mechanisms, with particular attention to analysing misunderstandings and misapplication of concepts.'

 

[Nereid]

Strictly speaking, of course:

Everything is a transitional species - Between what it was and what it will be.

With one very important exception: those which go extinct. Extinction is a vital part of evolution :surprise:

 

[Phobos]

As far as I can tell, this whole 'creationism' thing is primarily a phenomenon of (in?) US society, and has only an almost coincidental relationship with christianity or religion.

It does seem strongest in the U.S. Not sure why. Perhaps because other Christian countries (e.g., England) are more moderate in their views. Perhaps because other fundamentalist countries don't teach that much evolution in the first place so no one is getting worked up about it. In the U.S., we have strong secular and a strong religious sides in play at the same time (particularly in that public schools are secular).

I mean, are there groups of Hindus, Buddhists, etc who are lining up to write YEC papers?

I've only seen very few. (but then again, I have not been looking for them)

How about more western branches (Catholicism, Anglicanism)?

The Roman Catholic Church accepts evolution (God-directed).

Then out of the mainstream, do you find underground christians in China (for example) including references to YEC in their criticisms of the godless teaching in (Chinese) state schools?

It would be interesting given that China is a great place to find fossils.

So I concluded some time ago that this whole creationism thing is some kind of political movement, local to some parts of the USA, which takes some religious clothes for expediency.

My impression is that it grew out of debates about what to teach our kids in school. As science learned more about it, it entered public school mainstream more. There were then religious objections to it. Various laws were passed for and against evolution/creationism in schools. Now that it's a big deal in the courts & school boards in every state, it is a big political issue.

Phobos saying that the anti-evolution branch distinguishes between microbes and large multi-cellular organisms

re-read my previous post...they distinguish between adaptive variations within any species (accepted) and the development of whole new features (rejected)

 

[arildno]

"It does seem strongest in the U.S. Not sure why. Perhaps because other Christian countries (e.g., England) are more moderate in their views. Perhaps because other fundamentalist countries don't teach that much evolution in the first place so no one is getting worked up about it. In the U.S., we have strong secular and a strong religious sides in play at the same time (particularly in that public schools are secular)."

I believe the difference between the "prominence" of creationism (and other forms of biblical literalism) in US and the relative obscurity of these movements in Europe in large parts are attributable to the unique financial strength of the right-wing Christians in US, compared to Europe.
There exist absolutely no comparable, wealthy group of right-wing Christians in Europe to the many in US (that I know of).

Clearly, with a strong financial backing, any sort of group will be able to make an impact on the "public consciousness" in the country they are active.

 

[Janitor]

So I concluded some time ago that this whole creationism thing is some kind of political movement, local to some parts of the USA, which takes some religious clothes for expediency. - Nereid

I caught about three minutes of a program in progress on Christian radio today. I am 60% sure it was James Dobson's Focus on the Family. At any rate, the host of the program quoted somebody having written, "Darwin made evolutionists respectable," and then the host went on to talk about how horrible the evolutionist view is, and what sorts of other bad things evolutionists believe. He claims that nine of the Supreme Court Justices are evolutionists, and so he says it is no surprise that the U.S. has anti-prayer-in-school laws and pro-abortion laws. He worries that those godless nine will declare same-sex union legal in this country.

 

[Nereid]

some random comments on the 'c'

IIRC, there's a few pages in the Talk Origins website which present references to modern instances of new species ... in the 'hard' sense of inter-breeding being no longer possible. The best examples are some plants.

A curious aspect of many of the anti-evolution documents I've read is the focus on large animals. As we all know, the first 3 billion years (+/-) of life on Earth was dominated by bacteria; animals weren't invented then. Indeed, many would argue that we are still in the Age of Bacteria; the vast majority of the biomass on the Earth is comprised of bacteria, the greatest diversity is to be found in bacteria (esp if the Archaea are included), etc (IIRC Gould said something like this in one of his books). Eukaryotes are just a minor aberation

But even if we restrict ourselves to Eukaryotes, why ignore all the others which aren't animals? True, in terms of a fossil record, there's not much to argue about for fungi, slime moulds, etc; but why not look at the contemporary rise and fall of species in these complex life forms?

