Palaeontologia_Electronica@nhm.ac.uk
(Norman)
(Tim)
Discussion:Paleontology-The
Adventure Continues, Vol. 1, Issue 1 |
To send comments, contact:
Norman MacLeod and Tim Patterson
Executive Editors
(Norman)
(Tim)
Postings from recent e-mail messages regarding Jere's editorials. Note RESPONSE indicates reply by Dr. Lipps.
3 March 2000
I thank Robert Turner for his comments on creationist politics. I think he is right too--creationists are using an appeal based on the Bible that is confusing to many mainstream Christians who believe sincerely in the Bible and their own faith, but who are unaware of their own church's view of science, evolution in particular. When the creationist arguments are presented to the uninitiated, religious people must ask their own preacher, priest, or pastor what their own church's position is. Most mainstream religions, Christian and others, recognize science as an important part of modern life and their god's role in it. These religions, like Catholicism, are not opposed to evolution or science, recognizing God's role in it. When discussion or debating creationist, make sure you ask the audience to think about their own religion's viewpoint and if they don't know it, ask them to find out for their own sakes. This serves to defuse some of the sensationalism and politics the creationist use.
Jere
Subject: Creationism versus Evolution
20 March 2000
Let me make a single quick point. Whatever the proponents of creationism
in fact believe (and I don't doubt that they are sincere in their beliefs) we
need to recognize that this is first and foremost a political power play. The
term 'evolution' is linked with other words, for example 'secular humanist' and
'liberal'. As such, they can be used as weapons in any number of political
battles. We may well feel that science as an enterprise has no point of contact
with politics: We would certainly prefer it that way. But in fact that is where
we are stuck. I have no great insights as to how we get out of this position,
but I think that as a starting point we need to recognize our position.
Keep up the good fight.
Yours,
Robert L. Turner
Albuquerque, NM
3 January 2000
Dear All,
I am writing concerning Dr Lipps note on creationism vs. evolution. It seems to
me that we find ourselves caught in an ontological dilemma. Either one believes
in evolution, or one believes in creation. Having made that decision, one then
seeks to justify that belief (what is knowledge except a justified belief?). The
problem is that, the decision being an ontological one, one can only find proof
or disproof within one's terms of reference. Compare this with the perspectives
in sociology: either society is in class conflict, as the Marxian sociologists
say, or it is in harmony, as the Durkheimian functionalists say. It is not
possible to either prove or disprove one argument from within the terms of
reference of the other. If, then, we are to be proactive, we should not be
trying to disprove creationism from within 'evolutionism', but should be
questioning it from within the basic precepts of creationism. One way do do this
is to ask such party-stopping questions as 'was Adam created with genitalia, and
if so, why? If not, why not?' Or 'how did God create light before he created
such sources of light as the sun and the stars?' Or one could ask why, if the
serpent was not a serpent until after the apple episode, do early paintings show
a typical serpent writhing around in a tree? Or, if one wished to be really
cynical, one could ask why God, having created light, and having seen it was
good, and sun and stars and etc., and having seen they were good, did He create
man and then say nothing about our being good?
Only in such a proactive and perhaps antagonistic stance will any headway be
made. But I fear we are going to be fighting a losing battle: we will be told
that "God can do anything", and that "He works in mysterious
ways", no matter how loudly we shout.
Regards
Dr Brent Wilson
BioSTRATIGRAPHIC ASSOCIATES (TRINIDAD) LIMITED
RESPONSE
9 January 2000
Dr. Brent Wilson suggests that we fight
creationism from within its own realm. While that is possible with so-called
"scientific creationism", where we can present overwhelming evidence
to the contrary on almost any point they raise, we will never convert
creationists of any sort or their followers because evolution itself is not
their primary worry. These fundamentalists see evolution as the antithesis of
God, for if they accept evolution, then they must forgo their most cherished
beliefs as expressed in a literal reading of the Bible. Evolution is a dreaded
threat to them that weakens or destroys their very reason for existence. Also
creationists are evangelists who wish to increase the numbers around them. So
they proselytize other believers in Christianity that evolution threatens them
as well. It is an easy course utilizing basic fears of normal people. Of course,
evolution doesn't threaten, and it is accepted by every mainstream Christian
religion as well as the other two great western religions (they too may have
creationist problems). Some believers consider it the way in which God created,
some consider it a work of God, and others consider it as one God's ways which
we need not question. Creationism is a minor style of Christianity, prevalent
mostly in the United States, that should not prevail at the expense of the
majority of Christians and society at large. In the largely Christian continent
of Europe, for example, creationism and evolution are hardly issues at all among
believers.
