[Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

Thu Mar 29 14:43:04 AEDT 2018

I note that the term "Intelligent Design" seems to have changed to Creation
Science, which labels the philosophy as applying some kind of scientific
method - yes?
Let uss be clear about what thee Scientific Method is: A model is proposed
from observations which may not be "the truth" but this model is up for
scrutiny by other scientists t pull apart and modify in the light of perhaps
superior technology developed. E.g. Gallileo's telescope showed that not
every celestial body has to rotate around the Earth.
Hence the model is modified under healthy scrutiny.
Compare this with religious faith or dogma, where an idea is proposed from
simplistic experiences (e.g. Egyptian ideas that the sun is rolled across
the sky by some invisible scarab beetle). An idea based on writings which
are from primitive thinkers is then enshrined in a belief system which is
NOT put up for scrutiny a la the scientific method a nd in fact, if it is
questions or examined then terrible results can occur, (the rack, burning at
the stake, etc).
Intelligent design by a superior being implies that the result would be
perfect. If this were trues then the human backbone would have a much more
robust design, rather than being akin to some cups and saucers all balanced
on each other, breaking down very easily because of a faulty construction.
The whale is a mammal which used to walk on Earth once but its design was so
bad that could only survive in the sea due to its weight.
In short, science does not pretend its models are "the truth" and expects
them to be modified in the light of new discoveries. Belief systems have no
examination systems except by other clerics who pronounce that their
interpretation is the correct one to follow according to their own logic/
interpretation of ancient texts. 
With modern thinking, as opposed to ancient logic, for instance, we realise
that particles can come into being spontaneously for a vacuum, by the
Uncertainty Principle. This does not fit into the simplistic, ancient
logical framework where the logic applied from limited experiences in a 3d
world would argue that something cannot be derived from nothing!
Logic does not work in areas where we have no experience, like
11-dimensional space.
Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: Catalist [mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net] On Behalf Of Mick
Cameron
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2018 7:31 AM
To: WA Science Teachers Discussion List <catalist at lists.stawa.net>
Subject: Re: [Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

Thank you Leon for the your comments and the tone of your email.

 I agree with most of what you say and I think you'd find many Christians
would not disagree with the Position Statement on Creation Science and
Intelligent Design that Dr Bray posted.

Getting back to Michael McGarry's initial concerns regarding the teaching of
Creation Science in Australian schools, here are my observations and
theories behind it. I've worked in several Christian schools in the
independent sector and there is always a mix among science teachers on this
topic. A department might have one 'rusted-on' hard core creation science
follower. However there are usually a significant number (by my limited
anecdotal observations) of science teachers that just get on with teaching
and fulfilling their duties exceptionally well without being drawn into the
debate. I detect that many feel some sort of obligation towards Creation
Science, perhaps because of the vocal one in the department. They see the
logic when specific flaws in Creation Science are pointed out, but they
haven't yet come around to rejecting Creation Science outright.

>From my experience most Christian pastors/ ministers prefer not to be drawn
into the Creation Science movement. They may have their own opinions
however, the most common position I hear is "I'm not a scientist, I'll leave
it up to those qualified in that field of study". They put effort into work
that is more central to the Christian message.

I have one theory that post-modern thought has influenced our thinking of
science, Christians included. With the rejection of grand over-aching
perspectives, no universal worldview and the skepticism of elite groups
manipulating knowledge. We've seen it with climate change / global warming -
climate change deniers suspicious of those claiming to know "the truth"
about the planet for fear of manipulating facts to promote a hidden agenda.
Whenever we hear someone say this is true, we say "whose truth?" I wonder if
Creation Science sees itself as challenging scientific thinking for fear of
a hidden atheistic agenda. For example this is Dawkins on design, suffering
and evil.

 "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and
genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are
going to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose, no evil and no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference.DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA
just is, and we dance to its music (Dawkins, 'God's Utility Function'
Scientific America 1995)

Dawkins wrote a brilliant book back in 1976. But he mixes his science with
personal views on matters of good and evil - but these fall outside the
scope of science also. He is entitled to his opinions but as someone in his
position at Oxford he should be more careful. If I can speak on behalf of
many Christians, they don't want to side with Creation Science but they
surely want to stay clear of Dawkin's type ideology. 

I hope and suspect that over time Creation Science will fade away. I hope
that we come to a point where the Genesis story can be interpreted the way
the author intended - as figurative language and not a scientific document.

There are a lot of teachers in Australia who believe in a creator but do not
promote the brand Creation Science. They believe in an intelligent designer
but understand  that Intelligent Design is not scientific (and was not
started by a scientist but instead a law scholar Philip Johnson in 1991).
Christians believe that God is creator, that life is here because God willed
it to be and that humans are here by God's design. This comes across in the
way we teach and the reason behind our awe of the created world. We don't
need Creation Science to teach science in a Christian way.