Then there are plants. If the anti-evolutionists reject the idea that 'whole new features' can arise through evolution, are they considering only animals? If a clear case of 'new features' could be found among plants, would that shake their stance?

In another thread a creationist quoted the Cambrian explosion as a good reason why the theory of evolution was suss - how could all those phyla suddenly spring into existence? We should be thankful for this, and several other questions; they point to areas of active research, and (if the reader is willing to listen ) to discuss some fascinating research (and findings) ... like the Ediacara biota, the fact that plant divisions (they're not called phyla in that kingdom) can be traced (through fossils) way back to various algae over 1 billion years ago (way, way before the Cambrian), Snowball Earth, and much much more ...

Lastly abiogenesis (1). Ian Smith, in the Biology sub-forum, posted a link to a recent paper by Wrose (sp?), on research findings on the evolution of the cell. It's a great read Doesn't address the origin of life itself, but it starts to get close; the origin of cells.

Abiogenesis (2). There are no Earth rocks yet found older than ~3.8 billion years (crystals yes, but not rocks). However there are clear signs that there was life on Earth contemporaneous with the oldest rocks. The Earth is ~4.5 billion years old, but suffered several episodes of 'heavy bombardment' in the first few hundred million years of its existence (so say the craters of the Moon). Where did life come from? Maybe the panspermia idea should come in from the cold? Maybe life on Earth began on Mars, or Europa, or Titan? Maybe it began somewhere else in the Milky Way, 8 or 10 billion years ago?

Who wouldn't want to be among the teams which do the research to test these ideas! :surprise:

 

[Nereid]

It does seem strongest in the U.S. Not sure why. Perhaps because other Christian countries (e.g., England) are more moderate in their views. Perhaps because other fundamentalist countries don't teach that much evolution in the first place so no one is getting worked up about it. In the U.S., we have strong secular and a strong religious sides in play at the same time (particularly in that public schools are secular).

Maybe PF members in other countries could chime in here, esp if you have (or recently have had) a close association with the public (aka state) school system?
Apart from Iran, are there any countries where religious institutions play a major role in determining the curriculum of public/state (high/secondary) schools?

Of course there are schools run by religious bodies in a great many countries, and not a few of today's national leaders were students at such (or even teachers, e.g. Turkey's PM).

Maybe I should post a poll in Politics!

 

[TENYEARS]

Is anything all wrong? Is anything all right? There are only acts and consequnces unconciously performed. Go down the line and project...

If you do not see then the question is are you looking? Too much food today the bins were full.

 

[russ_watters]

As far as I can tell, this whole 'creationism' thing is primarily a phenomenon of (in?) US society, and has only an almost coincidental relationship with christianity or religion.

Creationists are, of course, religious, but since it appears mostly in the US (I didn't know that, btw), it may be more of a cultural phenomena. In the US, we seem to have an inherrent distrust of any authority figure (except of course, God). The Scopes Trial in 1925 directly challenged the Bible and the latent creationism we see today may simply be left-over from that.

When Darwin first published his book, how was it received in other countries?

 

[Andre]

Interesting question. Is creationism science, politics, or religion

Science: We have a hypothesis (Genesis I ). We test the hypothesis to all available evidence. If we find indeed that Earth is younger than 10000 or 6000 years then it strenghtens the hypothesis. If not we may have to adapt or discard the hypothesis.

Science? I doubt it.

Politics is the profession devoted to governing and controlling the domestics of a society. A direct offspring of politics is persuading the society that the politics are aimed on improving it. There is a balance between what the society needs implicitly (security) or explicitely (more money) and what the society wants or thinks that it wants. Encouraging or rejecting ideas and theories (Global warming, ice age coming, creationism) may be tools of politics to reach their objective.

Politics? Perhaps.

