The Role of Creation Science

Great Debates
1

In studying the Big Bang (not the late night Pay-per-view,) I found that I did not have the knowledge base necessary to truly understand the physics. My knowledge of vectors and calculus is wanting.

A year ago, I made mistakes in an evolution debate because I did not understand the necessary microbiology. There are a lot of things that I’d like to understand, but I don’t have the necesary groundwork. Frustrating.

Science must seem an awful lot like a religion to some people. Consider the scientist as high priest. From his lofty towers he makes pronouncements.

“Thou shalt not travel faster than the speed of light.”

“The universe started with the Big Bang 9 billion years ago.”

“All life evolved from the primordial soup due to happenstance and Chemistry.”

Etc. You get the idea.

From time to time these pronouncements change. The High Priest of Particle Physics consults his modern oracle, the Cloud chamber and pronounces that “Parity has been invalidated.”

WTF?

The average person must take the scientist’s word for these things just as the serf had to take the word of a priest 400 years ago. He does not have the knowledge to judge for himself. In order to acquire this knowledge IN JUST ONE NARROW RUBRIC of science, a decade or more of study and an advanced degree is often required. Just like the days of old, if one wishes to share in the knowledge one must become a priest to do so.

John Q. Public must hunger for knowledge that the necessities of daily life preclude him from understanding. Even if he does study enough to understand oh, advanced calculus in order to understand quantum physics (or even basic magnetism a la Maxwell’s equation for chrissake,) how can he ever attempt to lay down the same effort and sacrifice to understand Oh, let’s say Biology.

There is not enogh timne in a life to understand it all. It’s hopeless, and, IT’S HARD! One must take the current malleable word of the High Priest.

How seductive is it then when one hears the current scientific doggerel parroted by a “Creation Scientist,” or other who insist that the heathen scientists are making it far more complicated than necessary? That the truth is simple, and understandable?

“Unsolved Mysteries” on the Discovery Channel as well as a host of other Pop-science tells us that scientists don’t really understand, that there act is not together.

How unreasonable then is it to doubt? On the surface Occam’s razor suggests that these simpler, easier, and more satisfying answers are just as valid. Why not embrace them?

My purpose here is not to argue that science is unreasonable or arbitrary. It’s proofs are testable and accessible to one willing to make the investment. Religion may make similar claims, but Science delivers the goods.

But, I understand the frustration and the temptation of pseudo-science.

And, I wonder if the popular and easy pseudo-science and creationism might not serve a valid role.

Does it force the scientist to come away from his seemingly exclusionary quest for esoteric knowledge to show the layman why it is correct, why it is necessary?

Is he forced to make us understand so that our views are not filled will the false and easy knowledge of pseudo-science?

In this way, and unwittingly does the creation pseudo-scientist actually promulgate the spread of knowledge to the truly curious?

Enquiring minds want to know.

2

I think you make an interesting point. However, I don’t think it’s as hopeless as you make it out to seem. I find that reading a magazine like Scientific American does a good job of filling me in on developments in scientific areas I’m not directly involved in - enough, at least, so that I can talk intelligently about it.

3

I believe we’ve been through the “isn’t believing in evolution taking what scientists say on faith” argument several times, Scylla.

It’s a perversion of the word “faith” almost as surely as Creationists pervert the word “theory” in that there are a ton of definitions that could fit faith. One has faith in the Bible, and one has faith that the sun will rise in the east and one has faith that their spouse will not cheat on them.

But there is EVIDENCE that evolution is correct, there is PLAUSIBLE DEDUCTION from observation that abiogenesis happened.

I am not casting aspirations here - to wit, a lot goes over my head - so please realize that I am just making this as simple a soundbite I can when I say:

Just because someone is too dumb to understand something doesn’t mean you’re taking it on faith.

Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions

TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, four weeks, 2 hours, 29 minutes and 24 seconds.
7244 cigarettes not smoked, saving $905.52.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 4 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes.

