dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
> [K. A. Dahlke] > One of the best reasons for questioning creationism is the Bible's dubious > track record. I shall consider only one example, but there are others. > Is the earth round or flat? During the last 3,000 years, many > individuals discovered the correct answer, and a few advertised > their new found knowledge. They were ruthlessly silenced by the local > religious authorities. When reasons were given, they often included > "the Bible says the earth is flat", and maybe it does. > Passages containing "the ends of the earth ... the four corners > of the earth ... the four winds of the earth ..." are scattered throughout > the scriptures. Many of these are in Revelations. What's "Revelations"? > Within the last couple centuries, even stubborn dogmatic theologians have > accepted the spherical nature of our world, so what happened to the Bible? > An impressive trick. Suddenly all these verses are considered metaphors, > poetic you might say. To help their cause, they even found > (after diligent searches) a verse in Ecclesiasties which says > "he sits upon the circle of the earth". When I was young, my sunday school > teacher presented this very verse, declaring it "substantial evidence > for the Bible's validity. After all, Gawd knew the shape of our > planet long before any scientist had figured it out ... ". > At the time, I bought the argument (sadly). Do you mean Ecclesiastes or Ecclesiasticus? Maybe you mean Isaiah, perhaps chapter 40, verse 22? This is a good example of an attack based on ignorance of what's being attacked. Get your facts straight first, or at least ask what they are. If you don't know what's in the Bible, should we assume that you have any better knowledge of theological history? Say, what do you make of Job 26:7 - "He hangs the earth upon nothing" ? > This retreat into re-interpretation, although disturbing, > is in some ways encouraging. Although religious dogma will > probably remain forever, perhaps creationism will fade into metaphorism. > Perhaps 200 years from now, sunday school teachers will explain: > "the day in Genesis chapter 1 is a metaphor, and the time period > represented could have been millions or billions of years. Some Sunday School teachers do exactly that now. That's not news. Another good example of unfamiliarity with the target. > But don't dwell on that, read the story itself, and notice that the > various entities appeared in the correct order. First the planet, > then life in the oceans, then animals on land, then humans. Actually it says light, then the planet, then plants, then the sun, so it would be pretty hard to reconcile with standard evolutionary doctrine. Yet another example. You may not accept the assertions of the position you're arguing against, but you don't know what it is you're not accepting. > You see, the Bible is Gawd's word, and completely correct. > After all, Gawd knew all about evolution long before > any scientist had figured it out ... ". > This scenario is frightening, since the Bible thumpers will remain strong, > but at least their students will be allowed to learn evolutionary biology. I allow my daughter (age 8) to learn it. I took her to see "Fantasia" recently. :-) --- I am reminded of the student in the introductory chapter of Kerkut's book: affecting to despise the religious for their dogmatism and lack of understanding while failing to exercise any scholarship himself, or make an effort to understand those with whom he is in disagreement. Parts of this have been posted before by others. I think it is quite relevent here, and I reproduce the chapter in its entirety below. Consider well whether the attitude of the student does not reflect your own: ignorance of that which you express disdain for, while supposing your own position secure and unassailable. G A Kerkut, "Implications of Evolution". _International Series of Monographs on Pure and Applied Biology, Zoology Division_, Volume 4, Pergamon Press, New York, 1960. Chapter 1 - Introduction Throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, Learning was under the aegis of the Church. Except for useful subjects such as Medicine and perhaps Law, the university students were concerned with material that would either make the student a useful priest or else a person useful to priests. The hold that the Church has had on the universities has been but slowly relinquished over the years. Until 1871 it was the custom for the majority of dons at Cambridge to be ordained before they could carry out any of the duties in college. This did not always mean that the prospective Fellow had to make a careful study of theology. Thus the Fellows of some colleges had the right of becoming ordained in their own chapel as soon as they were elected to a Fellowship without having to undergo any arduous extra study. This special sanction was taken away from them in 1852 and from then on they had to become ordained in the normal manner. The Fellows besides being compulsorily ordained also had to live under an enforced celibacy. Should they wish to enjoy the varied pleasures of married life they had in turn to relinquish their college Fellowships. The married clergyman then left Cambridge and usually took up one of the livings that were in the gift of his college. This had its own compensations; those scholars who had swallowed their intellectual goat in their youth, instead of being forced to eke it out to various undergraduates for the rest of their lives, could leave Cambridge and take up a rich living in the outside world. This made more room available at the university for the younger man, who did not then merely have to wait for his older colleagues to die. The hold of the Church on the university continued in many ways. The undergraduates coming up to Cambridge until 1852 had to be communicants of the Church of England, and the undergraduate coming up in, say, 1910 had to satisfy his examiners not only in his knowledge of classical languages by also had to show that he had some knowledge of Archdeacon William Paley's book on _Evidences of Christianty_. The latter examination was in force until 1927, when it was brought to the notice of the university authorities that many undergraduates did not in fact read Paley's _Evidences_ but instead studied a little crib of them. Many of the more sceptical dons in the university were in favour of retaining the examination and ensuring that all undergraduates should be made to study Paley's _Evidences_ most carefully, "For in this way," they said, "the student will be forced to realise just how weak the evidence in favour of Christianity really is." This argument was not upheld and in 1927 another piece of tradition was abandoned. Many present-day undergraduates seem to imagine that the various subjects they study have existed as such, if not for eternity, then at least from time immemorial. They are surprised to learn that many of the chairs and examinations only came into existence over the last half-century. In the table below I have selected a few of the dates at which various chairs became established at