Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back

["R. McDermott" <rmcder@gmail.com>]

It's important to truly understand the opposing points of view.  John Denker 
began that process; I'd like to try to further it.  "Creationists" are not a 
monolithic
group.  They exist, as most things human do, in a spectrum of varying 
beliefs.

1. There is a very, VERY small group that believes that everything written 
in the Bible is literally true: Everything was created, all at once, in six 
days.  All species of flora and fauna coexisted at some point (though some 
may have subsequently died out).  Everything we see is 6000 years old (or 
whatever the figure is).
2. Then there is the other, VERY large, group that consists of people who 
believe that GOD created everything, started it running, and incorporated a 
mechanism that allowed for changes to occur over time.

Both groups believe in GOD and want their children to believe.  Both groups 
object stongly to any message which contradicts their beliefs.  The first 
group is threatened by pretty much ANY evolutionary theory.  The second 
group is not - UNLESS - it leads to the presumption that no god exists, and 
certainly no god created the universe.  And both groups will react violently 
to any message that states or implies that they are either stupid or 
wackjobs whose beliefs are deserving of no respect whatsoever.

The definitions) of "evolution" held by the two groups are not usually in 
agreement, and part of this problem is due to the fact that we (teachers of 
science and/or scientists) do a lousy job of being consistent in our usage 
of the term.  This is further complicated by the fact that "Evoluionists" 
ALSO come in a spectrum of beliefs.

The first group of Creationists will always be at war with science, since 
they see it as the means by which Satan seeks to mislead believers.  As John 
points out, you cannot make any impact on this group.

The other group, however, does not have to be an enemy unless we make them 
an enemy.  ID, etc will die on the vine so long as there is no reason for 
the second, huge group to feel threatened, and it's really simple to avoid 
that.

The FACT that the PROCESS of evolution occurs is overwhelming, and it is a 
FACT, because it can be DIRECTLY observed.  For most Creationists, this is 
"micro evolution", and no real threat.

"Macro" evolution, the gradual accumulation of "micro" effects to produce 
entirely new organisms, begins to be threatening to some of the second 
group, and extrapolating to the idea that everything derives from a 
single-celled organism in a primordial pool forces the second group into the 
same camp as the first group.  THAT's when it becomes a political football. 
It's important to note that "macro" evolution is not FACT, but theory.  We 
"believe" that this is a likely explanation for what we observe in the 
fossil record.  Some of "us" go further and believe that this is the RIGHT, 
or ONLY possible answer.  Whatever one's PRIVATE level of confidence in 
"macro" evolution may be, imo we lose nothing by phrasing PUBLICALLY that 
this is what we THINK has happened, that we THINK that this is the best 
explanation for what we have observed.  Such careful wording costs "us" 
nothing, and avoids antagonizing the second group of believers.

Then, of course, there is the origin of life (I think oogenesis).  This, 
too, is an issue that can thrust the second group into the same camp as the 
first.  Again, imo, we lose nothing by suggesting that ONE possible origin 
is the primordial pool.  After all. we do not KNOW, for an undisputable 
FACT, that this IS "correct".

It is those who are "extremist" on BOTH sides who have, and continue to, 
contribute to this argument.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Brian Whatcott" <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>
To: "Forum for Physics Educators" <phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back


> At 11:12 AM 1/10/2008, Robert Cohen, you wrote:
> > .....
> > And microevolution doesn't count.  Non-evolutionists will ask to be
> > shown an instance when a bacterium evolves into something we would no
> > longer call bacteria.  Or, better yet, a bird that evolves into
> > something that we would no longer call a bird.
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University
>
>
> Perhaps if they were shown a flying insect now reshaped into a
>  creature with an extra pair of wings?  A moth with a new
> wing pattern?  Or environmental contaminants that encourage
> six legged frogs, and so on?
> These specimens would need to be classified as sports
> unless breeding conditions allowed their multiplication,
> I imagine.
>
>
> Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!