I apologise if this comes across as too preachy. Sometime I'd like to do a
proper Christian Science Teacher Review of Creation Science and Intelligent
Design but I'll save that for another time.

Regards,

Mick Cameron

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 10:28 PM, Leon Harris <leon at quoll.com> wrote:
> 
> I am glad that this stand has been taken on teaching Creationism - it
always was a wedge, aimed at legitimising and reinforcing a religious
position, and has no place in the teachings in a science curriculum.
> 
> I think it is important to acknowledge the place of faith in peoples
lives, and to recognise that even atheist scientists run most of their lives
on heuristics, rather than on scientific method. It is only the scientific
method(s) that give science its power and validity - there isn't the
equivalent of a special "God Button" that is there for those who align to
the majority views of the scientific community. The application of those
methods and that process is wearying and time consuming. We take short cuts,
and we draw conclusions that are suggested by data that we have observed,
but not often formally and rigorously re-tested. Look at all the "junk"
antioxidant papers out there, or the paper two years ago that laid to rest
the 100+ year old assumption that the exploding hydrogen is what causes the
bang when sodium is thrown into water. Look at the low rate of repeatability
of peer-reviewed published scientific work (well under 50% (as in 47/53)
according to a recent issue of Nature
https://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-releases-first-re
sults-1.21304).
> 
> Science must be tentative in its conclusions - always open to review. We
never prove (except in some highly constrained mathematical situations), our
data simply supports conclusions. As scientists, we are most danger when we
elevate the consensus of our fields to the status of a religion.
> 
> With this in mind, and given the impossibility of formally disproving the
existence of a God or gods, it seems to me to be a reasonable extension of
the tolerance we extend to ourselves as scientists - that is, we don't
require a rigorous scientific justification of every aspect of our lives -
because we don't have the brain processing power to turn all of that
analytical method to everything that we do, simultaneously. If it is not
required of me that I formally analyse whether I would be better off not
getting out of bed, whether I should start first with my left or my right
leg, whether I should inhale first, or reach standing position, and a
zillion things that are beyond my capacity to do and carry out the tasks of
my life - perhaps it would be reasonable to accept that those of the
religious persuasion amongst us need not have to justify that position. It
should be enough to say "I believe" and leave it at that. Mind you, I would
expect in return to be not subject to proselytising. Faith is a private
thing, and mine suggests that this collection of scientific methods that we
have developed over the past few centuries will in the end, if followed
rigorously, reveal the truth and self-correct it self. The evidence is that
it does, but that conclusion is tentative, and subject to modification in
light of any new data.
> 
> Finally, education is not a science. It isn't even "evidence-based" in my
opinion. Fragments of research, generally with statistically unreliably
small samples, poorly controlled test instruments, and parametric tests
applied to often quite non-parametric data, makes most of the education
papers junk, and definitely in need of interpretation with a big pinch of
salt. We don't operate in a science domain.
> We just do the best with what we have.
> 
> In this context, we run on teacher faith. Faith that, despite all it's
flaws, its pain, its massive workload and depressing inertia, what we are
doing is both worthwhile and needed. The kind of faith that I hold, that
makes me believe that our students and our country will be much worse off,
and in danger of destruction and loss if we don't scientifically educate the
next generation. It is faith, it is not evidence based. My evidence base
suggests that the best off, happiest and most wealthy of my students are the
ones who go into real estate or pursue an MBA. My faith tells me science is
essential to who and what we are, and that is why I do it.  This is faith as
reason applied to sparse data.
> 
> Much of the talent base in both public and private schools in this country
is Christian. Much of their motivation is linked to their faith - the idea
of a kind of community good arising from service to the community. This
linkage is not uniquely Christian - all the best old socialists have it too,
but because it exists in these people, they are (I believe, based on a head
count taken over a beer with some friends a few years ago, and with no
appropriate p value calculated) more strongly represented in education than
in other sectors. I don't buy the idea that "say" should solely be based on
effort in this system, and I certainly don't wish to see faith intrude into
science, especially when it masquerades as science in the intellectually
flawed and fabricated creation science. However, in deference to the
enormous contributions that christian teachers make every day to our
schools, I think it is humane and decent to look for a way to make the
environment a bit less toxic to them. No proselytising, but a recognition of
entitlement to faith, and even a removal of the subject of faith from
science.
> 
> In conclusion, and in a religion-neutral kind of way, enjoy the break and
may the Djeran lagomorph ovulate profusely and in abundance for you!
> Cheers,
> Leon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Catalist mailing list
> Catalist at lists.stawa.net
> http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net

_______________________________________________
Catalist mailing list
Catalist at lists.stawa.net
http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus