carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (10/29/84)
-------------
Thanks to Patrick Wyant and Bill Jefferys for their recent excellent
contributions. As Bill points out, for L. Bickford to claim that empirical
evidence exists which contradicts evolution theory (the alleged human
footprints at Glen Rose) and in the next breath to claim that evolution
theory can never be contradicted by any empirical evidence, is the distilled
essence of creationist-style argumentation, something to frame and hang on
the wall. Larry, Long Distance from San Diego.
Pat Wyant is right on the money when he states in a recent article:
In summary, we must recognize that long-standing controversies rarely
concern what they purport to concern. If the creationism-evolution
controversy were a matter of science, it could readily be resolved.
Evolutionists and creationists have argued as if the issues were
scientific ones, resolvable by appeal to the data. Since creationism
predates evolutionism, and the debate goes on, the cause of the conflict
must lie elsewhere.
Exactly. The fundamental motivation for creationist belief is not the
motivation underlying the pursuit of science. Consequently one can refute
creationism by scientifically correct arguments from now until the Second
Coming without budging the creationists from their beliefs; since it was not
the pursuit of science that brought them to creationist belief, science
cannot take them away from it.
It follows that scientists should not be surprised or indignant when
their scientifically cogent arguments fail to convince the creationists; on
the contrary, that is what one would expect. Further, it would be well for
scientists to be consistent in their scientific attitudes. They, of all
people, have the least reason to take a judgmental attitude toward human
behavior, since science is based on the belief that all phenomena in the
natural world can be rationally explained, including human behavior.
What I am saying is that we need to try to achieve a genuinely
*scientific* understanding of the creationist movement. Such an
understanding would eschew the use of judgmental, moralistic terms such as
"stupid", "dishonest", "lazy", "evil," and the like. These terms have no
scientific meaning, and are merely words of abuse for people with whom one
has lost patience. Of course it is very easy to lose one's patience with
the creationists from time to time. But I find that an effective remedy is
to exert one's intelligence to discover the motivation of the annoying
behavior.
Creationists are not "stupid". Consider our creationist friends on the
net. They impress me as honest and sincere people who are doing their best
to figure things out. They did not invent the fallacious arguments for
creationism that they serve up to us; they are simply relaying them from
persons whom they respect. They have adopted the belief system of persons
whom they have known and looked up to, just as we have ourselves. So let us
please lay off the rhetoric of moral turpitude that we sometimes roast
them with, or at the very least save it for Morris, Gish, and Co.
This leads to the larger question of the causes of the resurgence of
creationism in the United States, a question that has no simple answer. I
believe it has a great deal to do with the need of an economically and
politically oppressed sector of American society to defend its autonomy and
integrity by asserting control over the education of its children and over
its way of life in general. This is only the beginning of a long discussion,
one which I would very much like to see taking place in net.origins.
Science and religion have had a long and troubled relationship, but it is
worth reflecting on the fact that they have evolved from a common ancestor
(!). A direct lineage leads back from modern scientists to the
quasi-religious Presocratics (I'll bear correction from those who know
history better than I). The ancient Greeks had no concept of "religion" in
our modern sense, and it is doubtful whether they had a concept of "science"
either, although certainly Aristotle, for example, laid the foundations for
modern science. In any case, it should be noted that *science*, with which
the creationists are doing battle, is not merely a certain body of
institutions and practices developed in the West over the last 400 years or
so. It is, as Duane Gish points out, the same thing as *knowledge*; in
other words, it is the entire human endeavor, beginning in prehistory, to
satisfy the desire (or *eros*) for knowledge which seems to be a universal
trait of the species optimistically named *Homo sapiens*.
Enough of my disorganized reflections. My main point is that I would
like to see some thoughtful discussion in this newsgroup of the
sociological, psychological, philosophical, and historical dimensions of the
creationism/evolutionism conflict. A final point. In my experience,
conflicts among Homines sapientes, whether between husband and wife or
between superpower nations, are never resolved so long as both sides hold to
the belief that the conflict is one between Right and Wrong, moral good and
moral evil. It can only be resolved when at least one side adopts the
desire to learn and understand as its basic motivation and finds the
courage to reject the alternative, the desire to protect oneself against
perceived threats emanating from wicked people. The only way, ultimately,
to deal successfully with troublesome people is to attempt to understand the
causes of their behavior. Now, it is intrinsic to the world view of the
creationists to divide the world into two groups, those who are on the side
of God and those who are in rebellion against Him, the good and the evil.
On the other hand, it is intrinsic to the nature of the scientific endeavor
to seek a dispassionate understanding of the causes of things, including
human behavior. That is why I believe that people with a scientific
perspective can, at least potentially, lead the way to a real resolution of
the apparently irreconcilable conflict pointed out by P. Wyant, and why I
believe that the creationists cannot.