So our task is not to convert creationists, for that is impossible. Instead, we
must join with those Christians who accept evolution to inform politicians
(including especially presidential candidates), lawyers, and school boards, and
to support teachers, that evolution is perfectly acceptable by Christians and
other western religions. To impose creationist beliefs on all Americans is a
violation of fairness, of freedom of belief, and of religion itself. We should
make a case that science is a way of understanding God's creations, as the
metaphors of Genesis have described, and that evolution is firmly embedded in
science. To challenge evolution is to challenge science in general, and that
seems ludicrious at this stage of world success and dependence on science.
Indeed, we might even go a bit further and point out that the health sciences
increasingly are using the prinicples of evolution to understand genetic
diseases, bacterial and viral resistance to treatment, and genetic manipulation,
among many others, to improve the lives of creationists, other Christians,
evolutionists, and all other people. Without science, and its embedded
discipline of evolution, our world would be a much less pleasant place.
Evolution is an important way in which God works to ensure His creations of the
Universe, the Stars and Heavens, the animals and plants, and indeed us, will
fulfill their interrelated spiritual and materialistic roles, however He has set
that out.
Some visitors to this site may reply, "But all we need is science to
explain the universe, not God or religions." True enough. But among
scientists, nearly half believe strongly in God. And most of us live in
Christian cultures with a very high proportion of believers that we must
respect. We do not have to be believers ourselves to support the acceptance of
evolution by Christianity. Scientists need to team up with religious leaders and
believers on this issue, because both groups have a good deal to lose, if the
aims of creationists are fulfilled. We need to let all people know that
evolution is no threat to anyone, that everyone needs to understand something of
it, and that it can be used productively in our own societies and lives.
Jere
14 December 1999
As an ardent anticreationist, I feel that I should point you to the Talk.Origins
Archive which acts as a resource site for those engaged in debates over
creation and evolution, particularly in public debate and the schoolroom. It
holds many FAQs for the talk.origins newsgroup.
Most of the "standard" creationist canards are dealt with there and
there is an excellent introduction to evolutionary biology by Chris Colby, which
also acts as the FAQ for the sci.bio.evolution newsgroup as well.
John Wilkins, Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
2 December 1999
Regarding the question of Creationism and Creationists: There is obviously a large element of apathy in the general public about why this issue is worth being concerned about. So what if someone holds to a religious view in opposition to modern thought? It is not a matter of just holding a point of view, however. It is a matter of what that view can do when associated with real political power.
The essence of Christian Creationism is the unique and central position of humanity and the human right to use or abuse whatever Nature provides. We recently saw religious conservatives in the American government agree to actions that further threatened the existence of species and protected environments. This was morally argued as being in keeping with the biblical Christian doctrine of God creating the rest of nature for humanity's use.
The dismissal of the dangers of extinction and the realities of environmental frailty is very problematic. Creationists, as you have noted, are well organized and well funded. They also have a habit of voting and standing for public office. Those of us who understand the workings of Nature and the imperative of using scientific methodologies in environmental studies are directly threatened by attitudes of arrogance and indifference to research and tested fact. Religious dogma is not an individual matter. It is a social matter and sooner or later it will cause a social crisis.
The religious elevation of humanity to being God's Favorite is a monstrously dangerous thing. When those who hold such views are given political power the results are often very destructive or catastrophic. As a case in point, issues over health care and who deserves what based on Christian moral principals colored the AIDS question and prevented legislation from being enacted that would have advanced medical solutions for the afflicted. The same situation existed for other sexually transmitted diseases and was even a major argument against the use of anesthetics in the 19th Century as interfering with God's established order.
It is imperative for the secular society to protect the role of science in education and sustain the forward momentum of progress in addressing environmental and biological concerns. The few can easily dominate the many, as history has shown time and time again, and only a truly representative government, inclusive of the scientific community, can keep Reason and Rationalism as the means to a worthwhile future.
- S. Squire
RESPONSE
2 December 1999
Mr. Squire makes excellent points.
Jere H. Lipps
18 October 1999
Hi Jere,
Even though I'm not a scientist, I thought your "Paleontology Challenged!" article was awesome! You are, unfortunately for all of us, correct--Americans are one of the most religious, indoctrinated, and scientifically illiterate people on earth. And this is a dangerously growing trend; the Kansas BOE disaster; the Kentucky dropping of the word evolution; and all candidates for US President stating that creationism should be taught in schools. I respectfully disagree with your statement that there is no conflict between religion and science. The conflict between religion and science looks like it will be "eternal!" If there is no conflict, then why are all these Xtian organizations attacking evolution? From the persecutions of Copernicus and Galileo up to today, the war between religion and science has been waged. I don't know much about science in general and paleontology in particular, but your work at Berkeley is extremely valuable. Keep up the good work!