Religion is belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. For creationism the next definiton can be found:
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/evolution/bldef_creationism.htm

Creationism is the religious doctrine, opposed to naturalistic evolution, that life on this planet was created by a special, unique act of God. Creationism goes beyond this traditional religious belief, however, in asserting that this belief can be proven empirically and scientifically.

A difference between science and religion is that science can be falsified. So as long as creationists are willing to adapt the Genesis hypothesis according to empirical evidence then it should not be a problem. However a rigid belief in the exact wordings of the hypothesis being true without accepting countering evidence is known either as pseudoscience or religion.

 

[Janitor]

Andre, thanks for the link. One thing it says is, "Unfortunately for creationists, science only deals with natural events which are repeatable..."

By that criterion, creationism is cast out of the realm of science. But isn't evolution also cast out? Is a mutation that helped two geographically-separated populations get started on the road to becoming two disctinct species 280 million years ago in any sense "repeatable?" I think not.

 

[Nereid]

Now let me see, 'to repeat the Big Bang ...' Perhaps we have one of those perennial scope/domain and 'meaning of terms' problems

 

[Janitor]

Yeah, I think the writer at that site went overboard in saying that science only deals with repeatable events.

 

[Andre]

The discussion is getting rather philosophical.

About the “repeatability of science”:

http://kosmoi.com/Science/Method/

Science depends heavily on the repeatability of experiments, and on their giving consistent (e.g. almost identical) results. This repeatability hinges on objective comparison of observations of different researchers studying the phenomenon.

Also recommended:

~ Note that we must define the "groups" of individuals or events in ways that other people can repeat our results, which implies that all criteria for grouping must be clearly specifiable and repeatable by competent people.

http://pluto.fss.buffalo.edu/classes/psy/jsawusch/psy250/1-Overview.pdf

The scientific method involves collecting the data (facts) under well defined, repeatable(public) conditions.

http://www.mssm.edu/msjournal/71/712134.shtml

Science involves the conception and construction of refutable hypotheses, and their testing by repeatable experiments

Is not the science itself that needs to be repeatable, but the experiments, the results, the conditions, etc, however some shrewd Creationist modified that idea slightly in an http://www.utulsa.edu/collegian/article.asp?article=446

Evolution is not repeatable, observable, or refutable and is therefore not science.

Evolution (or the big bang) isn’t science indeed. It is (are) just a validated scientific theory, obtained by scientific methods.

 

[russ_watters]

Yeah, I think the writer at that site went overboard in saying that science only deals with repeatable events.

Not quite. I think Nereid was being a little tongue-in-cheek there. The Big Bang theory depends on repeatable experimentation/observation, but the Big Bang itself doesn't require it (its a single event, not a theory). Repeatable evidence for the BBT?: Hubble Deep Field and Hubble Deep Field South.

The same goes for individual events in evolution. The case you describe is Darwin's foundation for the theory (he examined birds that were geographically separated in the Galapagos islands). The repeatability comes from finding other species in other places that have undergone the same change. At the grand canyon, for example, you can find nearly identical species of rabbits on opposite sides of the canyon, whose evolution can be traced to when they were separated by the canyon. That's repeatability.

Repeatability is, in fact, one of the keys to the scientific method.

 

[Dayle Record]

The scientific community has had thousands of years to mull over creationism. It was rejected, and Science took its place. Creationism hasn't helped humans combat disease, or research the thread of life on this world, in order to maintain its health. Creationism, however gave humans some sort of carte blanch to trash this world, and everything on it in the name of our special relationship to God, who according to the bible, gave the descendants of Adam, absolute rule over all living things on this world. That was ever so convenient, for Adam and his descendants, but not for anyone or anything else. The statute of limitations has run out on whatever the original deal was; all our planet belongs to all of us now. The human genome project established that we evolved here, we didn't arrive here, we weren't made here. We contain DNA of the simplest and most singular of the life forms evident. This world printed the book that is us, the copyright is still up for grabs; we better get hold of that.

