Time to continue on with my second part to Creationism and its critics. This next section deals with the qualifications of creationists, which I hope this section will yield some actual critiques of the overall movement.
Question: "Why should such a small minority as the creationists expect to impose their beliefs on others?"Ah, another question rather than critique.... but, the data being used here should be brought into question. Not because of its validity, but rather the idea that the poll mentioned was from 1981/82. There have been more recent polls taken, so why not use stats from those? I dont believe this is in any attempts to lie to the readers of the article, but rather to try and hype the idea that the population wants creationism taught in schools. The number given may be some sort of collective, as in, 86% believe in a creator, whether or not evolution was a factor in the development of the species we see today. This poll also doesnt account for every single individual in the country (I'm assuming the USA), so this may not fully be an accurate number. Whats most unfortunate about this information provided, is that there is no references, you could however do a simple internet search, and possibly find the info, but a little more information should have been given by the author.
Answer: Creationists are not a small minority. A nationwide poll commissioned by the Associated Press and NBC News late in 1981 showed that over 86% of the people favored having creationism taught in the schools.
Nevertheless, creationists only request fair treatment, not favored treatment, in the schools. The attitude of the liberal humanistic establishments in science and education, in trying to maintain an exclusive indoctrination in evolutionary humanism, seems incredibly intolerant and arrogant in a free country. In 1982, a Gallup poll, as widely reported through the New York Times service (e.g., San Diego Union, August 30, 1982, p. A12), found that at least 44% of the national population believed not only in creation, but in recent creation!
Question: "America's news media are apparently almost completely opposed to the creation movement; does not this fact refute the claim that a significant part of the population favors creation!"
Answer: Unfortunately, there is firm evidence that the leaders of the news media are completely out of touch with the opinions of the American people, even though they are supposed to be "opinion makers." For example, columnist Pat Buchanan, through the Chicago Tribune New York News syndicate on December 30, 1981, cited a recent article by Lichter and Rothman in Public Opinion magazine, which had reported on detailed interviews with the 240 leading editors, reporters, columnists, TV anchormen, producers, correspondents, and film editors people judged to be the leaders of the media in deciding what news to report and how to report it. The answers to all the questions demonstrated the extremely strong liberal bias of this group (as opposed to the much more conservative leanings of the people they supposedly represent). This abnormally left-wing bias was evident in all areas of thought sociological, scientific and political. Only 8% of them regularly attend either church or synagogue. and over half have no religious affiliation whatever. With this kind of profile, it would be surprising to find even the smallest semblance of sympathy for creationism in the media. The creation movement and arguments are, as a result, almost always misrepresented and distorted, often viciously, in newspaper and magazine articles and in radio and television coverage.
Hmm... I think the meaning of secularization needs to be brought into this Q&A. But, I also wonder if creationists have an idea of what secularization actually means, apparent by all the creationist literature I've read, I get the idea that secularization means a lack in god, or atheism... which is puzzling because secularization has nothing to do with belief, and more to do with tolerance. Anyway, the media is a bit of a difficult area to talk about in this context. The media intends to draw viewership, and this is done by showing outrageous displays to the mass public; if creationism gets its spotlight in the media, its simply due to the fact that some right wing creationist has outrageous claims, i.e. headline making. Whether or not news media is for or against creationism is irrelevant.
Question: "But why are all real scientists evolutionists?"
Answer: All real scientists are not evolutionists! There are thousands of bona fide scientists today who have become creationists, all of whom have postgraduate degrees, who are pursuing careers in science and who have records and credentials quite comparable to those of any other segment in the scientific professions. Although most scientists may still be evolutionists—especially those who control the scientific societies and journals—the creationist minority is respectable and growing. There are creationist Ph.D.'s in every branch of pure and applied science today geology, physics, engineering, medicine, and all the rest it is obvious now that a man or woman can be well trained and experienced in any discipline of science and can understand the factual data of that science within the framework of the Creation Model. In fact, acceptance of creation is known to be growing most rapidly today among people with scientific and technological training. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that practically all of these scientists were indoctrinated in evolutionism throughout their training. To become or remain creationists, they have had to study and think themselves through the evidences and arguments for both models, all on their own initiative, and usually against the opposition and ridicule of the majority of their scientific and educational colleagues. Most of them, like the author of this booklet, were themselves evolutionists throughout their college years and beyond, becoming creationists only as a result of later personal critical study and reevaluation.
Ah, finally! An actual question within the realm of credentials.... this still however does not equate to a criticism. No, not all 'real' scientists are "evolutionists", but why exactly does that matter? the point of science is to study phenomena that wouldnt be readily explained. There will always be a natural explanation to certain aspects, and thats the point of science. Creationists have trended to the various critiques brought forth, and the idea of major credentials has sparked an uprising in YEC organizations to promote credentials throughout all of their works. Credentials arent everything though, many times you will see a prominent creationist speaking as authority on a topic far related from their expertise. Of course, there are those that speak on topics related to their educational training, but very much so gloss over details, or provide any critical analysis of the ideas they are against.
While on the topic of trends, another prominent feature of creationist proponents seems to deal with the idea of "I once was lost, but now am found" or "was blind, but now I see", which relates to the overly used claim that many highly respected creationists were once evolutionists. Personally, this seems more of a hype tactic rather than a reality; all these claims are never backed by any insight into what their life was like beforehand, and what truly "drove" them to the light. Its apparently also necessary to paint a portrait of higher education in the light of indoctrination. I believe I've spoken on this issue in a previous post, but again I shall comment. Post secondary education has no intention of indoctrination, and if a student with religious ideals in the first place does not want to "buy into" the idea that life developed unaided by a higher force, then why are they taking advanced classes in the areas of biology? If they believed that the world was flooded almost 4500 years ago, why learn about the processes of geology? Of course, I'm not stating that these individuals shouldn't be allowed into these classrooms, I actually encourage them to! Learn all you can, because if any of these individuals go on to become future prominent figures in the creationist movement, they should at least have a well grounded understanding of the processes to explain to the masses they so want to influence.
