The Curious Faith of Don McLeroy
Saul Elbein | February 20, 2009 | Features
As chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy, an avowed creationist, is in a unique position to influence the direction of science teaching across the country. Saul Elbein asks: “What does he want?”
The pejorative tone in this article made it impossible to take Saul's interview seriously. Specifically, his lack of professionalism in providing context for the Eugenie Scott juxtaposition was a prime example of how this article's intent is not to provide a balanced perspective, but to demean anyone who does not believe Saul's position. If Saul were a better journalist, he would have done his research and quickly figured out there is a robust and persuasive answer to Scott's question. I expect better from The Texas Observer.
Posted by Jeff on April 01, 2009
The ignorance of supposedly educated folks who never research something they "know" is incorrect, i.e. either ID or Biblical Creation, is rather astonishing. Among other things, ID is a category rather like the category of Theism(but extends beyond Theism), while Biblical Creation is at a level more like Baptist (but extends beyond Baptist). For people who harp on facts, some seem to be purposefully ignorant of this one, for what seems to me to be propaganda purposes.
The second point is the common misconception that we live in the same world-environment, under the same conditions, that God created. This fact was known even to Jacob, who commented to Pharaoh that his age did not extend as far as his father and grandfather had. Peter says that there would be those who were willfully ignorant of the fact that the world that then was had been been destroyed by the cataclysm. Biblical Creationists believe we now live in a world wrecked by sin and decay, that is a poor twisted image of the original creation. Comparing the two is like comparing an abused, wrecked, worn out, rusted Mustang run thru a 3-d copy machine for a hundred lifetimes of the same abuse, with a picture of what it looked like off the factory floor... of -course- we have jaws that are shrinking in degeneration, broken down defense and error-correction routines in genetic program codes on their last legs, causing auto-immune diseases and other problems. These are expected in a decaying world, as are genetic load problems with recessives, and declining genomic diversity. Why could Seth marry his sister?... no genetic load, or decay, to cause the problems of recessives. By the time of Moses, enough generations had accumulated the decay mutations, it had become a problem. Simple answers, if you think about it, and don't try to censor those honestly working on the problems within their own paradigms.
I love how the little captcha at the bottom of the comments page works... it assumes that over 50-150 years of computing evolution by billions of manhours of (supposedly) creative intelligent beings could not yet achieve what my grandson could proudly do in a year or so... make out six letters in two words that were mangled a bit. Think about it, then ask yourself if we will ever get computers that would ever deduce that you were human, to be able to even begin with Asimov's 'basic' laws, when we humans can't even decide if a genetically human embryo is human... or not. If we turned that decision over to computers that we created, would YOU want to be on the wrong side of that cold equation?
Posted by Created4Life on March 31, 2009
Lord Siva says that the universe sprang from a seed,Hawkins going back in time billions of years with strict scientific rigor comes very close to
agreement. Darwin has traced the evolution of life on one small planet over
a very very small interval of this time space continuum. This is the real goodness and glory of God, the immensity, the billions of light years the
universe has expanded over, and that we have the intelligence to comprehend
a very very small fraction of his Nature. I do not understand why there are distortions and evils, and perversions of the truth. I cannot explain them-- and for myself I find comfort just by avoiding them. It would be very nice if the choice were not necessary.
Posted by bhagavad on March 28, 2009
Another point that most fundamentalists don't address is that the Bible, though it is supposed to be the literal word of God, was transcribed and translated by mankind. In the thousands of years since the recordings of the Torah, and the two millennia since the events of the New Testament, the Bible has been written, re-written, edited and translated dozens of times. Who's to say that the original Genesis, straight from the mouth of God, didn't use more metaphorical subtexts? Also, people of that time did not have a solid grasp of scientific principle in any sense, so God or his prophet(s) could have been forced to 'dumb it down' and avoid confusing His followers with words and concepts that have not yet been invented. Essentially, what the fundamental/liberal debate comes down to is fundamentalists asserting that, as Christians, we (read: they) are infallible in our interpretations and translations, and liberal Christians trying to make them realize that we are human, and therefore prone to mistakes.
Posted by Rich on March 25, 2009
So there is no doubt that the man has problems, but those are his problems and his wife and kids have to deal with him. What do we do about the problems that he is causing for other people? How do we send him back to B/CS and his dentist chair? Does he really think that God had wisdom teeth that came in crooked?
Posted by Texas Aggie on March 23, 2009
No one has a strangle hold on the "Truth". Both sides of my family came to USA to avoid religous persecution. I am a Gnostic I can only hope that I wil not have to find a refuge from persecution in my old age. I'm a 12th generation American.
Posted by Darlene Schmidt, BS.,MA. on March 19, 2009
Nice, fairly presented profile of Don McLeroy. Those of us who question materialistic evolutionary philosophy do NOT want creationism of the biblical Genesis-account variety taught in public schools. I'll exegete Genesis for my kids at kitchen table, thank you very much... ID raises a question; it doesn't answer the question, however. Nor should it.
Posted by Jerry Pierce on March 05, 2009
The creation of the world by God may be seen in the unity and symmetry of
nature. A close look at science in advanced study reveals how atoms and waves obey rules of quantized symmetry, and when disturbed restore symmetry by redistribution of their energy and force. All of human affairs have symmetry on a higher plane of language, ideas, and government, which could not have come from the mere combination of minerals. There is more to it than meets the eye.
More discussions, graphics, and infotools for grand unified science may be found at: http://www.symmecon.com .
Posted by Dale B. Ritter, B.A. on March 02, 2009
Right about now, I'd be glad to see any textbook! I've been trying to help my granddaughter with her 6th grade homework without textbooks! She has one, a social studies book. Not math, or science, both classes she is having trouble with. What happened!?
