Re: Evolution and Creationism

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, David Abineri wrote:

> William Beaty offers the following in answer to my question about the
> evidence that has been pieced together to explain creationism:
> -----------------------
> "Is there life after death?  Is there an "invisible world" where souls,
> gods, etc., reside?  A world which is not part of the material world
> known
> to physics?  Are "near death" experiences a taste of this, or are they
> just hallucinations?  Do angels whisper advice and tell us secrets?  Do
> miracles occur, or are they invariably hoaxes?  Are ghosts and hauntings
> a product of delusion, or are they genuine unexplained events?"
> --------------------------


> My question now is, how do these unanswered questions lead inevitably to
> a theory of creationism?

Obviously they do not.

My point was, that because we artifically suppress any scientific
investigation of these questions, that therefore good evidence of the
reality of "religious physics" exists only as anecdotal evidence.

The situation resembles that with meteorites in the last century.  Because
we strongly disbelieve in their existence, we refuse to study them.  When
reports come in about hot rocks which fall from the sky, we laughingly
dismiss them as "peasant superstition."  Even when scientists report
seeing these falls of stones, we dismiss their evidence out of hand (as
happened in this famous instance) :

  "I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that
   stones fell from the sky" - Thomas Jefferson

Following this meteor analogy, if a scientist has a religious experience,
that scientist had better shut up about it because his/her colleagues
would sooner believe that he or she had INTENTIONALLY LIED, than to accept
the idea of an "invisible world", life after death, or any other
inexplicable event commonly reported during religious experiences.  Just
like the meteors, we declare religious experiences to be lies, fantasies,
or evidence of mental unbalance.  As a result, scientists with evidence in
support of religion are self-selected out of the running.  They dare not
report their experiences.  Anti-religion opponents then crow about the
fact that no positive evidence exists.

If you are a scientist and you have an unmistakable religious experience,
would you prefer to be known as a liar, a hoaxer, or a person with mental
illness?  Those are your choices.  Being *believed* is not an option.  So,
will you report your experiences?  I doubt it.  Scientists could be having
religious experiences right and left, and nobody would ever know.


> Surely if creationism is to be taught in the
> science classroom, it at least must be something that resembles the
> scientific method.  Are you saying that by having this series of
> questions you are led to creationism?  If so, please explain the logic
> of that leap and how it is science?

By conducting genuine serious scientific research into that series of
questions, the reality of religious claims may be explored.  The results
of such a scientific investigation may lead to evidence of "Divine
creation"  or it may not.  Does the "invisible world" of religions
actually exist? If this can be demonstrated, it would change the face of
modern science.  But does it lead to creationism?  I cannot say.  First
devote decades of research and large amounts of funding to looking into
the subject, THEN we could give an answer.

> Personally, I need to be convinced by some evidence, discussion and
> careful interpretation of data.

As do I.   I do not believe that god created mankind or earth or the
universe.  However (and this is the key to true skepticism), I do not
disbelieve it either.   Instead I see that science has refused to
investigate this aspect of the world, and therefor I must withold
judgement.

> I do not understand how a series of
> unanswered questions can lead to any specific theory.

Obviously they cannot.  Without evidence it is obvious that we can make no
judgement.  There is no strong evidence in support of the existence of
that "invisible world," or any of the other phenomena which religions
claim are genuine.

But why is this?  In my opinion it is because the claims of religions are
not taken seriously by science, and therefor the evidence has not been
pursued.  Therefore any positive evidence remains anecdotal.  But absence
of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Absence of evidence could also be
evidence of an intentional policy of refusing to GATHER any evidence.  In
my opinion the latter is the true situation.

The answer to the "creationism" question lies through a door which science
refuses to open.

On the other hand, the answer to the "evolution" question lies through a
door through which science has intentionally passed centuries ago.


Does evolution defeat creation?   No, but only because it's not a fair
fight.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                                  SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                                  http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits          science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA   206-781-3320          freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L