Question: "Then why don't creationists publish in the standard scientific journals?"If this question were a critique, it should be more along the lines of "what ideas are creationists bringing forth that don't support ideas of scientific thought, and why dont these established ideas work scientifically?". The point is, if these creation scientists have any actual criticisms of scientific research then of course they would be published in the various scientific journals. The Journal for Creation for example, is stated to be peer reviewed. But what is peer reviewed, and by whom? Seemingly, the technical articles published are reviewed by other creationists, so of course this would make it through to the publishing stages of this journal. No real critical analysis is actually done, as there is still various rebuttals to these articles ( one example can be found HERE, a religious website so as to not come off with a clear bias). My point here, is that if these technical papers are in fact peer reviewed, they most likely would not be published.
Answer: Creationists do publish in the standard scientific journals, in their own respective scientific disciplines, and their publications' records compare well with any other comparable group. For example, the scientists who have served on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research have published at least 150 research papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields in standard scientific journals or through secular book publishers addition to hundreds of creationist articles and at least 50 books on creationism and related subjects. Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be "masked" in order to get them published in secular outlets. So far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers. For example, when the high school biology textbook produced by the scientists of the Creation Research Society was ready for publication in 1969, the 15 leading high school textbook publishers were contacted about possibly publishing the book. It was a comprehensive and well organized book, written by a fully-qualified team of Ph.D. biologists and other scientists, and should have been financially profitable for any publisher. Nevertheless, not one of these publishers would even so much as look at the manuscript! They claimed their other books would be boycotted if they were to publish a creationist textbook, so it was necessary for the Society to have it published by a Christian book company. The book has gone through two editions, and has been widely used in private schools.
The other issue here is the publication of textbooks for high school students, and the idea that they must contain clear markings that they are from creationist sources. Again, secularization comes into play here, because if these were used in classrooms without the understanding of the source material, this would be considered indoctrination. Now when creationists claim indoctrination, they point to the idea that evolution is whole heatedly taught and embraced by the public school system, in a possible religious fashion. This idealization is harmful to promote, as it does not help students if it continues to be a constant debate. Students of course can have their own opinions and ideas on the subject, but if a student has the undertones of YECs and therefore, the mindset to ignore studied and verified materials, how will they understand how processes work later on in life when they attempt to become a biologist, a physisict, or a doctor? Biology seems to be the bulk of where creationist attacks lead to, I'm guessing due to opinions on life origins, and evolution. Without the biological factor of evolution ( the idea that things change over time), how are we to explain the diversity of life forms? (and this is regardless of whether organisms started out a "created kinds" or not, because we still see diversification today).
Question: "But isn't it true that all the really important scientists are evolutionists?"
Answer: It is extremely difficult today for creationists to get Ph.D. degrees or to secure and retain faculty positions in the major universities.
Similarly the major scientific societies and periodicals are controlled by committed evolutionists. Students in science programs are exposed only to evolution in their classes and textbooks and often their advancement after graduation depends in part on conformity to the system. Under such circumstances it is remarkable that thousands of scientists have become creationists anyhow. One organization alone, the Creation Research Society, has had well over 700 members who have postgraduate degrees. Even though the modern scientists whose names are most familiar to the public are evolutionists (Sagan, Gould, Leakey, etc.) there are nevertheless many creation scientists today who hold equally important and demanding positions in scientific research and development. In fact most working scientists are apparently so deeply involved in their own projects that they don't even think very much about the creation-evolution question. They have not taken any public stand either as evolutionists or creationists and probably have not studied the evidence enough to decide. Many are (like the writer was for a number of years) evolutionists simply by default and conformity rather than conviction. Of even greater significance than the fact that there are thousands of scientists who have become creationists in modern times, however, is the fact that most of the greatest scientists of the past founding fathers of modern science creationists and, for that matter, even Bible-believing Christians. One could go down the list of the names of the great men who founded the various disciplines of modern science like Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Pascal, Faraday, Pasteur, Maxwell, Kelvin and scores of others of like calibre he would find a very large percentage of them to have been men who believed the Bible to be the Word of God and the God of the Bible to have created all things in the beginning. Somehow these beliefs didn't deter them from understanding science! For brief biographical testimonies of more than 60 of these great creationist scientists of the past, see the book, Men of Science-Men of God (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982), 128 pp.
Ah, another claim that creationists are also well established scientists. This again has no relevancy to anything, and is still in no way a critique on creationism. There also seems to be a shameless plug in here to promote a creationist publication, and I fail to see what good it would do either way to look into it. The idea that "all important scientists are evolutionists" is also irreverent to anything, as its stated in the answer (and previous answers, as well as from the website I hyperlinked to) that many scientists do have religious backgrounds and are devout to their faith (whether they are YECs or not).
This second section has proven nothing in terms of critiquing the ideas of creationism, and has been more so in favor of defending the idea that creationists aren't dumb. But this childish banter does nothing to verify creationism, nor does it do anything to disprove it; its simply whining to get attention. The next section will hopefully give better results in terms of critiques of the subject, so until next time!
No comments:
Post a Comment