As recently as 2000, the late Stephen Jay Gould reassured the world that we needn't worry about creationism because it was a "peculiarly American" phenomenon. Ron Numbers's insightful and comprehensive book, The Creationists, quoted Gould as saying, "As insidious as it may seem, at least it's not a worldwide movement. I hope everyone realizes the extent to which this is a local, indigenous, American bizarrity."
Gould wasn't wrong about much, but on this particular topic he could not have been more wrong.
While it is certainly true that the US population consistently rejects evolution to a greater extent than people in the rest of the developed world (with the exception of the citizens of Turkey), creationism has increasingly become a matter of contention around the world.
The most recent non-US outbreak has taken place in Northern Ireland, where the Belfast Telegraph brought a fundamentalist minister and a Queens University scientist -- a church-going Christian scientist at that -- together for "a tour of the natural history section of the newly refurbished Ulster Museum."
Reverend David McIlveen, a Free Presbyterian minister, asserted that he believes "the world is probably around about 6,000 years old and during that time there was the Great Flood which, in my opinion, cleared or wiped out the dinosaurs which were in existence at that time."
Dr. Chris Hunt, a paleoecologist, had a very different perspective: "I actually see the creation of the world in the Bible as a parable of what really happened for those who weren't able to understand in more depth all that time ago."
What led to this spectacle in Ulster?
Nelson McCausland, Northern Ireland's Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure, is responsible for this latest attack on basic science. McCausland wrote a letter to the Ulster Museum's board of trustees asking them to consider "how alternative views on the origin of the universe and the origin of life can be recognised and accommodated in national museums." His letter went on to say that he wanted "to ensure that museums are reflective of the views, beliefs and cultural traditions that make up society in Northern Ireland."
In an interview with UTV McCausland further explained his position: "It was a request to the trustees asking is there any way in which you can reflect or accommodate the fact that here, in Northern Ireland, a third of the population would believe in either creation or intelligent design."
What McCausland and fellow creationists around the world forget is that the purpose of science museums is to educate the public about the best ideas science has to offer rather than making people who enter museums feel good because their particular ideas are presented. While our understanding of the natural world matures as additional experiments and observations are made, scientific consensus is based on technical expertise rather than public opinion.
But those who demand that their religious views be incorporated into science think otherwise. Walking through the Ulster Museum, Reverend McIlveen was willing to dismiss science completely, saying, "What I am looking at and listening to is only an opinion and nothing more." Apparently his skepticism knows no bounds. Upon coming across a rock brought back from the moon he said, "I have no reason to doubt this isn't a piece of the Moon, but at the same time, if I was cynical, I would ask where's the proof? It just looks like a piece of coal that has been burnt."
Perhaps not surprisingly, the attack on science in Northern Ireland is paralleling the Texas State Board of Education's attack on science. In addition to complaining about the way evolutionary ideas are presented, McCausland, like the Texas SBoE, has also weighed in on history, wanting the museum to rewrite its presentation of the past. He has asked, for example, for more coverage of the The Orange Order, a Protestant society founded in 1795.
Whether it be in Northern Ireland, Texas, or anywhere else, societies suffer when they permit partisan politics and religious doctrine to trump science and history.
There is one additional striking parallel between what's going on with the Ulster Museum and creationist attacks in the United States. Clergy members in both locations who understand the proper role of religion and who recognize that it makes no sense for religion to attack scientific findings have come to the defense of science.
For example, Church of Ireland minister Ron Elson made it clear that he has no problem with an old earth: "The vast majority of scientific evidence from a huge number of different sources points to the fact that the earth is very, very old and not very, very young. It's evidenced from biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, you name it, the evidence all points in the one direction."
As I've said so often in the past, the problem is not between religion and science but between those who have a very narrow, fundamentalist view of religion and all the rest of us.
Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter
Karl Giberson, Ph.D: How Darwin Sustains My Baptist Search for Truth
Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics
The Institute for Creation Research
creationism and creation science - The Skeptic's Dictionary ...
-Mark
"The Big Bang was the first Incarnation, and Messiah was the first idea in the mind of God." -Fr. Richard Rohr
Easy. Follow the scientific process, test your hypothesis (which will need to be stated, per the rules of science, in such a way that it is testable and falsifiable), gather your evidence, and publish your test methodology, data, and conclusions in a peer reviewed scientific publication. Have your results verified by other scientists so that the theory (it would now be a theory) has some validity and support.
This avenue has always been open to Creationists, although they deny it. They just want to have the credibility of a scientific theory without all the evidence and reasoning.
2) "we have, you know, studied science and Darwin through 12 years of public education and in college as well." Pleeeeeeeze..... Despite the fact that Darwinian evolution is simple, elegant and intuitively obvious very few Creationist have even the most basic understanding of the theory they so vehemently condemn. Most creationist have clearly mistaken Sunday school for a science class. I would have much more respect for your position if you could demonstrate even the most basic understanding of the Theory.
and while you're at it, review "Alice in Wonderland" to see if that offers any additional insight into "creation".
Looking at Genesis for creation evidence is a job for theologans, not scientists.
