dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/25/85)
> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > >> And please answer this: Why do the NSF and other science organizations > >> reject creationism?! Is it because they are not Christians?! > > > > It is not because they do not like the science; it is because they want > > to avoid the inevitable conclusion. Even in the last century, evolution > > was gaining acceptance, not because of scientific validity, but because > > "it finally freed us from accountability [to a Creator]." They realize > > full well that the only real alternative to evolution is creation, and > > thus they even suppress evidence which would make evolution look like > > Swiss Cheese. (Like when an Ivy League professor scissored out Ron > > Brady's article from the library copy of December 1979 _Systematic > > Zoology_ so students wouldn't read it.) > Please give me evidence of this incident. Also, give me evidence of > your claim that evolution was gaining acceptance (I assume that you > are talking about the scientific community; other acceptances are > irrelevant.) was because "it finally freed us from accountability > [to a Creator]." The Brady incident is discussed in "Darwinism: A Time for Funerals. An Interview with Norman MacBeth." Towards, Spring 1982. I will give the relevant part, along with a bit of the article preceding it, to set the context. MacBeth discussing population genetics: MacBeth: We took it to a man at Ramapo College who was teaching population genetics. He said, "I despise this whole subject and agree that it's worth nothing." I took it to three or four men at the American Museum of Natural History. They said, "Well, I never thought of this," and gulped a little at it's being stated bluntly that population genetics did nothing, but they said that on the whole they think it's right and said that they never did like the subject anyway. So, I feel that my intuitions in 1971 were correct, but as for anybody actually forming a commission and laying down an authoritative ruling that the mathematicians aren't doing a thing for us, they don't do that sort of thing. They always fumble along from day to day and sort of feel the consensus of the community. I think that consensus is pretty strong that mathematics isn't doing what was hoped, but they have not yet reached a point where they are willing to step forward and tell all those mathematicians that they don't like them any more. They haven't any respect for them. The idea has been strong for a long time that if something isn't mathematical it isn't science, so they don't quite dare to talk back to these men who have been tossing the equations round so freely. At this point I should add also that I took this article to another professor in the biology depratment at Ramap College and asked her opinion of it. She came back after several days and said, "I agree entirely that population genetics is worthless stuff, but you can't publish this. If you and Eddie publish something like this the Creationists would get hold of it and throw it in our faces and we can't have that." So here we have another example, a living example, of the basic theme in my book - that they are not revealing all the dirt under the rug in their approach to the public. There is a feeling that they ought to keep back the worst so that their public reputation would not suffer and the Creationists wouldn't get any ammunition. Towards: This fear of giving the creationists ammunition seems very real. MacBeth: Well, let me tell you the most horrible anecdote of them all. A few minutes ago I mentioned Ron Brady's article on natural selection in "Systematic Zoology." I will not name the man or the college in this case but it was an Ivy League college and a respectable man. One of the assistant professors of biology read Ron Brady's article and showed it to a couple of his colleagues, and they all agreed this was very interesting stuff. They put it on the reading list for biology courses. Then they had to arrange for a number of copies to be struck off for students to read. One student couldn't wait for the copies because he had other business and had to read it instantly. So they told him to go on down to the library, get out "Systematic Zoology" for December of '79, and read it right there. He came back in half an hour and said, "I got out the December issue but the article isn't there, it's been scissored out." Next day, the assistant professor of biology went into the office of the head of the department on some other business and on the head's table he saw the missing pages. He went out and got his two colleagues and they marched in together and asked for an explanation. The head of the department said, "well, of course I don't believe in censorship in any form, but I just couldn't bear the idea of my students reading that article." --- Of course. Not in any form. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (03/26/85)
> MacBeth: Well, let me tell you the most horrible anecdote of them all. > A few minutes ago I mentioned Ron Brady's article on natural selection > in "Systematic Zoology." I will not name the man or the college in > this case but it was an Ivy League college and a respectable man. This is evidence???? An anecdote with no person or college named?? Conveniently impossible to refute, isn't it? -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/27/85)
The informative story about the censorship performed by the evolutionist should be known to all. However, it hardly constitutes conclusive evidence that there is a coherent effort to supress creationist ideas. This point is clearly illustrated by the fact that three of the censor's collegues objected strongly to the act. The only valid conclusion is that some people let their biases get the better of them occasionally. > > It is not because they do not like the science; it is because they want > > to avoid the inevitable conclusion. Even in the last century, evolution > > was gaining acceptance, not because of scientific validity, but because > > "it finally freed us from accountability [to a Creator]." They realize > > full well that the only real alternative to evolution is creation, and > > thus they even suppress evidence which would make evolution look like > > Swiss Cheese. (Like when an Ivy League professor scissored out Ron > > Brady's article from the library copy of December 1979 _Systematic > > Zoology_ so students wouldn't read it.) Being freed from accountability to a creator is a most interesting way of describing the popularity of evolution in the last century. This kind of description could be applied to all scientific results that go at least part of the way towards explaining that which was previously unexplainable e.g. why does the sun not fall from the sky? how can something heavier than air fly? etc. It is the goal of science to explain phenomena and in doing so make them more predictable and hence remove some of their apparent randomness and uncertainty (in the absence of a deity of course :-)). If one bases their beliefs on the existence of observed, but currently unexplained phenomena, (i.e. the world is so complex/orderly that there must be some guiding being/deity behind it all), then science is always going to appear as an attack on the beliefs, or as an attempt to be freed from accountability, since any attempt to explain and understand things is going to remove them from the domain of divine providence, and reduce the basis of belief accordingly. Finally, it is not at all clear that the only real alternative to evolution is creationism. This assumes that creationism is a scientific theory of comparable merit to begin with. It furthermore assumes, if this was the case, that one of the two theories must be correct. There may both be wrong compared to some undiscovered one. Padraig Houlahan.