4

Hell, if those medieval priests could give me the power to light up my nights, send me half way around the world in half a day, let me live till 85 - and not to mention blow up entire cities - I’d worship them too.

The operative word here is results. Real, hard science has made some real, hard changes to this planet. Sure, today’s researchers - especially in the fields of physics and biology - havn’e been giving us much of anything practical lately, but that’s just because theory has currently outstrapped our capability to utilize it (for instance, we know how nuclear fusion works, but our craftmanship isn’t good enough to build a reactor). History has shown us that we’ll catch up.

5

A soundbite? You are evil.

I will say this: I’ve been prompted to learn more about evolution from the creationism debates on this board than I probably ever would have if I’d never encountered creationism. I cannot but regard this as a good thing. I have also come to regard Inherit the Wind as heavy-handed propaganda, because I have not just been forced to learn more about science, but also about the myriad ways in which religions choose to address science, and how disingenuous it is to cast the creationsim/evolution debate as a battle to the death between religion and materialism.

So yeah, while creation “science” is a load of bunk, and misses the point entirely, refuting it is still good exercise.

6

Scylla writes:
**

The true temptation behind “Creation Science” is that no thought is involved in its acceptance; that is, no effort need be made on the part of the “believer” beyond simply accepting what another says. Such a believer is satisfied when he hears that one cannot understand events such as The Creation because it was an act of God, and we mere mortals cannot possibly comprehened God’s methods or motives. He is therefore justified in his belief that it is all too complex to even try to understand (if for no other reason than because it is too difficult for him to understand; no one likes to feel stupid), so “real scientists” must be fooling themselves.

This, I believe, is a major reason “Creation Science” finds such a following among so many.

A lack of critical thinking skills lies at the heart of the problem; where critical thinking is absent, a closed mind is present. The real scientists can come out of their (perceived) ivory towers and sterile labs to try to teach real science, but as long as minds are closed to inquiry, the scientists aren’t likely to accomplish much.

To refute the claims of the “Creation Scientists” does not so much require a degree in biology or any other field, but rather an open mind, and the willingness to question. Granted, knowledge of the subject material will certainly help in the refutation of specific claims, but a rational mind will at least be able to detect that some chicanery is afoot when presented with the claims of “Creation Science.” This may lead to further inquiry about the topic at hand.

In short (though I think I’m too late for that :p), “Creation Science” serves no valid role; it serves to dupe impressionable minds - people looking for answers, but lacking the skills to properly evaluate what they are told.

7

Another soundbiter checking in. I understood ‘Creation Science’ to mean: The end justifies the means.

8

Scylla, you are right about the temptation of creationism and other pseudoscience. It’s easy. It gives “the answer.” It shows those high-and-mighty scientists that they’re wrong!

As a fellow skeptic, Page Stephens, said in the newsletter of the South Shore Skeptics (May/June 1998) :

“Science is hard. Wishful thinking is easy.”

I think that about sums it up.

9

lux, ROTF (not really, but that was soooo funny- sound bytes et al)

mzuve dog, as much as i disagree with creation science, I must say that “no thought is involved” is bullshit. with a capital B. I would wAger that most creation scientisits may take offense aT YOur statement, and I would Agree. that is A bullshit strawmAn argument. simply because a conclusion doesn’t meet with yours doensn’t make it invalid (but don’t get me wrong, I totallt disagree with them)

scylla, just remember this. a bg difference between religion and science is that there is no controlling Authority. all of the “infallible pronouncements” of science which you made are nothing of the sort. the faster than light prohibition is less than a century old. if you challenge a theory, you can be the victor (that is, if you have better theories or better evidence (to disprove your opponent).

that’s the biggest difference. with religion, there tends to be a central force (e.g. the vatican), who you cannot question without being regarded as a heretic. with science, although it has some kind of authority, there is stilla consensus.

so i would always trust science before i trust religion. if that don’t comprende, call me on it. cuz i’m still in the middle.

jb

10

Satan said:

“I believe we’ve been through the “isn’t believing in evolution taking what scientists say on faith” argument several times, Scylla.”

