160232504Well, once again they handed out the Nobel Prizes for scientific achievement, and once again not a single Creation Scientist won a thing. Thus continuing a streak that began since whenever the Nobel Prize was created. Not only that, but CS is not even acknowledged as a category. Creation Science – the Rodney Dangerfield of scientific endeavors.

Instead, they awarded a prize to two “theoretical” physicists. It wasn’t immediately clear if the physicists were theoretical, or it was what they discovered, but either way it’s sure to upset the creationist community who get all twisted up in knots over the word “theory.” Like the “theory” of evolution, which they take to conflate with “talking out of my butt.” Or the “theory” of gravity, which posits that we are not wildly flying off into outer space right now because there is some invisible force keeping us earthbound.

But I suspect that what will really grind their gears is that these two physicists – who remember, might not even exist – received it for finding something called the “God particle.” Here there are a billion people in houses of worship around the globe every day finding God – the whole God – and not one of them has ever won a Nobel Prize. But two elitist university “scientists” find a teensy-weensy God particle for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second – and everybody’s making a big fuss and giving them a big fancy prize and over a million bucks.

Maybe they should have won an award from a bunch of ophthalmologists for having keen eyesight, but a Nobel Prize? Come on!

But you know, that’s scientists for you. They like to give awards to “small” stuff: micro-biology, God particles. But science dealing with the totality of creation? Yawn.

The scientific community defends its choice because the two physicists are rewriting the history books. But so is the Texas State Board of Education, which has several creationists on its board, and is telling text-book publishers who are submitting their high-school biology textbooks for consideration to include Creation Science – not in so many words, because that would be “unconstitutional” – but to “teach the controversy” as they put it, over the “theory” of evolution. The board has influence because of Texas’ size: what they put in their textbooks generally lays the ground for what goes out to many other states, as well. Meaning that more folks will be reading the Texas’ school board version-of-history books than those of the “theoretical” scientists.

Creation Science is discredited, for among other things, the fact that it doesn’t conduct reproducible experiments, but that doesn’t hold water. The Texas school board, and others like them in Kansas and Tennessee have been repeatedly experimenting with different ways to get their curriculum past the Supreme Court – by dubbing it “intelligent design,” “teaching the controversy,” or whatever.

And then there’s the little quibble that Creation Science is not supported by verifiable facts. But it’s right there in the name: Creation Science. They create science. It’s like science fiction: it’s science; but it’s fiction. And they give awards for that all the time.

But all is not lost for Nobel Prize-seeking creationists. There’s always next year.

About Stan Sinberg

Stan is an award-winning newspaper columnist, radio commentator, and features writer whose humor has appeared in everything from the NY Times to WSJ and MAD Magazine. Stan is a native New Yorker living on the west coast. His website is and you can email him at or follow him on Twitter @ssinberg1
Posted in: Culture, Science, Society