[Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

[Greg Munyard]

Couldn’t agree more, Roy.

Leon, your response is brilliant and well-reasoned, but from my side of the fence, it’s shot full of holes. I will respond in due course, but the demands of end of year arrangements preclude that at the moment. When I respond, I will reference it to a blog-site or similar so as not to take up Catalist space. There’s enough material in your response to write a book, and it may very-well end up being that!

I guess that is the nature of the discussion though. We sit at opposite ends of a spectrum in a world that doesn’t fully appreciate the realities of each other’s viewpoint, and I use the word, “realities” deliberately, for it is equally real to me and to thousands of others of my ilk to accept that there is design in Creation and a great Designer behind it all. Perhaps that is the reason behind recent observations in the media that, upon viewing many of Sir David Attenborough’s presentations, are coming away, not with a greater appreciation for the random majesty of evolution, but a greater sense of awe and appreciation for a Creator.

I will reply in due course.

Regards

Greg Munyard
From: Catalist [mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net] On Behalf Of Roy Skinner
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2017 11:17 AM
To: leon at quoll.com; catalist at lists.stawa.net
Subject: Re: [Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

Well said Leon!
Roy

From: Catalist [mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net] On Behalf Of Leon Harris
Sent: Wednesday, 22 November 2017 10:24 PM
To: Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net<mailto:catalist at lists.stawa.net>>
Subject: Re: [Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

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

[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>

Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stawa.net/pipermail/catalist_lists.stawa.net/attachments/20171123/f776c4a6/attachment.html>