The fact that Genesis pre-dates Darwin doesn't mean a thing! The theory of gravity and the theory of relativity do too!
1) BEGINNING: The Bible stated that there was a beginning to the universe. Until Einstein,Hubble, Lemaitre, etc. almost all scientists for 2000 years believed in steady state in direct opposition to the Bible. Now the Big Bang, invented by a Christian&one of the best evidences for God,proves the Bible was correct all along. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iwzzR0lUKw for some of the universal settings that had to be perfectly set up in order for life to exist.
2) BIOGENESIS: Pasteur’s experiments confirmed the Bible’s prediction that life only comes from other life (now called the law of biogenesis), exactly as the Bible stated in Genesis in direct contradiction of millennia of scientists who taught spontaneous generation. We have billions of confirmations of this. Atheism by contrast has yet to provide even a single case of abiogenesis.
3) CREATIONIST SPECIATION:ALL speciation up to the family level falls within creation science limits referred to in Genesis and published in scientific magazines by Edward Blyth, Alfred Wallace and others long before Darwin. Darwin’s unique ideas were basically that
A) speciation had no limits&continued way past the family level (an idea that so far has not even 1 testable case from science) &
B) All life on earth could develop by materialistic means such as speciation alone without a need for God/a Creator.
why do you consistently omit the space from either side of the ampersand? Are they teaching punctuation as well as biology in Sunday school now? Is this an attempt to establish a new meme and evolve a new writing style.
Scientists haven't existed for 2000 years. This would be because the scientific method hasn't existed that long. Also, that was not a near universal scientific belief at all.
Abiogenesis:
Even the Bible requires abiogenesis, it just attributes it to Yahweh and His "otherworldly godly powers". There are exceptions to Pasteur, by the way. Proven exceptions. Maybe you don't read the recent scientific news, but scientists created self-replicating synthetic dna. They aren't deities. http://io9.com/5543843/scientists-create-artificial-life-+-synthetic-dna-that-can-self+replicate
Since I do not think superstition is a good thing I am concerned with our ability to progress and prosper an increasingly science based economy.
I am very suspicious of this fashion, thinking that Europeans are somehow smarter, or better, or more sophisticated. I work with them every day. Some are smart, just like Americans. That they believe themselves superior, yes, mostly. That day in and day out, they make better decisions or live happier lives, probably not.
There is really no reason to think that popular notions of the origin of life among Americans are less or more correct than those of Europeans. They have their beliefs and are entitled to them. We have ours. That I should consider one system superior just because it is popular or because people who consider themselves better educated than everyone else think I should, is pure folly.
If we are scientific-minded, we might think of an experiment we could do to shed light on the matter, or logic we could invoke, or calculations we could perform, or we might consult writings of others who dealt with the problem, and did their own experiments, logic, or calculations. If, as a result of that, we decided to accept the statement as true or false, we would still entertain the possibility of changing our decision, should new evidence arise that contradicted what we previously supposed.
If we are fundamentalist-minded, we seek out what our religion has told us, and accept that as true because that is what our religion has told us. End of process.
But the trouble with the attitude that things are true, because the authority has told us so, is that it is antithetical to the development of a society where people are accustomed to thinking for themselves. Their authority might tell them that oil spills will be washed harmlessly away by the ocean, so they believe it. Then the oil spill comes ashore, and does massive amounts of damage. Or, their authority might tell them that there is no such thing as global warming, and they believe it. Then, in the course of a few centuries, the planet could become unbearably hot. Or, they get told that it's not unhealthful to smoke. So they take up smoking, and get lung cancer.
It seems to me that the supposed fear we should feel is a stretch. Instead of wasting time fighting those who supposedly are scientifically illiterate what would be wrong with continually doing science, dating fossils, mapping the genome, and doing quality science? At some point those who reject your beliefs will simply fade away.
Let's agree on the issues we are talking about:
Same sex marriage.
Climate change.
Health care policy.
Issues of taxation.
Issues concerning the size and scope of government.
Stem cell research.
Add any other issues you would like.
I understand that an educated populace is important to a functioning society. I believe that society is becoming ignorant in a number of issues; science being only one. How then is the theory of evolution more important than others? I would suggest a lack of economic literacy or even an understanding of political thought is more important to our current problems than evolution, but I am certainly interested in anyone who is willing to plead their case.
My first thought is that the problem may not be about scientific education so much as respect for the conclusions of scientists (or the former in so far as it promotes the latter). I don't understand much about how models of climate change are constructed, nor do I have many facts about glaciers melting, etc. in my head. But I do believe that climate scientists know what they're talking about, and that carbon emissions should be reduced, etc. The people who push creationism are the same people, or are well-aligned with people, who deny scientific conclusions in order to promote a corporate (or anti-gay, etc.) agenda.
I was interested in your example of refusing medical treatment. This seems like a social ill that better science education would probably mitigate.
Anyway I do think that the society will be worse off if respect for science declines.
Absolutely an excellent point, and I think respect for science (or the lack thereof) is a big component of the problem, and one that is rooted in the home and thus cannot be directly addressed through out educational system.
