[Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

[Leon Harris]

I used to believe that there was a kind of wilful deceit among those 
Christians who taught science and used all manner of known deceptions, 
flawed logic and selective omissions to attempt to discredit evolution.
If the last 2 years of world politics has illustrated anything, it is 
that there is a general, widespread ignorance of substantially important 
and fundamental concepts, and a lack of formal reasoning ability in our 
community. If I were a politician, I'd blame the education system :) . 
Daniel Kahneman, in his excellent and comprehensive book, "Thinking, 
fast and slow" has convinced me that human minds are not "engines of 
reason" but are subject to traps, tricks and shortcuts that often cause 
them to fail at reason. I am more inclined to take the softer line now 
of "never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by 
incompetence"!

Science, by its nature is tentative. Karl Popper, and in particular his 
emphasis on the doctrine of falsifiability brought this most strongly to 
light. Science, by its nature is open ended - it in and of itself 
doesn't ever claim have closed or "proved" (now don't you hate that word 
in a student lab report!) anything.

Christian theology, in stark contrast, calls for the acceptance, in the 
absence of any supporting evidence other than the collected and written 
myths and allegories of a several thousand year old middle eastern 
agrarian society. Recall the credo "I believe in God the father 
almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in all things visible and 
invisible...". This is the Anglican translation, the Lutherans and 
baptists use a slightly different set of words, derived from the same 
source but divergent according to the idiom and style of the english 
used at the time of translation. This requirement to accept belief means 
that Christian texts can have no meaningful thing to say about science 
from within science. Before the argument is started, it is closed - 
there is no hypothesis, it isn't testable.


Creationism is a folk belief - it arises from a cultural artefact - the 
bible - that purports to be the word of God, and the attempts of certain 
groups of Christian to grant the status of "the word of God" to this 
collection of sacred myths and allegories.

To accept that creation science, which is closed, doctrinal, 
predetermined and dependent on Sofist arguments to even get up, has an 
equal place to evolutionary biology is just ridiculous. Even the name 
hints at it's inner dishonesty - it is not science.

To claim that, because at this time the evolutionary theory, does not 
completely answer in a manner that closes off all further enquiry, 
demonstrates either ignorance as to the nature of science or 
intellectual dishonesty. Science is ongoing, subject to challenge and 
new findings. To date, not one , that's right NONE of the new findings 
have been incompatible with Darwins original idea. As we have learned 
more, we have modified and extended Darwins original concept. Darwin 
didn't know about genes, or DNA, or really proteins either. He had no 
molecular tools, and only his clear and formal reasoning skills to work 
with. Despite that, his original idea stands. It is not a question of 
liking the idea, or of being comfortable with it. Not one person has 
been able to overturn it. If you read the various Christian pamphlets 
that some of the sects produce - especially some of the baptist picture 
books, or the Witness' The Watch Tower, you will find that each and 
every Darwin "knockdown" sits on top of a known misconception, 
distortion, or lie. It is intellectually dishonest, intentionally 
misleading, and fraudulent.

Interviews with those who formerly held such views and pedalled these 
"straw-man" style of lies about evolution can be revealing. Perhaps the 
motivation is a "self- blindness", that those who belong want to 
believe/ are so tightly bound to that group identity that they skim over 
any fact that refutes their stance. Perhaps an element of "serving the 
greater good" steps in - it is ok to lie to the heathen to save them.

However, we teach Science. It is not ok to teach creationism in a 
Science class. Creationism, or rebadged so as to get its passport 
stamped, creation science, is not science, it lacks the necessary 
requirement of being falsifiable. It is Not Science!

I think that any Christian school should be allowed to to practice its 
faith and teach its lore to its students. But not in science classes, 
because that is fraudulent. School, especially when substantially funded 
by the State, should be about intellectual honesty, and it is false 
advertising to equate Christian science with science. Thankfully, it has 
been my experience and understanding that most Christian schools do not 
do this, and that mostly in this country, Science is properly taught, 
according to its own disciplines, practices and intellectual framework.
In this context, I personally do not have a problem with the original 
wording of the AAS:

“The [Australian] Academy [of Science] sees no objection to the teaching 
of creationism in schools as part of a course in dogmatic or comparative 
religion, or in some other non-scientific context.”

Although to me that issue is granted greater attention than it warrants. 
It is more of a middle back page disclaimer, in my eyes!

I also think that stridently tackling the teaching of creationism in 
schools, of "upping the ante because you are losing" is the wrong thing 
for the AAS to do. Their first reasoning of this was correct, and the 
choice to change the stance should not depend on where one side sits in 
a populist poll. I'd personally like to see the AAS keep the high moral 
ground on this, and hold to its original principles.

Cheers,
Leon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stawa.net/pipermail/catalist_lists.stawa.net/attachments/20171122/c4208446/attachment.html>