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 Carnes
bmt@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 78712
bill@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)