pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (01/07/84)
In sharing some of my thoughts on creationism I would like also include
some excerpts from personal communication with Lew Mammel. I trust
Lew will not object to this. I don't think there is anything in here that will
misrepresent, belittle, or embarrass him. I include Lew's comments to
provide a context for my own remarks.
[from my previous letter to Lew:]
I don't think anyone can make the claim that the creationist movement
is not religiously motivated. But I do think that its view of origins
can and should (at least for the purposes of science and the classroom)
be separated from the doctrine of any one religion. The way in which
creationism has to be "religious" is that it is theistic. (One doesn't
have to be a fundamentalist Christian to be a creationist). Evolutionism
is basically atheistic (although not anti-theistic). But I don't think
that the absence of a God (or Creator) in one's belief system necessarily
precludes religious belief or makes it inherently superior to theistic
belief. Calling creationism religious and evolutionism science makes
the assumption that theism is irrelevant or invalid. If a creator
does exist, then the study of his creation in light of a belief in that
existence must be scientifically valid.
The way I see it belief or disbelief in God can have an equally religious
character since they both involve faith--a belief in things that the
believer cannot really prove. Nicholas Wade and William Broad in their
book "Betrayers of the Truth" explain that there is an element of religious
belief among scientists, the evidence of which is filtered out by the
requirements of publishing in science. See the chapter called
"The Myth of Logic". You would be right in being suspicious of those
who would bend science to support their belief in God. But I think
there is something equally wrong with those who do the same thing to support
their disbelief. You might say to me, "Why is a God necessary?"; and I to
you "Why should he be eliminated?". It seems to me that Darwin and his
supporters [e.g. T. H. Huxley] were strongly motivated a "religious" bias
to eliminate the necessity of God's existence. How is this more noble than
those who approach science with the opposite bias?
[Lew's response]
Re theism: I mentioned in a net.religion article that Hutton was convention-
ally religious, that is theistic. I'm sure he didn't hesitate to speak of
"creation", or to attribute the origin of the world to the Christian God.
You say one doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to be a creationist. My
point is that so-called "creationism" goes way beyond the dictates of theism
and even Christianity. It certainly seems to me (and to many others) that
it is nothing but biblical fundamentalism in transparent disguise.
[my response]
To a large extent, I think you are right. Much of creationism is just
fundamentalist Christian belief in disguise. I am not a fundamentalist
in the sense that I see nothing harmful, or sinful, about wrestling with
doubt or trying to objectively evaluate my own beliefs. I don't espouse
the kind of creationism you are talking about. Trying to reconcile the
Bible with science compounds the difficulty of finding the truth. There
is a lot that we do not understand about both science and Scripture.
Personally, I am willing to live with the gaps and not pretend I know all
the answers. I think the evolutionist attitude toward what he doesn't
know is the same, except most are not willing to admit that creationists
may have *any* of the answers. In this respect they reject theism as
irrelevant to understanding reality (the "materialistic monism" that
Dr. Kofahl spoke of in his proposal). I think the attitude that theology
(in general) and science are totally unrelated to be too narrow minded.
The question of first origins is beyond science. It is a metaphysical
question.
My main point in supporting creationism is that its scientific aspects
should be considered. These are the only things that should be taught
in public schools. For example, someone recently stated on the net that
creationism holds that the earth and universe were created in 6 days.
That is NOT a scientific aspect of creationism. That belief is based
on a literal interpretation of Genesis. It makes the assumption that that
interpretation is true--that "day" in Scripture corresponds to the
our understanding of "day" to be a 24-hr period. I am not sure it does.
(In particular, how long was a day before the sun was created? We measure
our days by the time it takes the earth to rotate once on its axis. How
long is a day on Jupiter? How long is a day in Heaven? It's all relative.)
On the other hand, I would consider the creationist's criticism of Darwinist
phylogeny, radiometric dating, the age of the earth, natural selection,
macroevolution, and spontaneous generation to be examples of the scientific
aspects of creationism. And not only their criticism, but the things they
would postulate in accordance with their model.
