Muad'Dib

My old university's newspaper recently ran an opinion column on the subject, "Does creationism belong in schools?"

As background, the university is religiously affiliated, but despite this they have an excellent science program for their size. They teach the mainstream scientific views on everything, including biology (although this fact may not be well-known at the administrative level, and among students it is mostly unknown outside the science division).

It's unlikely that either the pro or con authors consulted any of the biology professors, but I am especially compelled to write a response to the author who argues that creationism should be taught. There are so many misunderstandings in his article that I hardly know where to start.

I've attached my first rough draft here. I may adjust it to spend some time arguing that there is no necessary conflict between evolution and non-YEC faith, but I'm trying to keep it at a reasonable length.

I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions that you all have on how to improve it.

Thanks in advance!

Muad'Dib

Oops, did I not attach the letter? Let me try that again...

Asha'man

Well done, little mouse.

You have directly attacked the "Only a Theory" phrase that I'm sure was use, and done it well.

A scientific theory is a model of understanding observations in such a way that predictions can be made. Without predictions, it just isn't a theory.

The first suggestion that I might make is that you distinguish the common usage of the word "theory" from the formal, scientific usage. You might point out that scientific communication must be extra clear and concise, so some words get a more restricted usage.

The second suggestion is that scientific theories are only replaced if they are falsified or if a better theory (with more explanitory power, more accurate predictions, etc) is found. Creationism has clearly failed to provide a valid replacement.

zwi

There are certain arguments that can never be won or lost

This is one. I also refuse to argue with an Oxfordian (who believes that Oxford wrote Shakespeare) Flying Saucer people or the latest, the moon hoax believers

Zwi

Dr.GH

J. Douglas Stevens has his head up his ass. (By the way, 35 years ago Pepperdine offered me a free ride. I went by the school ((pre-Malibo)) and found it to be a fundamentalist wreck).

Your differentiation of the common meaning of theory (a guess) versus the philosophical meaning ( a structured generalization of hypotheticals so that they offer an explanation of the associations of observed phenomena and make predictions regarding as yet unobserved phenomena) is fine. There is no supporting evidence for the creationist argument. And, because “GAWD-DUN-IT” is not a theory in the philosophical sense, there is no such thing as “creationist theory.”

Mr. Stevens, "There are two sides to every story. But most will tell you there is only one truth. "

There are different views of the very human questions of purpose, and method. Playground arguments between children, (or pending wars between nations who's political leaders act like children) have multiple "sides." In these cases there is no "truth." And in any situation where there are two points of view that can marshal equal mutually exclusive evidence, there is no “truth,” or basis to select on point of view over another. However, the creationists have no such evidence. They lie when they claim that they can produce, or have produced such evidence.

Mr. Stevens, “And on the issue of Creation versus evolution, faith and science often stand as polar opposites. Does that mean that one should be taught in place of the other? No. People should not be told what to think or what to believe. “

Scientists do not tell people “what to think or what to believe. “ That is a privilege exclusively claimed by Priests. Further, it is not clear what Mr. Stevens might mean by “Faith.” Faith in the existance of the Creator? Faith in the existance of Zeus? Faith in the recent Seventh Day Adventist cult of Biblical literalism known as creationism (Numbers 1993)?

The sciences do not preclude the existence of a Creator. The sciences (for those who assume the existence of a Creator) present only the logically necessary evocation of a Creator. I would point out that at this point in time there are only two positions available for the scientific existence of a God are “God of the Gaps arguments”: the gap in our understanding of the origin of the Universe, and the narrowing gap in our understanding of the origin of life on Earth. I am occasionally taken by the observation that the theory of evolution allows a similarly endowed Being to emerge.


