| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
> There is a vast literature on the subject, pro- and con-. Also,
>from long experience in dealing with creationists I suggest that one
>stick with current references. The creationists are slick and have
>armies of subordinates combing technical literature for areas to
>pick away. For a insight into the current thinking of an
>"intellectual creation scientist" (a triple oxymoron!) I highly
>recommend _Darwin on Trial_ by Phillip E. Johnson, Intervarsity
>Press, Downers Grove Illinois, ISBN 0-8308-1758-1. I found it an
>excellent exercise to read and mentally refute the arguments therein.
>The author is reported in the jacket to be a Harvard and U. Chicago
>graduate, a lawyer, a long-term clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren,
>and professor at U.C. Berkeley (Law).
>
Although it's pretty obvious that Phillip Johnson isn't a
paleontologist, it should be noted that he accepts an old earth. The few
parts of the book dealing directly with evolution aren't too hard to
refute, though the best counter-evidence for the bit on whales was
discovered after the book was written.
However, the primary point of the book was the extent to which a
naturalistic (i.e., a priori rejection of the supernatural) world view is
presented as being a part of science. This accusation is largely correct.
Scientific investigation of a problem requires the assumption that
all causes are internal. Therefore, science cannot tell whether or not
this assumption is valid. Instead, this must be determined on
philosophical or theological grounds. Is it surprising that so many people
believe that evolution is "part of Satan's big lie" (as one religious comic
book I saw put it) when it is claimed that evolution proves that God does
not exist? If there is an omnipotent God, then he might make life which
evolves. (Not a bad plan, if He also made the environment variable). If
things exist purely by chance, then life might arise and diversify through
evolution. Determining which (if either) is the case is outside the realm
of science. Mixing a philosophical view with science but presenting it as
entirely science is not confined to "creation scientists"!
Obviously, the appeal of "creation science" is not scientific but
theological. The claim in Alabama textbooks that evolution is an "unproven
belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things"
reflects a misunderstanding of science which has often been endorsed by the
evolution camp as well. Evolution is descent with change. Available
biological and paleontological evidence suggests that it is driven by a
combination of natural selection and catastrophic extinctions and does not
follow a pattern we can predict. Whether these forces are "random and
undirected" or under the control of some supernatural being whose plan
isn't obvious to us cannot be determined by science. Most "scientific
creationists" admit descent with change happens (on a small scale) but
vemhently deny that this is evolution. Rather, their definition of
evolution includes an atheistic (not just scientific) assumption about the
mechanism. A careful definition of evolution on our part will enable
better communication with anyone who's listening.
If we can convey the message that science does not deal with
theological or philosophical issues, instead of trying to promote opposing
theologies or philosophies under the guise of science, "creation science"
would largely lose its platform. Of course, most people change views
slowly if at all, but possibly some folks out there are actually
open-minded and might notice.
David Campbell "old seashells"
Department of Geology
CB 3315 Mitchell Hall
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill NC 27599-3315
bivalve@email.unc.edu
Partial index: