I have been once again astonished at the appalling superiority complex
reflected in the recent thread of e-mails on creationism. However, this
subject, even among scientists, tends to stir the emotions somewhat.
Therefore, I will perhaps be forgiven an occasional slip into sarcasm in
what follows.
Dr. Lois Krause seems to have started it (unless I missed a message
somewhere). In her opening salvo, she wrote, among other things:
"and many come through "christian schools" where creationism is taught as
fact. real struggle to teach geology and astronomy to this bunch!"
This transparent, condescending slur is intended to imply that Christian
schools are educationally inferior and strongholds of indoctrination. I
have little doubt that Christian schools provide a far more academically
rigorous education than the public schools. For example, while public
schools are teaching multiculturalism, Christian schools still teach that
sentences begin with capital letters and do not start with "and."
Then there was a reply (I lost the name) that raised two questions:
"Do you just teach it properly anyway?"
"And do you ever... make any progress?"
The subject line in this reply e-mail, "how do you manage [sic]," conjures
up the image of exasperated, hand-wringing scholars seeking mutual support
in the arduous task of coping with ignorant buffoons who would presume to
raise objections to the evolutionary model.
The first question reeks of arrogance. "Teach it properly?" Well, of
course, the only proper way to teach this subject is to teach evolution as
fact. Indeed! Christian schools are accused of teaching creationism as
fact. Now evolution and creationism are both models. I am confident that
most Christian schools present the material in this way. The same cannot be
said for many public schools.
Note the word "progress" in the second question. Here the writer
inadvertently revealed his real attitude: to indoctrinate with the
philosophy of evolution. A scientist would teach all competing models.
However, zealotry is not interested in competing models or in honestly
assessing the problems with a model to which it is committed.
If anyone thinks there are no problems with the evolutionary model, I would
suggest he spend a little less time lamenting the fact that not everyone
views contemporary Darwinian evolution as beyond all question and a little
more time reading the following books:
Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton
Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe
Both are written by competent scientists working in the field. They might
shatter various and sundry illusions devoutly held by true believers in the
evolutionary model. However, intellectual integrity would demand that those
who teach evolution should present the current problems with the model.
Now to Lois Krause's reply to this compassionate and sympathetic question,
"How do you manage?"
"first of all, i tell them that i'm not out to change their religious
beliefs, but that creationism is a religious belief, and all the rest is
science"
Perhaps she is fooling herself, but teaching that creationism is a
religious belief and that "the rest" (evolution) is science is clearly
attempting to change a religious belief.
Creationism is a model that attempts to account for the origin of the
universe and life on the basis of observed data. So is evolution. If God
created the universe, for the sake of argument, might there not be evidence
observable in the universe? Might there not also be evidence of the manner
or mechanisms he used in the creation of the universe? So if a scientist
sees these evidences and builds a model that incorporates the observable
data, does that mean he is engaging in religion rather than science? I
would argue no. The only way to argue yes would be to assume a priori with
Carl Sagan that the natural universe is all there ever was, all there is,
and all there ever will be. However, that is naturalism: a philosophical or
religious statement. It is not science. Science simply observes what is.
"the only conflict, if there is one, is the term day. and therein lies the
simplification. since the original tongue has been lost, all we have is
translations, and subsequent translations. who knows what the original
word was?"
It is always interesting to read statements made by someone who strays into
a field he knows nothing about. This quote is absolute nonsense. In
addition to a degree in physics, I also have a seminary degree in Old
Testament biblical studies. I got my first "B" studying "the original
tongue [that] has been lost." The "tongue" is Hebrew, and the word is yom.
We do not have the original autographs, but no textual scholar in the world
(of any religious stripe) believes that our Hebrew text today differs in
any significant way from the original in the creation accounts of Genesis.
The Hebrew text upon which modern English translations are based is the
Masoretic text of about the 8th or 9th century A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls
strikingly confirmed the astonishing accuracy with which the Masoretes
preserved the Hebrew text.
"many find they begin to breathe again, having had creationism rammed down
their throats, and told by clergy that they weren't christian if they didn't
believe in creationism, and i have given them a way to support their faith
AND learn correct science."
Here we see more evidence of zealotry and proselytizing. A thing to be
proud of, to be sure: take students who have had creationism rammed down
their throats and begin ramming evolutionism down their throats! The phrase
"learn correct science" is simplistic arrogance. Clearly, what we have here
is not science but indoctrination. Both evolution and creationism are
models to account for the origin of the universe, the earth, and life on
the earth. Both have observations that tend to support the model, and both
have observations that represent problems for the model. As I have pointed
out, whole books have been written by scientists--not religious
men--pointing out the problems with the evolutionary model. However,
zealotry is unaffected by such problems: to the zealot, evolution is simply
"correct science."
"yes, sometimes it's depressing. but somehow i keep coming back for
more. i guess for the same reasons i left almost 3 times the salary in
industry to go into teaching 10 years ago."
Ah, yes. Oozing with sympathy, empathy, and compassion, I understand: the
truth is worth it all!
Ken Morgan
Physics Department
Michigan Technological University