[Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia

Fri Mar 30 11:32:18 AEDT 2018

No intelligent design and creationism or creation science and separate 

Intelligent design infers an intelligence behind the design seen and evidenced
Creationism Asher’s to the Genesis account in the Bible. 

They may overlap and compliment each other but you will have adherents denying any belief in the other 

Some” intelligent designers “ may have no belief in the God of the Bible for example.

Yes science is based on observation and the scientific method relies on repeatable testable proofs... I believe it falls short then in satisfying the demands for a theory of evolution based on this tenet alone... 

Paul Walker

Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 11:43 am, Roy Skinner <rsskinner at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Catalist mailing list
> Catalist at lists.stawa.net
> http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net