On Creationists and Anti-Science Creationism

I have taken the habit of addressing 7 of the State Board of Education members as the anti-science coalition or anti-science creationists. I feel this requires a brief explanation.

"Creationist" is a term that is used very loosely by science advocates. It is generally meant to imply they are anti-science creationists. Creationism encompasses a broad spectrum of belief, anywhere from total acceptance of science to total rejection of science; the former includes the views of the Catholic Church (theistic evolution); the latter would be Young-Earth Creationism, advocated by SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy. In between lies a wide range of beliefs that are numerous and mutually exclusive.

Despite what liberals outside the Bible Belt want to believe about Texas, there are a lot of good, intelligent, hard-working and rational people here who both believe in God and accept sound science. I say this anecdotally because I don't have the data to back it up; what I do know is that whenever I tell people that 7 Young Earth (anti-science) Creationists are on the SBOE, they are horrified regardless of their political or church affiliations.

It should be obvious that using a religious term (creationist) to identify a scientific opinion (acceptance/denial of certain scientific precepts) is ridiculous on its face. This violates the philosophical wall which exists between science and religion. It could also alienate a lot of people who believe in God. In part, I think the over-use of the term "Creationist" is why science advocates are often branded as/confused with anti-religion/new atheism and its advocates (Richard Dawkins, Christoper Hitchens). These highly visible and vocal atheists openly admit to fighting a different fight than simply advocating for science; but that message gets lost unless you have a firm understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the science-vs-religion debate.

Rather than alienate the conservative, intelligent people who want better science for their kids, I try very hard to not use the term "creationist" without a proper modifier. Hence, this is why you will see me use the term "anti-science creationist" to distinguish them from thinking, rational creationists (like Ken Miller) who embrace science and clearly understand the boundaries of both science and religion.

Now, you may ask why bring religion into this at all if it's simply science vs. anti-science? Those who advocate anti-scientific agendas do so because of their religious views. Further, it is well demonstrated that the entire point of ID/Creationism movement has nothing to do with science; it is about cultural reformation and a society as they would see it be made.