Yes we have, and that’s not what I set out to do. The tone of the other responses suggest my OP may not have been as clear as I like.

Allow me to attempt a succint rephrase.

Granting that to some science seems much like religion, and granting that the creation/pseudo-scientist caters to this ilk, does the fact that the legitimate scientist/skeptic is forced to disprove these charlatans and thus promulgate legitimate science mean that they actually serve a constructive purpose?

11

No, it means that scientists and educators must take the time that the would like to spend doing and teaching real science to combat the same old creationist arguments over and over again.

I was once complimented on my ability to rapidly debunk the latest creationist claim posted (not here, elsewhere). Am I a great scholar? Do I possess a photographic memory? Heck no. I have the talk.origins FAQ bookmarked. Creationists just rehash the same old fallacious agruments again and again, preying on those who don’t have the resources and/or wherewithal to find the truth.

If creationism had any interesting challenges to mainstream science, it would have a constructive purpose. As it is, it just serves, as Mauve Dog said, to dupe the ignorant.

12

Podkayne:

I know it doesn’t do you or anybody else who’s studied the issue any good. That goes without saying.

Consider the people who are only semi-educated. I for onew know a lot more about evolutionary theory and science in general because my interest was inspired by creation/evolution debates. When I first heard of it, I was literally floored by Behe’s theories. To understand why they were fallacious required a good bit of work on my part. I’m a better informed individual.

By spouting garbage, pseudo-scientists are creating a backlash of skeptical thinkers. As our society becomes more specialized and service oriented the interest in science, and the level of general scientific knowledge has dropped. (If you don’t accept that I’ll find a cite or two,)

While I think that creation scientists are generally reprehensible and dishonest, is it possible that their unsupportable quasi-science is serving to strengthen the average Americans scientific and skeptical muscle, which prior to this onslaught had atrophied faster than my ass on my LaZyboy? Is this not a good thing that these creationists are doing in spite of themselves?

Everytime a particularly credulous individual gets interested in science through one of these myths only to find it soundly debunked, doesn’t this increase his/her scientific knowledge?

Would you know as much about evolutionary theory if you didn’t have to defend it so often?

How many people’s interest have you sparked by discussing with them why these simplistic theories are invalid?

At the very least it keeps DavidB employed.

I don’t think that Pseudo-science can ultimately stand over real science. Again, real science delivers the goods.

The need to debunk all this crap makes us stronger and brings science and skepticism to audiences that would otherwise never be exposed to it.

(Important Note)

I am by no means endorsing these guys, I’m just wondering if
they might be the equivalent of a flu-shot, strengthening our scientific and skeptical immune systems.

If you’re reading this, I’d say chances are you know more about real science because of these guys. Because of the real science becomes demystified. That’s all.

13

Scylla said:

Unfortunately, far too few. Most of those who bring it up are the creationists themselves, and they aren’t exactly eager to have their beliefs overthrown by mere evidence. :frowning:

Trust me, I’d rather have the time to spend on other things!

But it’s a circle – if the crap didn’t exist, that implies that people would already have had the background in skeptical thinking necessary to have figured out that it was BS.

Plus, I’d rather spend my time bringing more real science to people instead of having to worry about debunking the crappy non-science!

14

Well, forgive me, but that’s bullshit. With a capital BULLSHIT. If that argument were such a strawman, this board wouldn’t be necessary, now would it? Ignorance is alive and well among the Teeming Millions. And the chief cause of ignorance in general is the inability (or unwillingness) to question what one hears or reads. I stand by my statement that belief in Creation Science is tempting because it involves no thought on the part of the believer (although I should perhaps say that it is tempting because no thought is required to accept its claims).

