Critical Thinking Blog #2

When I think of "pseudoscience," I think of Scientology (No offense to any Scientologists in the room. I'd love to hear more about your religion). Science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard first detailed Dianetics in an early 1950's comic book. Which, as it seems to me, is a pretty inglorious introduction, considering that it is a cornerstone of the Scientologist religion. Dianetics is a "non-germ theory" approach to mental health, which rejects traditional psychiatric medicine. Most of the scientific community sees Scientology as a pseudoscience - all of the evidence in it's favor lacks any empirical backing, leaving nothing else to establish it's validity.

The dispute between intelligent design and evolution is essentially a disagreement between science and pseudoscience. Stemming from a simple observation about finches, Darwin's theory of evolution has been reinforced by countless scientific studies, with over two hundred years' worth of widely accepted and research. 

  Creationism, on the other hand, works backward. In attempt to build their building from the roof down, creationism begins with the facts, the Biblical truths, and seeks to build a basic famework underneath their apparently floating ceiling. Unfortunately for creationists, it has been nearly impossible to provide any scientifically acceptable evidence supporting their claims. Despite this, many creationists insist that their evidently pseudoscientific ideals be taught in schools alongside Darwin's almost universally-accepted theory of evolution.

How can a peoples' faith be so unshakable that they will knowingly toss aside a conclusion that science has been coming to for centuries, in favor of an archaic text that is largely outdated in the eyes of modern society, government, and morality?