However, I think that respect for science also interacts with the understanding of science. I don't mean the understanding of a particular piece of climate data or a specific theory like relativity: I mean the basic concepts of evidence, hypothesis testing, theory-building, comparing of alternatives, and so on. I mean basic ideas like Occam's Razor and disconfirmation.
Part of my faith in scientific assertions comes from my understanding of these underlying principles and my belief that they are shared by other scientists.
And it would remove a lot of bad rhetoric and misunderstanding as well. Every time I hear someone say, "That's not a hypothesis, it's a fact!" it makes my heart cry.
The issue of climate change is a perfect example of the problem that many have with science. Science brought us all the wonderful inventions that allowed us to spew CO2's into the air. Don't get me wrong, this was a tremendous advancement over burning coal, killing whales, or harnessing beasts of burden. But, we must recognize that it is the fix of these earlier problems has lead us to where we are now. Scientists had no clue what harm they were about to cause the environment with their solutions to previous problems.
When climatologist present their data on climate change they pretend that they are the only ones who can grasp the problems and have solutions to them. They never seem to recognize the relationship between previous solutions and current problems. Now they pretend they have the capacity and foresight to be able to adjust the climate like a thermostat while wreaking havoc on the economy. A little humility would serve them well.
"I have no reason to doubt this isn't a piece of the Moon, but at the same time, if I was cynical, I would ask where's the proof? It just looks like a piece of coal that has been burnt."
It seems to me as saying, since I wasn't there when this rock was dislodged from the moon, and transported or fell to earth then I am never going to be fully satisfied that it happened.
For some reason this reminds me of something my Grandmother told me when I was very young. She said, when a cat closes it's eyes, it believes the world disappears. Because in a cat's mind, if it can't see something, it must not be there.
Not that my Grandmother was an expert on felines or not, it's just something that's stuck with me for 40 years.
I can't understand how someone can be so certain in their faith, that they actually refute science because of it. I can understand someone questioning faith, based on their observations of life, but it's hard to understand the opposite. Yet, I know people who do just that.
I've given some thought to your last paragraph. I can't speak for both sides either but I think it comes down to what, for sake of labels and not to assign value, I will call "rationality" and "emotionality".
All of us have personality elements that are rational and that are emotional - we are a mixture. Some of us are more rational, others are more emotional.
I believe that those who see science as trumping religion tend towards the rational; we doubt our emotions when they are not borne out by the facts and by reasoning from those pacts. I suspect those who are religious are more emotional; they are unwilling to accept a reasoned argument where that disagrees with their emotional sense of what is correct. This is like Stephen Colbert's "truthiness"; he satirized the idea but the idea must have been there to be satirized.
To provide a handle that maybe will help you grasp that mindset - imagine a person who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, believes their spouse is faithful to them. This is a belief borne our of emotion, not reason. Nevertheless, it is still the truth they see in the world.
Neither is right nor wrong. For one, I would not want my marriage to be based on pure rationality; I like the emotional element of it. That said, I also don't want my science based on emotion, I like the reasoning behind it.
Now, saying all that. I am and have been openly questioning my Catholic upbringing since I was about 12 years old. I consider that I am an Atheist.
I have friends that don't seem to have an ounce of sympathy to anyone and are at heart some cold blooded b@sterds, yet they are extremely religious 4 Corner types waiting on the rapture.
But on your analogy about the marriage. It's kind of ironic that a good friend just split up with his wife for cheating on him. When he was telling me about it he mentioned he caught her 3 times in the past 4 years with a neighbor. He kept trying to pretend it wasn't happening even when he saw it with his own eyes. Sad.
As an example: Virtually zero Christians have a problem with the dating of the gospels to 70 to 170 years after Jesus' death. It never occures to them that a belief in that timeline is based on "faith" in research done by mere mortals. After all, how do current Christians know, without any firsthand knowledge, that the gospels weren't written in 1200? Or 1800? for that matter?
It's called hypocricy folks.
What, God was short on scribes for 70 years? Or, perhaps He didn't feel any of this was important enough to write down!
For a humorous look at a fallible God:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mr+deity&aq=0s
Many Christian scholars date the gospels to much earlier than the dates generally accepted but that's to be accepted because it's in their interests to do so. The majority of everyday Christians including many fundamentalists don't know anything about the history of their religion and believe that the gospels were written by Jesus' disciples. Fact is no one knows who wrote them and the names of M, M, L and J were added in later centuries by the fraudsters of the early church.
History is in fact far more subjective than we often admit. It has always been subject to partisan politics (on both sides).
The question is whether or not "societies suffer when they let" science trump other aspects of humanity like ethics, culture, and morality. I would argue the issue is the primacy of science over everything else. Take the scientific viewpoint at any slice and time and it is bound to contain some bias, some politics, and some outright frauds and quackery. The value of science need to be held in check with other values.
True. Although one could argue that politics, fraud and quackery are consequences of the social institution and implementation of science, not a product of the "scientific process" (as an ideal to be striven for) itself. If you accept that, the problem is not "what can we use to correct flaws in science?" but rather "how can we make sure that science itself overcomes the social forces that corrupt it?"
"The value of science need to be held in check with other values."
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you give me an example of a value that should be used to hold science "in check"?