There’s a big difference between a belief in The Creation and “Creation Science.” Creation Scientists are charlatons, pure and simple (David B has provided many examples of this throughout these discussions). For the most part, they use lies to deceive those who are unable / unwilling to evaluate the facts themselves. And they throw in just enough scientific jargon to make it seem like they might know what they are talking about, assuming one didn’t know much about science in the first place. And many people don’t know what science is about.

It has nothing to do with a conclusion being different. I have no idea where you pulled that idea from. It has to do with the methods. Creation Scientists prey upon those who lack critical thinking skills, just as many cults prey on those who lack self-esteem.

If one wishes to believe in The Creation, as presented in the Bible, fine. Just don’t try to justify it from a scientific point of view - it is neither necessary nor possible to do so.

15

I rather like the idea of Creation Science…finding evidence for creation by intelligent design in the natural world.

Unfortunately, that’s not what the Duane Gishes and Institutes for Creation Research of the world mean by it. :frowning:

16

Just a quick comment. I never found Evolution and Creationism(?) to be incompatible–Fer instance–
The Bible (a Book that has more ReWrites the a Hollywood script) tells us that "God created Earth(the World/Universe)in Seven(7) Days–Who’s days? His/Ours?
LET THERE BE LIGHT–this would be a "Big Bang"wouldn’t it?
I could make other comparisons of Creation vs Evolution but as I said in beginning this was supposed to be a “Quick” comment.
BTW–Does anyone know who is one of the most hated(by the Church) people in known history? and Why? (a hint is found in my above post.

17

I’m sorry, but I find the term “Creation Science” to be right out of some Orwellian nightmare. “War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, Ignorance is Power” kinda double-speak. Does anyone read 1984 anymore, or is it too far in the past?

Science has to do with evolving theories that explain things, testing those theories, and improving them.

Creation-faith has to do with NOT evolving theories, NOT explaining things, NOT testing them, and NOT changing them.

I’d put the term “Creation Science” right up there with the idea of a “Department of Ignorance” at a major University. Oxymoron is too kind a term.

I do however see the OP’s point. The existence of opposition requires explanations at a level that a lay person can understand. However, I think there are plenty of lay explanations without the need for opposition; for instance, there are plenty of book that try to explain relativity to the non-physics, non-math major… yet, I don’t think relativity has any serious opposition.

With any academic field (including sciences, mathematics, literature, history, etc etc) there is a broad level of understanding that a lay person can get. Deeper levels of understanding are very difficult to come by, and we take it “on faith.” I don’t have enough background in literature to know whether Shakespeare is the greatest playwrite of all time, I trust the experts who tell me that. I don’t have enough background to figure out how lava lamps work, I trust the experts (in this case, Cecil) to tell me that. I don’t have enough background to know how my car works, I trust the experts (mechanics) to charge me a fortune to fix it without telling me anything about it.

So, I don’t know that the complaint of “the need to take it on faith” applies to evolution/microbiology any more than it applies to auto-repair. One cannot be an expert in all things, so one trusts the experts and take their word “on faith”. I believe that airplanes can fly, though I don’t understand how.

18

Scylla, I wish, I really do truly wish, that the majority of people exposed to creationism would recognize it as bull-pucky, and be intruigued by this strange social phenomenon, and stimulated by it to better understand the process of science, skeptical thinking, and evolution and the Big Bang. However, I really think that the fraction of people who react in this way are tiny. Most don’t give a flip, and then some are trapped by it–and it’s this that really troubles me.

I think it would be awesome of creationism could be discussed in a science class as a jumping-off point for talking about what a theory is, how scientists decide what to believe, how that differs from the way laymen make these decisions, and other critical-thinking and nature-of-science issues. However, for this to work, a science teacher must be well-versed in these topics in order not to be slammed by some thorougly-indoctrinated fundie kid. And, while some science teachers are really great (I’m lucky to have some examples in my educational history) some of them are lacking in basic science knowledge, not to mention an understanding of these nuances, and some are actually creationists themselves. This kind of discussion could do more harm than good. And if the teacher is willing and knowledgable (as many certainly are) they probably don’t have the support they need from the administration and the community, because some kid’s fundie parents are going to start screaming bloody murder, and the consequences could be dire. Not only can the teacher get into trouble, but there could be a backlash against the teaching of evolution.

