John Byrd
is a fundie creationist village idiot and sometime guest columnist for the
Shreveport Times of Shreveport, Louisiana. Byrd does not like science. In particular, Byrd does not like
how science doesn’t invoke God to explain natural phenomena. “By limiting
scientific inquiry to ‘natural’ explanations for observed phenomena,” says
Byrd, “what was considered good science often becomes ‘religion’.” Yeah,
science was better before – and notice how he explicitly invokes ‘natural’ phenomena as a presupposition for science rather than (more
accurately) the results of employing appropriate means for investigation and
confirmation of hypotheses.*
Byrd’s
primary target is, of course, evolution: the reason creationism isn’t taken seriously as an
alternative is not because it contradicts the evidence and offers no explanation
for anything but because people who conclude with the Bible rather than
evolution are ostracized from the scientific community by fiat (it’s an interestingly
post-modern, Edinburgh-school like view of science Byrd is espousing). He does
struggle mightily with distinguishing science from religion, though; according to Byrd, “Darwinism is an atheistic theory that attributes all that we see to
chance and natural causes,” and “[t]eaching Darwinism in
biology class is tantamount to teaching Atheism 101.” (And no, he really
doesn’t get evolution – in particular, he doesn’t get the point about evolution
being precisely not a matter of random chance – and goes all in on Hoyle’s fallacy). And as for evidence? Not only
does Byrd deny that it’s there, he even attempts to claim that the fossil record is evidence against
evolution, mostly because he doesn’t bother to actually look.
Yes, it is,
in particular, a disaster that creationism isn’t taught in public schools,
especially when it is adopted by so many people Byrd finds admirable for their intellect; and make no mistake, “[i]f it weren’t taught in
science classes, most of us would say it takes a complete fool to believe
[evolution].” And then, because he is unable to distinguish a scientific
theory supported by empirical investigation from a moral theory, he blames being taught the theory of
evolution for kids today ostensibly being engaged in “immoral and
directionless” behavior (they “wallow with the lascivious hogs”).
Indeed, by not using public schools to evangelicize, “we have become a
nation of fools.” (Yes, there is an irony there that Byrd couldn’t possibly
appreciate.) Indeed, Byrd thinks that teaching science in science classes not
only should be but is illegal.
In his
letters and columns, Byrd has run more or less the full gamut of intelligent
design creationist gambits, including invoking Stephen Meyer as an authority and standard creationist
misunderstandings of information. (More or less all of his writings
also feel the need to take the effort to point out that “One Nation Under God” is part of
the US pledge of allegiance.) Then he quote mines Supreme Court judges.
Diagnosis:
Yeah, a fairly typical specimen: He does not understand the theory of
evolution, and he does not want to try to understand it, but he does
have deep opinions about it nonetheless and will use all his efforts to try to
flail against the strawman he has constructed. Given that he is, at least, able
to formulate grammatical sentences, there is a bit to learn from his flailings
for the rest of us.
*Yes, it’s
that point again: the myth of “methodological naturalism”, the idea that
scientific research relies on assuming certain metaphysical ideas (about
causation, the nature of phenomena, and so on), and is, as such, prevented from
discerning other possibilities. The idea is common among denialists and those
who desperately want to shield their ideas from scientific inquiry, and it is
utterly silly (how would one get any foray into quantum mechanics, or
investigate (and refute) paranormal phenomena – which we do – if that were
correct?). In reality, science is committed to basic empiricism, the idea that
the source of confirmation of hypotheses (including, of course, hypotheses
about unobservable phenomena) comes from the observations and patterns the
hypotheses predict. And the current hypotheses about phenomena like the origin
of life or the universe are accepted because they yield the most successful
predictions and explanations of those observations. If you prefer to entertain
a “non-natural” hypothesis – fine: What you have to do, then, is to show that
it yields better predictions of observable patterns and data. That’s the
bar. “non-natural” hypotheses aren’t barred; it’s just that, at present, none
of the “non-natural” hypotheses some people like does a good job – or any job
at all – in yielding good predictions of data, and certainly not at a level
comparable to, say, evolution or the Big Bang. Science doesn’t need to rule out
any type of explanation by fiat.