 

[Nereid]

anti-evolutionists, deeply hypocritical? or just confused?

Another curiosity about those folk who rail against 'evolution': do they realize how ironic their activity is? I mean, they use media such as radio, TV, the press; they have PCs with internet access; they may own and use cellphones; they eat highly processed foods (including genetically modified soy products); take modern medicines, and may have had advanced surgery; and so on. The very same processes and methods which are so helpful to giving them a comfortable, healthy and rich daily life also produce the soundly validated theory of evolution.

I don't doubt that few are overtly hypocritical - believe that science only works for things like cellphones and modern medicine, but not geology and biology - so perhaps the sad truth is that they simply don't understand what science is and how it works? Surely science education in those parts of the US isn't *that* bad?!?

 

[Phobos]

Another thing about "repeatability" - - Often the argument gets stuck on a particular event...a specific historical mutation or whatever. But that's kind of a strawman. We don't need to see each specific mutation between Species A and Species B for it to be science, so long as we have repeatable experimental evidences that genetic mutations do occur that can change a species. Knowing it can happen allows you to build a model which is then reinforced by fossil & genetic evidence. As I understand it, evolutionary biologists typically look for transitional features in the fossil/genetic record rather than trying to pin down the exact species-by-species history of branching. Of course, finding the specific species and the specific mutations in history is a very welcome discovery and it does happen. So you don't need to re-evolve a fish into an amphibian to prove the theory, but you do need to find a consistency (repeatability) in fossils and genetics to support the transitional model. Similarly, you don't need to recreate the Big Bang in the lab, but you do need repeatable results for the supporting evidence (e.g., measurements of the CBR, etc.).

Nereid - It's also interesting to see how some creationists feel there is a conspiracy among scientists to promote an atheistic viewpoint. To accept creationism, you can't only reject the theory of evolution, but also a lot of astronomy, geology, physics, etc. which provide independent lines of evidence that add up to the same world view.

 

[Ian]

To accept creationism, which in truth is merely the recognition that the Earth has a creator, does not mean you have to discard astronomy, geology, physics, etc. We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.
We are also advised in the scriptures to 'avoid foolish oppositions of science so-called' because that is man's idea on the works of God just as religion is man's idea on the word of God. But yet we have faith.

 

[Nereid]

To accept creationism, which in truth is merely the recognition that the Earth has a creator, does not mean you have to discard astronomy, geology, physics, etc. We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.
We are also advised in the scriptures to 'avoid foolish oppositions of science so-called' because that is man's idea on the works of God just as religion is man's idea on the word of God. But yet we have faith.

So help me out here Ian ... 'evolutionary theory' is two things:
1) 'evolution', a description of what happens in nature, like 'gravity'
2) 'theories of evolution' (note the plural), which are scientific theories that are consistent with a humungeous amount of observational and experimental data, including, but not limited to, 'evolution'.

As a scientific theory, anyone of the theories of evolution has faced, and continues to face, intense scrutiny by a global community of active scientists, in the same way that Einstein's Theory of General Relativity does, or the Standard Model in particle physics, and thousands of other scientific theories. The modern theories of evolution (which, incidentally, are different from what Darwin proposed, in a number of very important aspects) are among the most successful in science - they are consistent with observational and experimental data across a wide range of disciplines (geology, biology, ecology, ...), they make testable predictions, and so on.

These theories of evolution do not address the origin of the Universe, the Earth, or life; for modern theories on these, look to cosmology, astrophysics (esp the formation of stellar systems), and abiogenesis.

Here's my beef with 'creationists', and maybe with you:
1) is there a better way to do science? Probably; but let's debate the *whole of science*, as method/approach/etc; there's nothing special about theories of evolution
2) is there data from experiments and observations that are inconsistent with the theories of evolution? Probably, but let's examine that data and how the theories can (or cannot) account for it; this is a normal part of doing science
3) is there an alternative set of scientific theories about the origin of the Universe, the Earth, life, the evolution of homo sap? "Creationists" claim they have such, but any serious examination of any of these theories quickly shows massive inconsistencies with well established data, pretty much across the board - geology, physics, astronomy, biology, ... On top of which, no papers based on any of these theories have ever been published in peer reviewed journals (AFAIK).