I do see your point, but I fear far that more people are duped by creationism than are stimulated by it, and I think that the cost is too high. A stat to consier: %29 of Americans support the teaching of creationism either to the exclusion of evolution, or as a valid scientific theory along side of evolution (from: http://www.pfaw.org/issues/education/creationism-memo.shtml ) That’s a shameful statistic in a culture that is so absolutely dependant on science and technology.

19

Sure, Scylla, in some cases Creation “Science” promotes rigor in the real sciences. But at what cost? I think there is a net cost.

To be more specific, Creationism is part of the mindset which promotes A) accepting what other people tell you instead of challenging them and B) hanging on to what is comfortable rather than searching for what is true. Both of which are greater evils than the promotion of some rigor can atone for.

[sub](BTW is capitalizing “Creationism” correct? Anyone?)[/sub]

20

Podkayne:

Unaccustomed as I am to arguing with a Martian saint, I want to draw a distinguishing point in the middle of your otherwise admirable post.

It is not contrary to human intelligence to adhere to the idea of a God who created the Universe. One ought, probably, to examine one’s thinking in this regard for Freudian connotations, wish fulfillment, and all the other psychological paraphenalia that can tend one to belief – and, contrariwise, for the same phenomena in reverse that can tend to reject any evidence for a God: if one person seeks a father figure and finds it in the Christian concept of God the Father, it’s quite possible that a person in rebellion against a parental authority figure might reject God for the same irrational, subconscious motivations.

Having done as thorough a job of that as I am capable of, I have myself come to the conclusion that God does exist, did create, and does involve Himself with humanity. I’ve discussed my evidence for this on long-dormant threads, and, as several people have noted, it is at rock bottom a question of faith.

Now, belief in a God who created is not contrary to acceptance of the findings of science. Any God worth the name has quite sufficient capacity to plan ahead, being eternal and omniscient, to figure out what mutations He wants to have happen when to lead to the ends He is interested in having happen. Arguments for contingency do not hold water; what happened, happened, and making the supposition that things would be different in a world with Anomalocaris and no Pikaia, to use Gould’s classic example.

I will allow that under my hypothesis there ought to be some evidence suggestive of creation as opposed to random fluctuation in the vacuum, of a teleological trend in nature as opposed to random evolutionary trends, and so on. But we may not be equipped to identify what such evidence might be, or fail to identify or interpret the data appropriately to see such evidence. (And of course, such evidence may not exist.)

Obviously the overwhelming evidence of nature suggests against a Genesis-literal creation. There are some fascinating variants on creationist thought described over at the Pizza Parlor, including: Intelligent Design, which suggests the world operates under natural law but with the evidence my last paragraph suggests ought to exist; and Progressive Creation, which accepts the data of science but suggests an intervening God creating each “kind” (which appears more or less equivalent to Linnaean genus).

What is truly absurd is the idea that the religious doctrine founded on the call to interpret the first chapter of Genesis literally should be elevated to the level of a scientific concept. As such, it falls flat, being a hypothesis virtually unsupported by relevant data. To support it, the scant handful of data which do point towards it are selectively separated out for use and all other data rejected or forged, faked, or otherwise misapplied. The ICR/Gish “Creation Science” is neither decent science nor any decent witness to the God of Truth.

But I trust that you can see the distinctions I draw between the idea of a God who created a world with natural laws that constitute its “operating system,” the two other attempts to “save creationism” I mentioned above, and the six-day dogma that just plain doesn’t fit the evidence, except on the theory of a trickster God who plants false evidence to test faith. We have names for such an entity around here, and most of the Christians agree with them.