Posted by Karen G on February 27, 2009
No one has ever explained how a creature that flies developed wings. Would one assume that there was an inherent desire to fly in some species and that desire over time led to wings developing? If no creature had ever flown, they certainly had no knowledge that flight was possible, and it cannot be argued that flight was necessary for survival because they had been surviving without flying.
Posted by Tim Seymore on February 27, 2009
Don McLeroy's picture appears twice in the dictionary. Once next to the word "goofy" and again next to the word "disingenuous".
Posted by Dan Montgomery on February 27, 2009
How does one become a dentist with "little scientific training"? The dissonance thundered in my brain so loudly I couldn't continue.
Posted by alicia williams on February 24, 2009
The strengths and weaknesses argument is the evidence that the whole controversy about evolution requires Christians to face the fact that the scriptures are not literally true but allegorical. As long as fundamentalists cling to the literal truth of the Bible they won't understand science and they limit the limitless power of God.
Posted by Bonnie Boorman on February 24, 2009
It's sad that I, a secular humanist, know Christian theology better than Don McLeroy. Does he really think that we humans were created by God in His exact physical image? A human body is covered by bacteria, frequently has parasites, is susceptible to pathogens, has a vestigial caecum and tail bone, suffers from hemorrhoids, hernias, varicose veins, and is subject to genetic diseases. Our sex organs are closely adjacent to or are the same as our organs for elimination of wastes. All of these human "features" have excellent evolutionary explanations. Is this the image of God in which Christians believe? Of course not.
Christians believe that humans were created in the spiritual image of God, not in the image of a physical body. That is, our mind or conscience is the part of each human created in the image of God. According to Christian theology, God is a spirit and does not have physical form except when God assumes physical human form (Jesus) or some other physical form, such as a burning bush or a dove. Furthermore, it is this spiritual aspect of humans that Christians consider to be the immortal soul. This is the philosophy of duality, that equates the human mind with the spiritual soul. The philosophy of monism equates the human mind with the human brain. Duality is a supernaturalistic philosophy, monism in naturalistic.
When he claims that humans are made in the physical image of God, and the evolutionary origin of humans contradicts this, McLeroy is holding to a very literalist and aberrant interpretation. Most Christians would not accept this interpretation, but would be completely okay with believing that the human body was formed by evolution and the human mind or conscience was created in the spiritual image of God. Thus, McLeroy's anti-scientific beliefs are a consequence of his extreme sectarian theology, not a mainstream Christian theology and especially not science.
Posted by Steven Schafersman on February 23, 2009
As a physicist I can state that Newton's 3 laws are not lies or approximations, in fact you can prove all three experimentally! McLeroy is an idiot and an embarrassment to the public educational system in TX, him and Rick Perry need to be voted out!
Posted by Robert on February 23, 2009
If Texas can insist that only textbooks that challenge evolution can be paid for by the state, why can't liberal states insist that they WON'T pay for textbooks that challenge evolution? It can't be all that difficult for the publishers to produce two slightly different editions for a market that size.
Posted by Brian Jordan on February 22, 2009
The underlying confusion that causes the conflict between religion and science is in the understanding of what "true" means. Truth is an evaluation of a proposition against a standard. In normal, practical existence truth means correspondence of the proposition to fact. That's what science is about.. establishing reliable fact. Faith, by definition is based on a feeling. To hold a proposition to be a fact by faith is irrational. To hold spiritual feelings by virtue of faith is not. It just has nothing to do with fact.
Fundamentalists like McLeroy fail to see the distinction. When its a question of fact, science always wins, because fact is its domain. He doesn't wan't to accept science because he's afraid it will undermine his faith or other's faith. If that faith were rational i.e. consistent with the kind of mental experience it is, it would be no problem. But he can't accept that. To do so would be to undermine the moral authority and consequent power that he and the fundamentalists wish. They want to tell us what is right and how to live and want a leg up on the argument. They don't have one.
The wish to believe that Man is created in God's image is self flattering wish. At best it's metaphorical. Do you really suppose a creator with fingers and toes? That not being made in the image of a deity lessens our importance is also silly. After all, we're all human. Who should we be important to but ourselves?
Posted by Al Cibiades on February 21, 2009
If Don McLeroy is so confident that the truth is on his side, then why did he have to resort to quote-mining and plagiarism in order to get his amendment passed?
Posted by Jeremy Mohn on February 21, 2009
If Don McLeroy is so confident he can discredit evolution then why doesn`t he amass some evidence for his claims and submit it for publication in a peer reviewed science journal such as "Science" or "Nature" or even "Scientific American"? It`s kinda suspicious to say the least that creationists avoid real scientists like the plague. Could it be that they know their stance over this is utter rubbish and real scientists would expose creationism for the nonsense it is in a heartbeat?
Posted by Mike on February 21, 2009
I think the study of strengths and weaknesses is a good thing. Just let us please start with the bible and creationism.
Posted by Alison Dieter on February 21, 2009
"An evolutionary biologist and committed atheist, Zimmermann is the father of The Clergy Letter Project, a nationwide petition signed by over 11,000 Jewish and Christian clergy who believe that evolution is no contradiction to their faith."
OK Zimmermann. If you think there's no conflict between faith and evolution, why are you an atheist and why do you think theists are not going to figure out you're a liar?
The truth is evolution has major religious implications because it makes the Magic Space Man virtually worthless.
Posted by bobxxxx on February 21, 2009
"As board chairman, McLeroy is in a unique position to influence the direction of science teaching across the country."
That's interesting. A drooling idiot like McLeroy has the power to destroy America's science education. He should be taken out before it's too late.
Posted by bobxxxx on February 21, 2009
Write a Comment
Read the Article