To repeat, a rejection of the successful theories of evolution is a rejection of all modern science, or it is deeply cynical hypocrisy (or confusion or ignorance, but those who 'anti-evolutionists' rail publicly would wish us to believe that they're neither confused nor ignorant).

 

[Phobos]

To accept creationism, which in truth is merely the recognition that the Earth has a creator,

That's fine. There's no conflict with the theory of evolution there. I suppose the confusion is over the term "creationist" which frequently refers to Young-Earth Creationists (YEC). YEC beliefs do conflict with science in big ways. Granted, there's a wide variety of creationists and many are not YECs. Many creationists even accept evolution.

does not mean you have to discard astronomy, geology, physics, etc.

YECs do discard many aspects of those sciences. The age-of-the-Earth issue alone is a major conflict.

We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.

Wow. Nice gross misrepresentation. Are you referring to "social darwinism" (something which Darwin specifically disapproved of) or something else? Please give examples of his bigotry & Hitlerian beliefs.

Even if Darwin was the worst person in the history of the world, that is irrelevant to the theory of evolution, which is a collection of work from a large number of scientists. The theory stands on its overall body of evidence, not on the personality of one of its historical experts.

We are also advised in the scriptures to 'avoid foolish oppositions of science so-called' because that is man's idea on the works of God just as religion is man's idea on the word of God. But yet we have faith.

So you automatically reject any science that conflicts with your interpretation of the scriptures instead of perhaps reconsidering your interpretation of scriptures even though you believe that both are works of Man?

 

[loseyourname]

We do however discard the evolutionary theory even if only on the basis that Darwin was a total bigot with hitlerian beliefs.

Actually, Darwin was a mildly religious deist who despised the application of his theory of biology to the social sciences. Besides, Neo-Darwinism bears little resemblance to Darwin's original theory. For one thing, he knew nothing of the units of heredity that he postulated. It took Mendel to figure that one out, and Watson and Crick to establish what the genetic material actually was. Darwin also used Linnaeus' system of classification based on morphological relationships, which has since been discarded in favor of a taxonomy based on molecular systematics and cladistic analysis. Darwin only proposed the theory of natural selection as the mechanism by which species evolve. We now know that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place. There is also symbiosis as well as a great deal of neutral mutation and, during times of mass extinction in particular, the proliferance of particular alleles based purely on chance after bottlenecks.

One last thing. The theory of evolution by means of natural selection was not Darwin's theory alone. It was developed independently by both Darwin and Wallace. You may want to rethink your attack.

 

[Ian]

Let me give you a quote from Darwin's work. (1871)

"With civilised nations, the reduced size of the jaws from lessened use, the habitual play of different muscles serving to express different emotions, and the increased size of the brain from greater intellectual activity, have together produced a considerable effect on their general appearance in comparison with savages"

I am not attacking Darwin, just making a simple statement, because I am in part one of those 'savages' he was postulating about. I find the fact that he thought some races to less emotional than others quite abhorent, i.e., he was of the opinion that some are not human as he thought himself to be.

Nonetheless, the whole 'Creationism' issue (with specific relation to Faith in God) has been hijacked by others who have their own agenda. The original disagreement concerned the education of our children, not how things came about on the Earth and universe. As a christian my basic tenet with regard to others is 'love your neighbour as you love yourself'. This simply means to respect the views of others but certain individuals wish to remove from the schools cirriculum the teachibng that we have a Creator.

I do not have a 'beef' with anyone over the issue of creation; Nereid in his post said that he had a beef with creationists and perhaps me also but the argument from the true Creationists point of view is one of the preservation of what we have faith in thought the teaching of our children.

I personally do not believe that the Earth is 5000 years old as some other Christians do, but I do not believe that it came by anything other than by God's hand.

