stonetools

In defense of YEC

Generally, denizens of this board like to dismiss the argument of creationists as nonsensical raving. As a theistic evolutionist, I agree that scientific creationism is terrible science. However, they do have a point in that the popular advocates of evolution tend to push not the idea that the theory of evolution is good science, but that evolution proves atheism. “Evolution advocates such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and others see atheism to the be the logical consequence of evolutionary biology and mingle their religious philosophy right in with their scientific pronouncements, giving the appearance that atheism is founded on solid science.” I would have a problem with such a view being pushed in high school.

Now for a little quote mining (My quotes, unlike creationist quotes, are typical of what the authors believes):

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
{"Billions and Billions of Demons" New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28; }

If a religiously inclined teenager who was thinking of a career in science read this quote, he would come to the conclusion that he would either have to renounce his faith or give up any idea of a career in science, since he could not comply with the requisite "absolute a priori materialism." It seems to me that even convinced atheists should have a problem with putting this stark choice in front of a 15 year old.

A popular advocate of evolution is Richard Dawkins. Here is a famous quote from him:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Houseman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. DNA just is and we dance to its tune.

"River Out of Eden. A Darwinian view of life"

Another advocate of evolution is William Provine. In debate with Philip Johnson, at
<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm</a>

he says the following:


Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.

Ken Miller reports that Daniel Dennett, in his book, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”had even said that religious believers should be isolated from the community, like animals in a zoo.

These advocates couple the theory of evolution with a milant, pessimistic and deterministic atheism in which " human love, courage, and honesty count for nothing" as Ken Miller pointed out in his book, Finding Darwin’s God. And they are backed up in this by other atheists. See Schermer, at

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202skeptic.html" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202skeptic.html</a>

One doubts that even Darwin himself would agree with the above-nor wish for defenders such as those.

You don't have to be YEC to be apprehensive at putting this stuff in front of 15 year olds. 15 year olds after all will not only take these statements at face value but have a marked tendency to take such announcements and turn them into programs for action .
Ken Miller, no fan of YEC, has stated:

Drawing theological conclusions from the scientific process is logically insupportable, and potentially dangerous. And it fuels, in ways that members of the scientific community are only now beginning to appreciate, much of the continuing opposition to evolution.

In other words, advocates of teaching evolution in high schools have often been their own worst enemies, by insisting that people buy their atheism along with the theory of evolution. One does not have to be YEC to reject that sale.

Now while religious thinkers on evolution do in fact criticize young earth creationists, I have yet to see atheists try to rein in Dawkins and others of his ilk when they argue that evolution proves atheism.
Certainly I have never seen it on this forum. Perhaps you believe as he does, but even if you do, IMHO, this stuff no more belongs in high school biology class than does flood geology. Comments?

Vorkosigan

Dawkins et al are entitled to their opinions. Why should atheists "rein them in?" There's no ethical issue here, if Dawkin's beliefs are not presented in high school classes.

Michael

Coragyps

Dawkin's beliefs have no more business in the classroom than Ken Ham's - now their supported conclusions is another matter. (Sorry, Ken.)

Orpheous99

Originally posted by stonetools:

In defense of YEC

There is no valid dense of YEC in any sense of the term. Creationism is not and never will be credible science. To use the two terms together is a great insult to science.

stonetools

The problem is that since Dawkins et al. are viewed as spokesmen for evolution, their views are seen as typical of those would practice and teach evolutionary biology.If you were the religious parent of a high school teenager, you would no more want someone like Dawkins teaching his opinion as science in school than an athiestic pareent would want a Hovind teaching his opinion as science in school.

Kevin Dorner

And when was it? I haven't seen a citation from you on when he (or anyone else) has mentioned in his classes that this "proves" that there is no god or anything else. Dawkins does make statements that confirm his atheism in his published extracurricular material, but they are outside of his professorial work (such as lectures.)

