[net.origins] A judgment for evolution

gjphw@iham1.UUCP (07/19/84)

   Ordinarily, I agree that this forum should not be used for making book
 reports.  It has been a vehicle for expressing individual opinions and values.
 However, I would like to recommend for your consideration a recent collection
 of essays concerning science and creationism.   With a 1984 copyright date, it
 is the most recent book I have seen in support of evolution against creation-
 ism, and includes the ruling of the Arkansas judge in the so-called Balanced
 Treatment act enacted by the Arkansas legislature.

   The book is called *Science and Creationism* edited by Ashley Montagu (sp?)
 (a writer and paleontologist).  About half of the essays in the book were spe-
 cially written for this occasion, while the remaining were taken from articles
 in various magazines.  And, the ruling and opinion of the judge in the Arkan-
 sas Balanced Treatment trial.  The majority of the articles appear to speak to
 a partisan crowd.  Two of the more emotional essays were written by S.J. Gould
 (who has been extensively misquoted by creationists) and another scientist who
 felt quite strongly that science must be atheistic (an unnecessary position,
 in my opinion).  Two other authors provide almost 10 pages of examples of
 transitional forms, showing fairly complete fossil records of evolutionary
 changes from one species to another (kinds, as used in creationist literature,
 has no fixed definition and does not correspond to any recognized taxonomic
 categories).  One article presents the present evidence in support of life
 arising from inanimate chemicals (though somewhat peripheral to evolution),
 and even Isaac Asimov appears in this collection.

   My favorite articles were those dealing with clarifying issues and discuss-
 ing the Arkansas trial.  One essay, written by a philosopher, presented the
 many requirements that a successful scientific theory must satisfy.  He gave
 four major criteria that included both logical and sociological conditions,
 then proceeded to show that creation science fails several of these condi-
 tions.  It is interesting to find a quote from an article by D. Gish that
 states for any conflict between science and the Bible, the Bible must be con-
 sidered correct.  Based upon this approach, creationism is insensitive to any
 observations or experiments.

   A second defining essay treated the development of Protestant fundamentalism
 in the U.S. and its view of science.  The growth of fundamentalism has been
 much more significant in the U.S. than in European countries, and derives
 essentially from an adherence to the inerrancy of the Bible.  Since the mid-
 1800's, fundamentalists have espoused a Baconian view of science and its
 treatment of the natural world.  From this basis derives the statements that
 science proceeds only from examination of the evidence and the consideration
 of science as a monolithic study (diversity of opinion within a scientific
 discipline weakens its validity).  Fortunately, or unfortunately depending
 upon your perspective, contemporary science does not follow the philosophy and
 model of Francis Bacon.

   Four articles were devoted to the Arkansas Balanced Treatment act trial.
 Everyone pointed out that the act passed the legislature without debate and
 that the governor signed the act without reading it.  Unlike the Scopes Monkey
 trial of 1925, the 1983 Arkansas trial did permit expert testimony to estab-
 lish the position and support for evolution, the modern philosophy of science,
 and the strong dependency that the creationist literature has for Biblical
 language and concepts.  A geological expert described the techniques for dat-
 ing rocks by radioactive decay and methods to correct for a variety of errors.
 Several diverse methods yield very good agreement for most samples.  Two
 paleontologists (one being Gould) testified on the fossil support for evolu-
 tion.  While these two had different mechanisms for evolution (one strongly
 supported Darwinism while Gould has proposed a theory called punctuated
 equilibria), both agreed on the fact of evolution and the age of the Earth (as
 indicated by geological studies and necessary for evolution).  A bible scholar
 from the University of Chicago showed where the language and concepts of crea-
 tionists' texts derives from the Bible, a Canadian philosopher of science
 presented information about the history of Darwin's theory and the nature of
 contemporary science, a Columbia University physicist testified about the
 interpretation of the second law of thermodynamics, and an Arkansas biology
 teacher told how embarrassed he would be to teach creationism as a science.
 (The transcripts of the trial would undoubtedly serve as an excellent primer
 on the techniques of science and evolution as a unifying principle.)

   The plaintiffs for the trial included primarily religious leaders, teachers,
 and parents in Arkansas (12 in all) and was conducted by the ACLU.  The defen-
 dant was the State of Arkansas, conducted by the Attorney General, with tes-
 timony of Ph.D.s involved in the creationism movement.  None of the major
 creationism authors (i.e., Morris or Gish) was called to the stand by the
 defense.  One religious leader in the creationism movement professed belief in
 flying saucers as tools of the devil.  One Cambridge professor who coauthored
 a book with Hoyle discussing the origin of life on Earth having come from
 space was called by the defense.  He expressed both support for evolution and
 said that anyone who believed that the Earth was much less than 4.5 billion
 years old "...must be an imbecile." (The judge was puzzled as to why the
 defense would call such a damaging expert to give testimony in their favor.)

   Judge Overton ruled that creation science (the name was changed from the
 older term of scientific creationism) was merely a particular literal reading
 of the Bible, and constituted religious instruction.  His opinion expressed
 many of the same views that have been shared on the net.  He criticized the
 creationists' focus on dualism (it's special creation as published by the
 Institute for Creation Research versus Darwin's theory of evolution; no other
 possibilities are considered), the confusing argument that evolution is a
 religion (so, logically, both creation and evolution should be banned from
 public school science) but that creation deserves equal treatment with evolu-
 tion in science (thus labeling both as science), and the techniques used by
 the creationists.  Despite the creationists' assertion that science has become
 a closed establishment, no one present could provide any evidence that an
 article was either submitted to or submitted and rejected by a recognized
 scientific journal (if a science, creationists are not even embarking on the
 traditional route to establishing their theories).

   One essay noted that creationists operate more in the style of literary
 analysts, picking and choosing quotes that support their position.  Creation-
 ists also perform very little independent research in support of their views.
 The revolutionary evidence that they claim to find has been shown to be known
 to mainstream biologists for decades, and have already been explained or is
 considered explainable with further study and evidence.  A major tenet of
 creationists is that ignorance is proof of their position (if mainstream sci-
 ence cannot explain it at this time, then that is proof of special creation).
 When an attempt is made to point out a misinterpretation (e.g., the second law
 of thermodynamics) or misrepresentation (e.g., Darwinism is not the only
 mechanism for evolution), creationists usually ignore the attempt.  They have
 established their own journals and texts, and appeal directly to the public
 using many of the common misunderstandings of science and evolution.  The
 acceptance of creationism would involve wholesale rewriting of almost all of
 science (including physics, which is my area of expertise).

   Yes, the biology texts established by the advisory groups to reinforce sci-
 ence education after Sputnik were overly strong and arrogant.  The effects of
 the Scopes Monkey trial was to make fundamentalists appear like nerds on
 scientific issues, but fearing declining sales most textbook publishers either
 reduced or eliminated references to evolution.  The creationists have now
 decided to target local school boards and change the policies for purchasing
 biology textbooks, appealing directly to the people while avoiding front-page
 coverage.

   The discussions in this newsgroup have become much less lively recently.  If
 anyone is still listening, I recommend *Science and Creationism* as a very
 readable defense of contemporary evolutionary theory and modern science in
 general.

-- 

                                    Patrick Wyant
                                    AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL)
                                    *!iham1!gjphw