Numbers, Ronald L.
1993 “The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism” Berkeley:University of California Press

MrDarwin

Over and over I have found that the most effective strategy for dealing with creationists is not to present the case for evolution (which they will just tune out), but rather to present the case against creationism, and specifically the many errors in creationist arguments. Yes, this is similar to their tactics against us! But it's very effective, if you can show that the other side is making serious and obvious errors, and it's even more effective if you can do it in everyday language, because most people (and I would say the vast majority of creationists) are not scientifically literate. Simple questions, like why we find salt deposits or mud cracks between layers supposedly laid down during a flood, can be much more devastating than an exposition on radiometric dating.

manderguy

You could be a bit meaner and just point out the obvious errors.

” There are two sides to every story.” The first sentence is a false dichotomy that the author repeats again and again. It’s the science of evolution vs. HIS particular interpretation of the Bible. There are other interpretations that don’t conflict (as he does hint at), and other creation stories. Which creation theory do we teach? (Ignoring the fact that it isn’t science).

The author obviously (as you address) doesn’t understand theories or the scientific method. You could add that science doesn’t prove theories. This ties in well with your points about other theories (relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.). You may ask if the author wishes to teach astrology along with astronomy, phrenology along with psychology, or alchemy along with chemistry. These other pseudo sciences are on the same footing as creationism. The only reason the author complains about “unproven” evolution and not quantum mechanics is because of his pre-existing religious bias.

Your paragraph that starts “Evolutionary theory will always be flexible in some ways…” is particularly good. It highlights the wide acceptance of evolution by comparison with a “safe” theory.

On the “faith” it takes to believe the theory of evolution: I once read (talkorigins I think) a great response to this. To paraphrase, science rests on evidence, not faith. You don’t have to have faith that archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil, you can look at the mix of reptilian and avian characters and decide for yourself. You don’t have to have faith that humans and other apes descended from a common ancestor. You can look at the morphological, fossil, and genetic (e.g. retrovirus fragments, broken vitamin C gene, etc.) evidence and decide for yourself. You don’t have to have faith that the big bang occurred, you can look at the red-shift data, the cosmic background microwaves, etc. and decide for yourself.

You could also point out that Spradling NEVER actually enrolled in Dini’s class. He could have received a letter from over 30 other faculty. His suit is not a fight for academic freedom, it’s political grandstanding.

The author’s insistence that doctors “know the theory of Creation and its implications that the human body is divinely made, and given the gift of life from a greater power” underscores your point about predictive value. Evolutionary theory predicts we can use animal models for all sorts of biomedical research. It suggests that we should be prudent in our antibiotic use. What does creation (and of course by that, the author means his version) suggest? That women suffer during childbirth because of sin? How is creationism useful to medicine?

A final point is about his statement “Truth springs from genuine argument, but if we are not given the opportunity to argue, beliefs become stagnant.” While this may be true, it does not apply to creationism and evolution anymore than it does alchemy and chemistry. They are not on the same plain let alone at some level playing field. If the author wants to teach the controversies in evolution, by all means, lets do that (and in fact, the faculty I know do this). Students should understand the debates about why sexual reproduction is so prevalent. Students should be aware of the discussion involving group selection ideas. Students should be able to contrast the Out-of-Africa theory with the alternatives.

You could also end with a plea for people to at least understand the basics of something before they decide to make proclamations about it. Your concluding sentence hints at this, and is a good start.

Anyway, far more than you could include in your response, just some ideas.


Zwi: It's certainly true that most hard core creationists will never change their tune. But there's a lot of fence sitters that start to think more critically when they see creationism exposed.

zwi

A great exposition of the whole subject has been promulgated by Richard Dawkins

For an introduction to his thinking on these matters try this site

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Catalano/quotes.htm

It also follows for conspircism, UFO disease Oxfordianism etc

Enjoy

Zwi

Muad'Dib

Thank you all for your input. I'm in the process of revising my letter, and I'll be sure to let you know what happens.

zwi

Manderguy said



Yes you are absolutely right

The more power to your elbow


I just get tired of repeating what was blindingly obvious when I was ten that I am tired of it now

Please carry on

Zwi