Re: Science vs creation science ("creationism") (posted for

["David Schwimmer" <SCHWIMMER_DAVID@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Subject: Science vs creation science ("creationism")
> 
> With respect to the "creationism" controversy (esp. in Alabama) a month or
> two ago, I found a very good text on the subject in my local public library
> (Seattle, WA, USA) titled "Science & Creationism" by Ashley Montagu, 1984.
>  It contains 19 short "articles" on the subject from many authors such as
> Isaac Asimoc, Stephen J. Gould, Kenneth Miller, etc, etc.  In addition, it
> contains the full text of of the "Decision of the Court"  against creation
> science in Arkansas.
> 
> For those of us (especially myself) not familiar with the signifivcant
> details of these emotional and long-lived arguments, this book is
> exceptionally enlightening.
> 
> Any help to find other texts or other resources on this subject would be
> appreciated.


Norman (and others)

    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).   

  Montagu's book, also Eldredges, Strahler's, Gould's, and 
pretty much everyone else's dating back about 10 or more years, 
although excellent works, are no longer sufficient to deal with the 
current crop of arguments.      Not that creationism nouveau is any 
more rational or intellectual, just different in flavor. 
Rational argument has become pointless: one must deal 
with the *nature* of argument itself.  The scientific method is not a 
given: indeed, rational thought is not necessarily a sufficient 
argument.  American politics have been approaching this ideal, too.

    In case this seems absurd,  I noticed in debate in Paleonet that 
it has been argued e-formats justify publishing un-refereed 
articles to avoid "censoring" radical ideas.  It was 
stated (roughly recalling) "if 10% of an article is valid then it 
should be published."  This is blood-chilling because it is 
***exactly** the same logical core used by "modern creationism."  
Their essential argument is that we are blind to the supernatural, 
the unobservable, the events outside scientific paradigms, etc., and 
therefore, regardless of lack of evidence gathered "scientifically," 
Creationist logic should accompany conventional science.  I see 
little difference between that and random publication of "science."

    A county in Georgia has just required teaching of Creationism. I 
humbly retract my past ridicule of neighboring Alabama.  





















David Schwimmer
Dep't of Chemistry & Geology
Columbus College, Columbus GA 31907-5645
schwimmer_david@cc.csg.peachnet.edu 

No, I'm not Ross.