I think that the fear of a "Balanced Treatment Act" being a deceptive ploy
to introduce Christian Fundamentalism into science education is largely
unfounded. Do you, or anyone, really think that the day after such a
law is passed schools will teach about Adam and Eve, Noah and his ark; using
the Bible as the textbook for creationism? Even if they did, how far do
you think they would get? How many people would stand for that? (Not me!)
From what I have read, the form of "balanced treatment" currently being
pushed for in Louisiana specifically forbids this. It limits the teaching
of creationism to the scientific aspects. Here "creation" means only "abrupt
appearance in complex form". In the forthcoming case of *Aguillard v. Treen*,
the majority of Wendel Bird's scientific witnesses do not espouse the
traditional Christian view of creation. They include Protestants, Catholics,
Jews, Buddhists, even agnostics (one of which is W. Scot Morrow, a biochemist
and an evolutionist). Less than half hold the young earth view.
[see "Christianity Today", Nov. 25, 1983, pp. 34-36]
I am certain that there are many creationists who would love to get Christian
Fundamentalism taught in public schools as science. But I don't think it's
going to happen. I think capitalizing on the motives of these fundamentalists
sidesteps the issues of whether or not there is any scientific validity to
creationism and whether or not evolutionary theory has the exclusive right
to be taught as science in public schools. The biggest problem I have with
our public education is that students are not taught *how* to think, but *what*
to think. We were not generally taught to critique or compare, only to accept
what is taught (your grade depends on giving the "right" answers). Kids
grow up with the strong impression that everything they see in print
(especially in textbooks and newspapers) is unquestionable. (At least this has
been my personal experience in the public schools. I didn't realize until
I was a senior in high school that it was really OK to disagree with, or
have my own opinion about what was taught there.)
[from Lew]
Anyway, given the extremity of creationist claims, I don't see how you
can dismiss the history of thought on this subject. All this has been
gone through before! In Lyell's day there were the "diluvialists", who
stood on the Mosaic record. Do you remember the letter of Lyell's that
I quoted, wherein he cited their admission to several catastrophes and
so on? Do you claim that today's "creationism" has a different basis
than the "diluvialism" of that day? Surely you don't claim that
creation is a new idea suggested by some finding. Walter Brown, who
gave that talk here, adopted this stance.
I still don't see creationism as the unified philosophy that you do. Are all
evolutionists also Darwinists? No. They disagree on many things. So
do creationist scientists, I think. We hear of creationism mostly from
the fundamentalists because they have a heavy axe to grind. Many of them
use creationism as a religious crusade, a tool to win converts to Christian
fundamentalism. This is a misuse, but it doesn't mean creationism is without
merit.
Finally, you say you are interested in where creationism stands today.
I say that the best that can be said for it scientifically is that
it is comprised of a collection of ill thought out, rudimentary
interpretations and scenarios. For example, Setterfield proposed a complete
cosmology built around his speed-of-light function. Do you care to defend
this as part of "scientific creationism" ? Or do you write him off?
Nope. I don't know what to think about Setterfield. I never heard of him
until you mentioned him in your articles. Can you defend (or have you
even read) everything that is postulated by evolutionists? There is a lot
I don't know yet. I have no axe to grind, trying to conform science
to preconceived beliefs. I do have such beliefs and I don't mind exploring
the extent to which science supports them. There is a lot of reading I have
yet to do on both sides of the creation/evolution issue. I prefer not to
get my picture of creationism from evolutionists or anti-creationists, but
to read and critique literature on both sides.
Walter Brown has his own flood theory which involves a titanic, globe
splitting eruption of the entire midatlantic ridge. Its hard to reconcile
this with the "mammals made it to high ground theory", which is bizzarely
irrational by itself, anyway. (Here they are entombed in sediment - where
was the "ground"?)
There you have two creationist theories clashing. I'm not sure if either
has any merit. Uniformitarianism might be more viable that catastrophism,
but there are problems with each. How do you get fossils in the sediment
if, by the time the sediment covered the animal and hardened, the animal
would have long ago rotted away to nothing?
Have you ever seen Derek V. Ager's book, "The Nature of the Stratigraphical
Record"? (1973, Macmillan Press, Ltd.). Ager is a committed evolutionist
but he apparently believes that a catastrophic model is necessary to
account for geological features.
So never mind evolution, Paul. How do YOU account for the white cliffs of
Dover?
Where in the world is Dover? I'm not trying to give you the run around.
I just don't know everything, Lew. And I'm not going to "never mind
evolution". Maybe I'll read an account of the cliffs someday. I don't claim
to have "arrived" at a complete understanding of how the world and life was
formed. Do you? What I do know is that there are equally formidable
problems for evolution theory and I am not going to except it by default.
Anyway, enough reading material was suggested to me during the recent
net.origins debate to keep me satisfied for awhile.
I mean to get back to you on Gentry and rock dating, but I wish you'd
dance a little to my tune once in a while.
I hope you didn't forget spontaneous generation. I'm sorry if I can't
always "dance to your tune" and I'm not trying to make you dance to mine.
Being able to explain every thing in terms of a creationist model it not
my claim. But many do claim that everything can be explained by evolution.
It is that I object to, not evolution *per se*.
An interesting note on Robert Gentry:
Judge Overton's decision in the 1982 Arkansas "monkey trial" mentions
Gentry.
"...[Gentry's] discoveries have not, however, led to the
formulation of any scientific hypothesis or theory would
explain a relatively recent inception of the earth or a
worldwide flood. Gentry's discovery has been as a minor
mystery which will eventually be explained. It may deserve
further investigation, but the National Science Foundation
has not deemed it to be of sufficient import to support
further funding." [see "Science, 215, 19 Feb. 1982, p. 940].
Maybe you can make your own judgement as to whether Gentry's work is
really a "minor mystery". In my view there is a lot of evidence that
conflicts with the accepted evolutionary cosmology that is treated as
"minor mysteries". Evolutionists are confident that they will someday
be explained (In terms of evolution, of course). But (in this case,
at least) they are in no hurry to do so. Last I heard Gentry was working
on formulating a hypothesis consistent with his findings. I hope he
can do it without funding. My point is those who control the funding
for scientific research have total control of what research gets done in
what way. Given the way this kind of control is exercised and the
tremendous bias in the scientific community against creationist ideas, I
don't expect much support for creationism to come out of most of the
research that is done today. Scientists who hold creationist views are
often chided for not making significant contributions to science in general.
It's a very hollow criticism, indeed.
References, by Robert V. Gentry:
Radiohalos: Some Unique Lead Isotope Ratios and
Unknown Alpha Radioactivity
Science Vol. 173, pg. 727 (1971)
Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective
Science Vol. 184, pg. 62 (1974)
Radiohalos in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the
Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification
Science Vol. 194, pg. 315 (1976)
also, a contrasting view:
Moazed C., Spector R.M., Ward R.F., "Polonium Radiohalos:
An Alternate Interpretation", Science Vol. 180, pg.1272 (1973)
Paul Dubuc ... cbosgd!cbscc!pmdstekas@hou2g.UUCP (J.STEKAS) (01/08/84)
The most revealing thing about this entire creationism discussion is the
ENORMOUS amount of creationist literature that creationists are familiar
with. But though a well versed creationist is conversant with a google
of Great Flood theories, don't be surprised if he hasn't heard of the White
Cliffs of Dover!
Even if we non-creationists had the time to read all the literature that
P. Dubuc has suggested it would be useless. For every book we read, two
would be published which superceded them with more "advanced" theories.
The refutation of creationism is impossible because it is a moving
target. Creationists are not searching for the "answer", they're goal
is to develop an argument to reconcile their naive picture of the origin
of life with an overwhelming amount of evidence which contradicts it.
Personally, I find the Big Bang and Evolution awe inspiring and the
theories of creationists insulting attempts to tell God how He should
have created the universe.
Jim