gjphw@ihuxm.UUCP (12/08/83)
This rather lengthly item is my attempt to cover a piece of the background
surrounding the scientific creationism controversy that L. Bickford
(qubix!lab) has reintroduced to this newsgroup. Most should recall the
groundswell of discussion that arose when a summary of a creation science
presentation made at Bell Labs (Illinois) was posted to the net alittle over a
month ago.
To set everyone off on the right foot, I agree completely with the senti-
ments voiced by my friend J. Stekas (hou2g!stekas) and Hardie (sask!hardie)
about the propriety of religious discussions in net.physics. It is far too
evident to the majority of scientists that creation science is a thinly veiled
attempt to reintroduce biblical teaching into public school education. Unfor-
tunately, this perception is not obvious to the population at large. In a
recent survey (source unspecified), 44% of the U.S. public does not think that
the human species had an evolutionary origin (9% were uncertain). This is a
large fraction of society which can have a substantial effect on educational
policies. While the majority of the arguments put forth by the creation
scientists for their views are little different (both in content and style)
from those generated at the time when Darwin and Wallace first published their
theories of evolution, the current drive is being spearheaded by two church
related organizations. I have been doing some reading recently about scien-
tific creationism and would like to relate some of what I have learned. My
reference is titled "Darwinism Defended" and was written in 1983 by a Canadian
historian of science with a special interest in evolution and biology. I have
yet more to read (both pro and con) from other texts.
The Institute for Creation Science, which is led by H.M. Morris (the author
of "Scientific Creationism" (1974)), is affiliated with the American Heritage
College of California. This text, designed for secondary school use, comes in
two versions: one with biblical references and one without. According to my
reference, Morris is the primary author of this text. Creationism is also
supported by a group called the Center for Creation Research, an organization
that requires an advanced degree (M.S. or Ph.D.) in science to join. In fact,
most of the members of the Center have advanced degrees in engineering, not
research science, and those few members who hold degrees in biology are not
active in the field.
The "Scientific Creationism" text itself is quite interesting and is prob-
ably the most coherent position statement offered by the creationists. Sum-
marizing from my reference, the bulk of the argument against evolution treats
the popular misconceptions of evolution, not the body of ideas as they are
currently discussed by biologists. B. Howes (unc!bch) is far from being alone
in bemoaning the misstatements put forth by creationists into the mouths of
evolutionists. The style of argumentation includes a mixture of quoting the
cautionary statements made about evolution by evolutionists (!), and the logi-
cal fallacy that since evolution is wrong (as presented by the creationists),
creation science must be correct. Virtually no creation scientists are refer-
enced in the biology treatment, only active and contemporary evolutionists,
and the cases that give strongest support to neo-Darwinism (as the largest
school of evolutionary thought is called) are entirely omitted.
The sections on geology are quite different. When discussing the age of the
Earth and the geological record, only creation science authors are referenced.
The sections on evolution assert that creationism supports an universe where
the laws of nature do not change with time (in contrast to the requirements of
an evolutionary model), but when the discussion gets to the physical sciences,
the laws of nature are quite variable (e.g., radioactive decay rates). It
appears to me that the absence of references to contemporary geologists and
physicists about the age of the universe can only be attributed to the lack of
supporting statements from the mainstream physical sciences. Geologists and
physicists have reached a consensus about the age of the Earth (at least to an
order of magnitude), and the researchers in these fields have moved on to
other projects.
If you must know, I hold a doctorate in physics (though I am not currently
working in science) and am strongly opposed to the creation science movement.
It is an affront to God and man that the intellect of human beings should be
perverted by the tortuous reasoning, nefarious objectives, and inconsistencies
of the creationists. Our public schools should be the place where the best of
our current understanding is taught, and not a forum for every dubious
hypothesis or crank idea. The university is a more appropriate place for
treatment of competing theories, after the students have received a grounding
in a discipline. Unfortunately, these feelings will not make the organized
creation science movement go away. In part, I feel that this situation has
arisen due to a touch of arrogance on the part of active scientists and their
inability to communicate their findings, techniques, and enthusiasm to the
general public. Establishment scientists have nothing to fear from the intel-
lectual challenge posed by the creationists, but they have a severe public
relations problem if the popularity of the movement is considered. As an
example of the absence of popular support, every newspaper that I have seen
carries a daily astrology column, but only a few even have a weekly science
section.
So, to address myself directly to Larry, Jim, Byron, Chris, and the many
other contributors and readers of this newsgroup, I must vote in favor of some
discussion of the scientific claims and arguments made by the creationists.
While I doubt that any discussion here will sway minds, it will provide those
of us who oppose creation science an opportunity to review those arguments.
This will prepare us to defend our views against the creationists at cocktail
parties and before school boards when consideration is being given to the pur-
chase of new textbooks that our children will use. Creationists are, for the
most part, sincere people, but the intensity of their belief (that human
beings do not derive from apes) seems to preclude the dispassionate con-
sideration of the evidence that is one of the hallmarks, but not always the
practice, of science. Creationism, like any religious movement, is a force
that requires reckoning.
Too much said. Back to my ivory tower....
--
Patrick Wyant
AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
*!ihuxm!gjphw