Again: a necessary distinction... science is neutral towards the existence or non-existence of a god, instead of asserting or denying one. Science may contradict details of certain religious stories that attempted to explain facets of the natural world, but it does not, and cannot, confirm or deny the existence of a deity. For example, a deity that chose to create the universe to look exactly as if it had come into existence through purely naturalistic means and then vanish forever, impossible to find or prove or disprove, would be totally outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

And <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,668520,00.html" target="_blank">some people are able to adapt religion quite well to evolution.</a> Do all of the students at Catholic schools who are taught evolutionary biology (properly, without disclaimers or strawmen or emotional baggage) turn into atheists immediately?

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

pseudobug

why thank you Kevin Dorner, I was just about to post a long scathing criticism of stonetools argument re: "opinions of science" myself.

You done good...

Just one addition. stonetool, the books/sources you site are, for the most part, about the conflict between the facts of science and tortuous contortions of fact or outright lies that constitute creation "science". Scientists, being people, can have opinions and take sides on the issue. Moreover, they can also use science to argue their position. However, science isn't about opinion.

Just as a note, I found this interesting essay the other day on why scientists should question and make comments on theistic claims of creation "science":

<a href="http://islamexposed.com/Essays/falsifiable_god.htm" target="_blank">A Case Against God: Science and the Falsifiability Question in Theology </a>

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: pseudobug ]</p>

DireStraits

Generally, denizens of this board like to dismiss the argument of creationists as nonsensical raving. As a theistic evolutionist, I agree that scientific creationism is terrible science. However, they do have a point in that the popular advocates of evolution tend to push not the idea that the theory of evolution is good science, but that evolution proves atheism.

DS: What, pray tell, does this have to do with the evidence that supports Darwinism?

“Evolution advocates such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, William Provine and others see atheism to the be the logical consequence of evolutionary biology and mingle their religious philosophy right in with their scientific pronouncements, giving the appearance that atheism is founded on solid science.” I would have a problem with such a view being pushed in high school.

DS: That is simply their point of view, and I don't think any of the men mentioned above are pushing for their religious ideas to be presented in high-schools.

Now for a little quote mining (My quotes, unlike creationist quotes, are typical of what the authors believes):

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
{"Billions and Billions of Demons" New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28; }

DS: Who wrote this?

If a religiously inclined teenager who was thinking of a career in science read this quote, he would come to the conclusion that he would either have to renounce his faith or give up any idea of a career in science, since he could not comply with the requisite "absolute a priori materialism." It seems to me that even convinced atheists should have a problem with putting this stark choice in front of a 15 year old.

DS: Your opinion. Who wrote it?

A popular advocate of evolution is Richard Dawkins. Here is a famous quote from him:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A. E. Houseman put it:
For Nature, heartless, witless Nature
Will neither know nor care.
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. DNA just is and we dance to its tune.

"River Out of Eden. A Darwinian view of life"

DS: Go read the Book of Job for similar ideas.

Another advocate of evolution is William Provine. In debate with Philip Johnson, at
<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or161/161main.htm</a>

he says the following:


Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.

DS: And this flows inevitably from Darwinism how?

Ken Miller reports that Daniel Dennett, in his book, “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”had even said that religious believers should be isolated from the community, like animals in a zoo.

DS: "Reports"? Reference please.

These advocates couple the theory of evolution with a milant, pessimistic and deterministic atheism in which " human love, courage, and honesty count for nothing" as Ken Miller pointed out in his book, Finding Darwin’s God. And they are backed up in this by other atheists. See Schermer, at

<a href="http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202skeptic.html" target="_blank">http://www.sciam.com/2002/0202issue/0202skeptic.html</a>

One doubts that even Darwin himself would agree with the above-nor wish for defenders such as those.

DS: I don't think that the originator of the origin of species by natural selction even has to say he has anything to do with such ideas. Why should he?

You don't have to be YEC to be apprehensive at putting this stuff in front of 15 year olds. 15 year olds after all will not only take these statements at face value but have a marked tendency to take such announcements and turn them into programs for action .
Ken Miller, no fan of YEC, has stated:

DS: You'e a troll, ain't ya?

Drawing theological conclusions from the scientific process is logically insupportable, and potentially dangerous.

DS: Yeah. Why do so many creationists rely upon it and virtually nothing else?

And it fuels, in ways that members of the scientific community are only now beginning to appreciate, much of the continuing opposition to evolution.