Richard Carnesbmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (10/31/84)
> This leads to the larger question of the causes of the resurgence of > creationism in the United States, a question that has no simple answer. I > believe it has a great deal to do with the need of an economically and > politically oppressed sector of American society to defend its autonomy and > integrity by asserting control over the education of its children and over > its way of life in general. This is only the beginning of a long discussion, > one which I would very much like to see taking place in net.origins. What it has to do with is a worldwide revival of Christian faith. It isn't evident in this country as much as in others, particularly the developing nations, but there has in recent years been an unprecedented growth in the Christian church, along with increasing unity. More and more signs of the working of spiritual powers are being seen, both good and evil. I myself am part of this, having been a radical leftist for several years, and found the whole thing lacking, I and many of my friends became Christians. We also began to rethink our politics, obviously, in the light of the Word of God. I was not, am not, economically and politically oppressed, rather, I have seen the way in which philosophies such as I formerly espoused have led to the alarming state of the world, instead of contributing to a solution for it. I, too, would enjoy discussing it, however, I'm not sure that net.origins is the place for it. I would enjoy mail on the subject. from over the rainbow of we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis, MO)
ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (11/02/84)
[Nothing up my sleeve]
Actually, there is an interesting sociological study of
the creationist movement which was published recently. The
author was Dorothy Nelkin. I don't remember the title.
I haven't mentioned it here because she devotes very little
space to the specifics of creationist belief, choosing instead
to concentrate on the group characteristics of creationists
and what has led them to reject scientific methodology.
I lent the book to a friend in Boston so the title won't
be available to me for a couple of months.
There was also a Sci. Am. article by her a few years ago.
"I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac
knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
Department of Astronomy
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/04/84)
Some suggestions for reading on the topic of "what makes creationists tick?"
*Science and Creationism*, Ashley Montagu, Editor. Oxford University
Press, 1984. This book has two relevant articles. The first
is George M. Marsden's "Understanding Fundamentalist Views of Science",
pp. 95-116. The second is Kenneth E. Boulding's "Toward an Evolutionary
Theology", pp. 142-158. This is an extremely useful book, and these are
only two of many excellent articles. There is an entire section devoted
to the notorious Arkansas case.
*Evolution versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy*, J. Peter
Zetterberg, Editor, Oryx Press 1983. An interesting article relevant to this
topic and to a discussion which took place recently in this newsgroup is
"An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement" by John Patterson. It documents
the extraordinarily large amount of influence that professional engineers
(who by the way are not scientists although they have somewhat similar
technical training) have on the Creationist movement. I might mention in
passing also the article "Six 'Flood' Arguments Creationists Can't Answer",
by Robert J. Schadewald, which effectively refutes the statement made
in Ray Miller's recent "Pamphlet #1" to the effect that Henry Moore's
"Flood Geology" predicts very much the same geological record as does
standard geology. He remarks, "In pseudoscience, hypotheses are erected
as defenses against the facts. Pseudoscientists frequently offer
hypotheses flatly contradicted by well-known facts which can be ignored
only by well-trained minds. Therefore, to demonstrate that creationists
are pseudoscientists, one need only carry some creationist hypotheses to
their logical conclusions". He then proceeds to do this. (This article is
reprinted from *Creation/Evolution*, Issue IX (Summer 1982).
One rather unusual book is Davis A. Young's "Christianity and the Age
of the Earth" (Zondervan 1982). Written by an evangelical Christian
geologist who rejects evolution while accepting the ancient age of the
Earth, it is directed towards creationists of the Henry Moore/Duane Gish
variety who fear evolution because of its alleged contradiction with
Scripture. He effectively refutes creationist claims regarding
thermodynamics, "Flood Geology", radiometric dating, and Thomas Barnes'
arguments regarding the geomagnetic field. In addition, he has lengthy
sections which bear on the question of why creationists think that way.
Much of the book is devoted to showing to "young Earth" creationists that
they need not fear the fact of an old earth.
Another unusual, one might say bizarre, book, is William Lee Stokes
"The Genesis Answer". Stokes accepts the findings of science and
attempts to find literal readings of Genesis that parallel these
findings. Not very successful, in my opinion, but interesting and relevant
nevertheless.
Finally, there is no substitute for reading creationist literature.
Not only will a careful reading of the literature prepare one for
the kinds of arguments one is likely to encounter in debate, but they
will demonstrate how hollow are the claims of creationists that creationism
is any more than pseudoscience. To counter those who claim that creationism
"science" is independent of Genesis, it is sufficient to read in parallel
the different editions of creationist books that are designed for
public and private schools. This is also very helpful in understanding
creationist motivation, because frequently the public school edition
will make statements whose motivation becomes clear when reading the
parallel sections in the private school edition. I also recommend
"Origins Research", a periodical put out by Students for Origins Research,
PO Box 203, Goleta CA 93116. If you are an educator you can receive it
free by writing on your letterhead. (This is the same outfit that Ray Miller
is beavering away for at the moment).
--
"When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve"
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp)
bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (11/06/84)
The Scientific American article that Ethan Vishniac mentioned
recently is as follows:
"The Science-Textbook Controversies", by Dorothy Nelkin. *Scientific
American* Vol. 234, No. 4, pp. 33-39 (April 1976). There are
followup letters in the July and October issues which should
be read in conjunction with it.
--
"When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve"
Bill Jefferys 8-%
Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail)
{allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp)
bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)