Re: Evolution and Creationism

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Sat, 21 Aug 1999, David Abineri wrote:

> William Beaty responded to my comments below.
>
> I must admit that I am still confused. He is saying that because little
> research has been done towards answering his questions about
> creationism, this demonstrates that it is in fact a viable theory that
> should be taught in our science classrooms.

Um, I think you've made an error.  Please read my original message
(attached).  I never said that creationism is viable or should be taught.

Here is the relevant passage in my original response:

> 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?

So, science can't say that creationism is wrong, since science refuses to
study the religious side of life scientifically.  Maybe the earth is a
"Superbeing's Garden", and maybe most scientists have been intentionally
blinding themselves to this fact all along.  Maybe if an intentional
scientific/religious investigation was undertaken, we would eventually
arrive at the truth.

If we had actually studied the spiritual side of life scientifically for
decades and found that "religious experiences" were nothing but brain
malfunctions, and that all religions were pure superstition, then things
would be different.  Since we have not done so, we have no fundamental
weapon to use against creationists who wish to present a dissenting
viewpoint in science classrooms.


> And yet, in the same breath he says "Without evidence it is obvious that
> we can make no judgement". If this is true, where does this theory of
> creationism come from?

It comes from the anecdotal evidence which forms the basis of most
religions (and therefor it may, OR MAY NOT be entirely based on
superstition and hallucination.)

When I say "Without evidence we can make no judgement", I was referring to
scientific evidence, the sort of evidence that would come from years of
openminded scientific exploration of the *testable* claims of religions.
As far as I know, this sort of evidence is lacking, since science and
religion are declared to be separate.

If scientists wish to teach that human beings are nothing but evolved
animals living in a meaningless and purely material world, then that is a
religious position, and those scientists are committing the same "crime"
that they find so reprehensible when creationists do the same.


I almost forgot.  I added a "Heretical Evolution" section to my website
awhile back.  This involves the cooperation/competition issue, not
religion.  However, it does have some bearing on religion, because science
appears to be in the process of discovering that the "Evolutionist"
worldview has been misguided for a long time, and requires significant
changes, because any theory based purely on competition and "Nature red in
tooth and claw" is faulty.  See:

   http://www.amasci.com/weird/hevolv.html

If we're teaching evolution in elementary school, are we telling the kids
about the results of contemporary scientific "heresies" such as A-life
interactions, game theory and Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, Tit-for-tat
computer competitions, and the various concepts espoused by Lynn Margulis
and others?  (See the above website for info.)  Perhaps if we did, the
science/religion/evolution controversy would be far less heated.

What is the solution to the evolution/creation/schools controversy?  I do
not know.  We certainly should be teaching kids about evolution regardless
of whether christian fundamentalists want to suppress this information.

The evidence is extremely powerful that evolution is not just a figment of
the imagination of the materialists.  However, I suggest that we call a
spade a spade, and if there are atheist/materialists trying to sneak their
religious stances into science classes while calling it "science," then
their actions should be exposed to a bright light of publicity and harsh
judgement.

Please realize that I'm saying this as a TOTALLY NOT-CHRISTIAN science
person.  (Also, I'm a mere engineer/programmer, and only pursue science as
a well-loved avocation.)  I suspect that some here would love to dismiss
me as an obvious Creationist, a Christian Fundamentalist.  After all,
Creationists are all the same!!!!  They are ignorant and lazy
bible-thumpers, their cooking smells, and you should never hire one or let
your daughter marry one, because they are dishonest and probably drug
users and theives.  Send them all back to the country from which they
came, we don't want them here polluting our pure Scientific world with
their impure dissenting worldview.  (Yes, I find it fairly reprehensible
that so many scientists practice "demonization of the opponent" in order
to avoid listening to the Creationist arguments and in order to justify
attempts to suppress their voices.  But ever it was thus.  If we listen to
the enemy, he might win us to his cause, and to keep such a thing from
occuring, we must firmly cover our eyes, plug our ears, and then hurl
streams of insults to make ourselves feel better about refusing to listen
to his reasoning.)


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


Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: William Beaty <billb@eskimo.com>
To: "phys-l@lists.nau.edu: Forum for Physics Educators"
     <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution and Creationism

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, when any scientist 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