In other words, advocates of teaching evolution in high schools have often been their own worst enemies, by insisting that people buy their atheism along with the theory of evolution. One does not have to be YEC to reject that sale.

DS: Troll.

Now while religious thinkers on evolution do in fact criticize young earth creationists, I have yet to see atheists try to rein in Dawkins and others of his ilk when they argue that evolution proves atheism.

DS: He's entitled to hold, and express his opinion. He is argued against by evolutionsts. I don't think I've ever seen a creationist argue against another creationist in all the time I've been on these boards.

Certainly I have never seen it on this forum. Perhaps you believe as he does, but even if you do, IMHO, this stuff no more belongs in high school biology class than does flood geology. Comments?

DS: You got 'em.

stonetools

KEVIN DORNER

Again: a necessary distinction... science is neutral towards the existence or non-existence of a god, instead of asserting or denying one. Science may contradict details of certain religious stories that attempted to explain facets of the natural world, but it does not, and cannot, confirm or deny the existence of a deity. STONETOOLS
This is true. Unfortunately, the foremost advocates of evolution do not say this.What they say ( and say repeatedly) is what I have quoted.Instead of portraying the theory of evolution as neutral as to religion, these "advocates" make it look as if the theory of evolution is hostile to religion and that to believe in it, one must check ones faith at the biology lab door.It is immaterial whether they say this in their lectures. What matters is that according to John Q. Public, they are defining what evolution stands for.Maybe,some new advocates are needed.THe problem I see is that people are going to conclude from hearing the above is that "Dawkinsism" is the theory of evolution and they will either continue to work to get evolution banned from the school curriculum or withraw from the public schools. The home school movement and the charter school movement could get a lot bigger than it is.Ominiously, in the UK the withdrawal from public schools has begun.Only an idiot would think the establishment of that YEC school had nothing to do with Dawkins' pronouncements.
Its easy to make fun of YEC beliefs (Heck, I've done some of this myself). Its a lot harder to run a public school system without their tax dollars.This is of course why politicans and educaters listen to YECs. What they hear is complaints from parents( not all of them YECs) that the theory of evolution is necessarily atheist and that they don't want atheism taught to their chidren. Are these parents wrong about the connection between atheism & evolution? Yep.Are they wrong about whether there are people who say that there is such a connection? Nope.If those people keep saying that evolution =atheism, there will be an even bigger backlash than we have seen.

stonetools

To Dire Straits: The divine foot quote is from Richard Lewontin. The Dennett quote was reported in Ken Miller's book. I will get DDI and find the citation.
DS: That is simply their point of view, and I don't think any of the men mentioned above are pushing for their religious ideas to be presented in high-schools.
My point is that as popular advocates for evolution, their views are, rightly or wrongly, taken as definitive.

If a religiously inclined teenager who was thinking of a career in science read this quote, he would come to the conclusion that he would either have to renounce his faith or give up any idea of a career in science, since he could not comply with the requisite "absolute a priori materialism." It seems to me that even convinced atheists should have a problem with putting this stark choice in front of a 15 year old.

DS: Your opinion. Who wrote it?

STONETOOLS
Hey, it is my opinion. How would you interpret this
quote?

DS: You'e a troll, ain't ya?

STONETOOLS

NO, worse , a rational opponent

BTW, if you think I'm a troll, don't respond. You won't hurt my feelings a bit.I think I'm pointing out a real political problem in letting folks like Dawkins & Dennett head up the evolution posse, but hey, I'm wrong every day. Maybe YECS are politically powerless, and atheists do hold the balance of political power in the US.

DS: He's entitled to hold, and express his opinion. He is argued against by evolutionsts.

STONETOOLS
Anyone on this forum?

Drawing theological conclusions from the scientific process is logically insupportable, and potentially dangerous.

VDS: Yeah. Why do so many creationists rely upon it and virtually nothing else?

STONETOOLS
I think that Miller's point (and mine) are that they are both wrong and that they are fuelling a controversy that maybe harmful for the teaching of evolution. Both Miller and I think that these advocates are as responsible for the politicization of the issue as the creationisrs.



DS: You got 'em.

STONETOOLS
Thanks(I think)

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: stonetools ]</p>