 

[loseyourname]

Okay. Then you have not discarded evolutionary theory. Why did you initially say that you did?

The reason that school children are not taught that there exists an intelligent creator to the universe, at least in science classes, is that such an idea is not scientific. The reason that idea is not taught in other classes is because it is a religious idea and public schools are not allowed to teach religious beliefs in accordance with the separation of church and state. At least that is the case here in the states. I have no idea how things work in the UK.

If you want your children to learn Christian ethics and Christian metaphysics, then I suggest you teach these to them yourself. It is not within the province of the public school system to do so.

By the way, would people quit referring to Nereid as he?

 

[Phobos]

Darwin only proposed the theory of natural selection as the mechanism by which species evolve. We now know that natural selection is only one of the mechanisms by which evolution takes place.

And even Darwin knew that more than Natural Selection was at work.

From the intro of the Origin of Species...
"Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. "

 

[Phobos]

I am not attacking Darwin, just making a simple statement, because I am in part one of those 'savages' he was postulating about. I find the fact that he thought some races to less emotional than others quite abhorent, i.e., he was of the opinion that some are not human as he thought himself to be.

Completely understandable, but check this out...
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html

.. but the argument from the true Creationists point of view is one of the preservation of what we have faith in thought the teaching of our children.

The debate certainly is heated up over the issues of what schools should teach.

 

[Ian]

Phobos,
Intersting link! I guess we ought to learn the lesson that anything is defensible but providing concrete proof is quite another matter. However, I would really like to know how Darwin examined and measured the emotions of others.

Loseyourname said,
'Then you have not discarded evolutionary theory. Why did you initially say that you did?'

I think it is quite clear that there is an element of evolution to the nature around us, and I would be foolish to discount it. But concerning the teaching in schools here in the UK (with regard to faitgh), it is much the same as in the US, it is decided by the majority and I am in a minority of 1.

Oops, sorry Nereid (he/she etc.) - bad habit from the days of Adam. It won't happen again.

 

[loseyourname]

I think it is quite clear that there is an element of evolution to the nature around us, and I would be foolish to discount it. But concerning the teaching in schools here in the UK (with regard to faitgh), it is much the same as in the US, it is decided by the majority and I am in a minority of 1.

To be fair, I think you might find that a majority of US citizens believe in creationism of one form or another. Statistics I've seen seem to indicate that at least 90% of the population professes some form of belief in God. I can guarantee that the majority in certain states and certain regions disbelieve in any form of macroevolution.

Evolution is not taught because it is popular; it is taught because it is true. The reason no elements of faith are taught is because it is not the business of the public school system to do so. It would be a breech of the separation between church and state.

 

[Nereid]

Let's talk about the teaching of science and the role of religion ...

In a theocracy - AFAIK, Iran is the only one today, now that the Taliban's Afghanistan is gone - the state will carry out the instructions of the religious authorities concerning what is to be taught in state schools. In addition, the state may prescribe the curriculum of private schools. This may include any and all aspects of science, including a complete ban on the teaching of any science whatsoever.

In private, religious schools - in non-theocracies - the state may specify what is to be taught, and how ... or it may choose to not make any such specifications. Perhaps the most relevant aspect of this - in the countries of the EU, the US, Canada etc - is the extent to which the state sets exit criteria, or curricula, for all schools. For example, if there is a public exam (or equivalent) which universities, colleges, employers, etc use to certify completion of secondary school education, then this affects what is taught in private or religious schools. So, for example, if parents who send their kids to a religious school also wish for them to go on to have good university education, ... (links easy to state) ... then they will likely insist that at least sufficient coverage of evolution is given in science classes to give their precious a good shot at entry to the best universities.

In state schools - in secular countries - there can be no alternative; any move to exclude coverage of only evolution (as part of the biology curriculum, or geology) can only be a deliberate attempt to subvert 'the separation of church and state'. Note that there's nothing 'religious' about this, it's pure politics.

 

[Phobos]

A simple bumper-sticker-like slogan may do...teach science in science class.