From: Jonathan Davis (jon.davis@iomartdsl.com)
Date: Tue Feb 26 2002 - 16:07:20 MST
>From e-skeptic (www.skeptic.com ):
EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM
Christian Science Monitor
February 20, 2002 edition
Christian Science Monitor
One of America's longest-running dramas is being revived in Ohio. There,
the state school board is wrestling with whether to give the theory of
evolution sole billing in its revised science curriculum, or to make
room for an alternative theory called "intelligent design."
Inevitably, the 1925 Scopes "monkey" trial springs to mind, along with
"Inherit the Wind," the perennially popular play based on that trial.
And, don't forget, only three years ago Kansas had a major replay of the
controversy
when its education board removed evolution from the curriculum
altogether, a
decision later reversed when voters installed a new board.
Ohio is following a somewhat different script. Intelligent design,
depending on the commentator's perspective, is seen as either a
reasonable explanation of nature's more complex formations - or simply
Bible-based "creationism" in a different costume.
Full text
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0220/p08s02-comv.html>
------------------------------------
SKEPTIC COLUMN, FEBRUARY 2002
The Gradual Illumination of the Mind
The advance of science, not the demotion of religion, will best counter
the influence of creationism.
Michael Shermer
In one of the most starkly honest and existentially penetrating
statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that "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."
Facing such a reality perhaps we should not be surprised at the results
of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans agree with
the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present
form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so," 37 percent prefer
a blended belief that "Human beings have developed over millions of
years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process,"
and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that
"Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced
forms of life, but God had no part in this process."
In a forced binary choice between the "theory of creationism" and the
"theory of evolution," 57 percent chose creationism against only 33
percent
for evolution (10 percent said they were "unsure"). One explanation for
these
findings can be seen in additional results showing that only 33 percent
of
Americans think that the theory of evolution is "well supported by
evidence,"
while slightly more (39 percent) believe that it is not well supported,
and
that it is "just one of many theories." A quarter surveyed said they
didn't
know enough to say and, shedding some light on the problem, only 34
percent
considered themselves to be "very informed"
about evolution.
Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not
determined democratically. It does not matter whether 99 percent or only
one percent of the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on
the evidence, and there are few theories in science that are more robust
than the theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from
numerous converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology,
botany, comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, etc.) all
independently point to the same conclusion--evolution happened. The
nineteenth century philosopher of science, William Whewell, called this
process of independent lines of inquiry converging together to a
conclusion a "consilience of inductions." I call it a "convergence of
evidence." Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proven.
The reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American phenomenon of
_evolution denial_ (the doppelganger of _Holocaust denial_, using the
same techniques of rhetoric and debate--see my book _Why People Believe
Weird Things_ for a comparison), is that a small but vocal minority of
religious fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge
to their deeply held religious convictions. Given this misunderstanding,
their response is to attack the theory. It is no coincidence that almost
without exception all of the evolution deniers are Christians who
believe that if God did not personally intervene in the development of
life on earth then they have no basis for belief, morality, and the
meaning of life. Clearly for some much is at stake in the findings of
science.
Since the Constitution prohibits public schools from promoting any
particular brand of religion, this has led to the oxymoronic movement
known as "creation-science," or, in its more recent incarnation,
"Intelligent Design"
(ID), where ID (aka God) miraculously intervenes just in the places
where
science has yet to offer a comprehensive explanation for a particular
phenomenon. (ID used to control the weather, but now that we understand
it He
has moved on to more difficult problems, such as the origins of DNA and
cellular life. Once these problems are mastered then ID will no doubt
find
even more intractable conundrums.) Thus, IDers would have us teach
children
nonthreatening theories of science, but when it comes to the origins of
life
and certain aspects of evolution, children are to learn that "ID did
it." I fail to see how this is science, or what it is, exactly, that
IDers hope will be taught in these public schools. "ID did it" makes for
a rather short semester.
By contrast, a scientist would want to know _how_ ID did it. In
eschewing all attempts to provide a naturalistic explanation for the
phenomena under question, IDers have abandoned science altogether. Yet
they want the respectability that science brings in our culture, so they
do theology and call it science.
To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists we need to
employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution
explanation. It is not enough to argue that creationism is wrong; we
must also show that evolution is right. The theory's founder, Charles
Darwin, knew this when he reflected:
"It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments
against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public;
and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of
men's minds which follows from the advance of science."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0220/p08s02-comv.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:44 MDT