From: matus [matus@snet.net]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:07 AM
To: matus@snet.net
Subject: MFD List - counter the influence of creationism

(All, Michael Shermer who publishes Skeptic magazine and authored 'Why
people believe in wierd things' 'How we believe' and 'The Frontiers of
Science' now writes a column for Scientific American entitled 'Skeptic'  His
column generates more mail then most others in that magazine, and here is
the latest one.  A good read. - Mike)

SKEPTIC COLUMN, FEBRUARY 2002

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."

For comments about articles or other topics please visit the MFDList forum
at www.delphi.com\MFDList

www.matus1976.com