Cambridge. It will be seen that the subjects of Theology and Medicine are very ancient whilst German, French and English are relatively modern. Establishment of Chairs at Cambridge 1502 2 Chairs of Divinity 1540 Civil Law, Physic, Hebrew, Greek 1634 Arabic 1683 Moral Philosophy 1684 Philosophy 1702 Organic Chemistry 1704 Astronomy 1707 Anatomy 1724 History 1727 Botany 1866 Zoology 1869 Fine Art 1909 German 1911 English Literature 1919 French 1937 Geography 1938 Education (This is only a selection from the complete list.) You may ask, "What has all this got to do with evolution?" It is my thesis that many of the Church's worst features are still left embedded in present-day studies. Thus the serious undergraduate of the previous centuries was brought up on a theological diet from which he would learn to have faith and to quote authorities when he was in doubt. Intelligent understanding was the last thing required. The undergraduate of today is just as bad; he is still the same opinion-swallowing grub. He will gladly devour opinions and views that he does not properly understand in the hope that he may later regurgitate them during one of his examinations. Regardless of his subject, be it Engineering, Physics, English or Biology, he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs not one bit from the irrational theology student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma and hurry through his studies in order to reach the peace and plenty of the comfortable living in the world outside. But what is worse, the present-day student _claims_ to be different from his predecessor in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogma, and when challenged he says in defence, "After all, one has to accept something, or else it takes a very long time to get anywhere." Well, let us see the present-day student "getting somewhere." For some years now I have tutored undergraduates on various aspects of Biology. It is quite common during the course of conversation to ask the student if he knows the evidence for Evolution. This usually evokes a faintly superior smile at the simplicity of the question, since it is an old war-horse set in countless examinations. "Well, sir, there is the evidence from palaeontology, comparative anatomy, embryology, systematics and geographical distribution," the student will say in a nursery-rhyme jargon, sometimes even ticking off the words on his fingers. He would then sit and look fairly complacent and wait for a more difficult question to follow, such as the nature of the evidence for Natural Selection. Instead I would continue on with Evolution. "Do you think that the Evolutionary Theory is the best explanation yet advanced to explain animal interrelationships?" I would ask. "Why, of course, sir," would be the reply in some amazement at my question. "There is nothing else, except for the religious explanation held by some Fundamentalist Christians, and I gather, sir, that these views are no longer held by the more up-to-date Churchmen." "So," I would continue, "you believe in Evolution because there is no other theory?" "Oh, no, sir," would be the reply, "I believe in it because of the evidence I just mentioned." "Have you read any book on the evidence for Evolution?" I would ask. "Yes, sir," and here he would mention the names of authors of a popular school textbook, "and of course, sir, there is that book by Darwin, _The Origin of Species_." "Have you read this book?" I asked. "Well, not all through, sir." "About how much?" "The first part, sir." "The first fifty pages?" "Yes, sir, about that much; maybe a bit less." "I see, and that has given you your firm understanding of Evolution?" "Yes, sir." "Well, now, if you really understand an argument you will be able to indicate to me not only the points in favour of the argument but also the most telling points against it." "I suppose so, sir." "Good. Please tell me, then, some of the evidence against the theory of Evolution." "Against what, sir?" "The theory of Eovlution." "But there isn't any, sir." Here the conversation would take on a more strained atmosphere. The student would look at me as if I was playing a very unfair game. It would be clearly quite against the rules to ask for evidence against a theory when he had learnt up everything in favour of the theory. He also would take it rather badly when I suggest that he is not being very scientific in his outlook if he swallows the latest scientific dogma, and, when questioned, just repeats parrot fashion the views of the current Archbishop of Evolution. In fact he would be behaving like certain of those religious students he affects to despise. He would be taking on faith what he could not intellectually understand and when questioned would appeal to authority, the authority of a "good book" which in this case was the _The Origin of Species_. (It is interesting to note that many of these widely quoted books are read by title only. Three of such that come to mind are the Bible, _The Origin of Species_ and _Das Kapital_.) I would then suggest that the student should go away and read the evidence for and against Evolution and present it as an essay. A week would pass and the same student would appear armed with an essay on the evidence for Evolution. The essay would usually be well done, since the student might have realised that I should be tough to convince. When the essay had been read and the question concerning the evidence against Evolution came up, the student would give a rather pained smile. "Well, sir, I looked up various books but could not find anything in the scientific books against Evolution. I did not think you would want a religious argument." "No, you were quite correct. I want a scientific argument against Evolution." "Well, sir, there does not seem to be one and that in itself is a piece of evidence in favour of the Evolutionary Theory." At this piece of logic the student would sit back and feel that he had come out on top. After all, I had merely been questioning him whilst he had produced information. I would then indicate to him that the theory of Evolution was of considerable antiquity and would mention that he might have looked at the book by Radl, _The History of Biological Theories_. Having made sure that the student had noted the book down for future reference I would proceed as follows. [Goes on in next chapter to give assumptions that are usually implicit, and hence unrealized.] One point to note regarding the above is that when Kerkut asks the student about the first fifty pages of _The Origin_, I suspect that he is having a joke on the student, as well as (perhaps) those of his readers who, like the student, refer to it without ever having troubled themselves to read it. The subject of evolution is scarcely dealt with in those fifty pages, except by the implicit analogy that artificial breeding has a relationship to natural selection. Natural selection itself is not discussed until about page 80. The student, by agreeing that such reading has given him his "firm understanding of evolution", cuts his own throat. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |