Re: Evolution and Creationism

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, David Abineri wrote:

> I have heard many discussions wherein holes are poked into the evolution
> hypothesis (some of which are not unreasonable because it is a THEORY
> and represents the best ideas about how life arrived at the present) but
> I would like to know the evidence that leads, in a similar way, to the
> theory called 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?


All of the above questions are usually derided as being outside of
science.  I believe that the solution to the creation/evolution debate can
be found if we pursue answers to the above questions.  However, if we
should attempt to start a research project to look into them, colleagues
will laugh and refuse to fund such a thing.  This doesn't mean that the
questions are unanswerable.  It just means that the concensus of
scientists as expressed in peer review is that such questions SHALL NOT be
explored.

We are so certain about the answers that we refuse to "waste funding" by
looking for the answers.  We assume the thing which needs to be proved,
and declare that any serious search for proof would be a waste of time.

This situation seems quite dishonest.  If "science" declares that
religions are based on nothing, but "science" also controls the
purse-strings and prevents any curious scientists from taking a serious
look into the claims behind religion, that seems to be a case of
intellectual suppression of an opponent.  There certainly can be no
scientific evidence if any scientist who looks for positive evidence
quickly finds him/herself with a fatally damaged career.

If this situation cannot be changed, then the alternative is to declare
that "science" and "religion" are separate.  Was mankind created?  That's
a religion/science debate, and cannot be answered as long as all religious
questions are declared to lie beyond the bounds of scientific
investigation.  Fine.  But what then do we teach in school, if we cannot
state that the religious anti-evolution claims are definitely wrong?

PS, I am a "creationist" myself, if by "creationist" we mean a person who
believes that science has only explored a tiny fraction of reality, and
that the remaining unknown regions might well hide some of the things that
religions claim are real.  I'm not confident that mankind was NOT created,
therefor I'm not 100% evolutionist, therefor I'm a "creationist," although
I certainly have nothing to do with Christianity.

Evolution looks very solid as long as we close our eyes to the vast
unknown.  To someone who is confident that these unknowns do not exist,
well, I'll just have to say that they have not seen some of the irrational
taboos and blindness in science that seem fairly clear to me.  If we
practice closing our eyes when looking in a particular direction, we can
convince ourselves that nothing exists in that direction.  A less biased
perception might tell us differently.


((((((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (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