John Kiel
6 July 1999
Professor Lipps:
I recently read your editorial entitled "The Media, Trash Science, and
Paleontology". It is a subject near and dear to me, as I am both a science
journalist and a person of faith. I often run across people in my work who have
never been exposed to good, mainstream science and who are suspicious of the
scientific paradigm. My wife and I recently finished a manuscript for a
christian publisher on the subject of dinosaurs. This publisher (Chariot/Victor)
has given us free rein to discuss timelines and extinction theories, both of
which are hot buttons in the christian community. The book is a wonderful
opportunity to infuse good science into an area that traditionally has had only
exposure to Creation "Science". Our text has been reviewed by Bob
Bakker, Jack Horner, and Ken Carpenter. We hope it will encourage critical
thinking while serving as a tool in the continuing battle to free people from a
fear of science. Thought you might like to know!
By the way, I am enjoying the electronic magazine very much. Thanks for all your
hard work.
Michael Carroll
RESPONSE
6 July 1999
Thank you for the kind words. I am pleased to hear of your project, for I see
no conflict between science and religion myself. They work differently towards
different ends and both are important to people. My main push is for science
literacy simply because we live in a society that is so dependent on science and
technology that everyone should understand how it works. If you can dispell the
"hot button" aspect of science, paleontology and evolution in
particular, I salute you.
Jere
27 May 1999
Editorializing on Creationism in a paleontology journal is surely preaching to the choir. However, there is one point raised in Dr. Lipps' editorial which may require further examination. He writes:
"The task before American paleontologists, geologists, evolutionists, and anthropologists is large. We must move to educate the public, not only in schools but on television, in the newspapers and the other media."
Must we? Even, should we? In the journals, privately, in addresses to scientific audiences, we are so often exhorted to convert the heathen, to send missionaries to the unenlightened and to uplift the ignorant masses.
Scientists, we are told, are the keepers of the flame, initiates who have a special relationship with the truth and a duty to convert others. I, for one, believed this for many years. But I now think I may have been very wrong. This is one reason why. I don't pretend to know what science is in a philosophical sense. However, scientists as working people pursue knowledge according to a special set of rules which we think of as science. Among these rules are things that sound like moral or philosophical propositions: honest reporting of data, objectivity, a willingness always to reexamine assumptions and to question fundamentals. However, these are not a complete philosophy by any means. They are universally accepted working principles of the craft because they work. That is, they generate data and explanations for data which the world at large finds useful or entertaining.
At the same time, there are socialists and libertarians, Catholics and Klansmen, saints and libertines, who can all, with equal justice, consider themselves good scientists, as well as dedicated members of whatever creed or party suits them. I even went to graduate school with a Creationist who, by what seemed at the time an amazing feat of schizophrenia, managed to be a pretty fair molecular biologist.
The point is that we have nothing to convert the heathen to. All we have is a set of pragmatically justified working rules. I can tell the Creationist that it is vanishingly unlikely that Varanops coexisted with Methuselah, according to these rules, or that Ichthyostega walked the earth with Adam, if indeed it walked the earth at all. I can even say that history seems to vindicate my set of rules better than his, in a pragmatic sort of way.
However, we can't forget that these are just working rules. They are not a complete philosophy. A scientist who presents herself as a spokesperson for logic or truth, outside her special area, commits something close to fraud. Scientists have no special qualifications even to judge the worth of their own working assumptions, except to make the circular observation that these assumptions seem to work within the context we call science. To the extent Creationists pretend to practice religion as science, this also approaches fraud; but there are many frauds, and even more honest errors. A great deal of what is passed off as science on the Discovery channel worries me more than Creationism.
Fortunately, good science has a way of pushing out bad. Faith may or may not move mountains. But bad faith will never even move a bicycle consistently. That takes sound engineering and good science, and these tend to win the races. We do not need to share the political vision of the bicycle engineer. The materials scientist who came up with the frame alloy does not need to give television interviews or preach. These people have no special duty, no obvious qualifications, and may have no ability at all, to do these things effectively. But, if the world wants fast bicycles then they will be heard where they speak best -- in the lab and on the drawing board. As long as people wonder about how humans came to be, what dinosaurs were like, how life got started -- all questions that even children ask -- good paleontology will displace even the most well-funded nonsense: not because paleontologists are more photogenic or articulate, but because they give explanations that work better conceptually and in the field.
As this is already too long a letter for its purpose, I will shut it down with a final disclaimer. I use "we" loosely. I am no longer, and have not been for some time, employed as a working scientist. Whether I correctly remember what it means to be one, you will have to judge for yourself.
--Toby White
RESPONSE
6 July 1999
Toby White suggests two things in his comment on my editorial.
Let me elaborate a bit.
1. I should hope that paleontologists are the choir when it comes to
creationism. My aim was not to preach, but to add a few songs and verses that
PE's international audience might find useful, interesting, or not be aware of
because of their other duties or because they have not been confronted with
creationism in the place where they live. These songs or verses are: A. To call
attention to the new efforts of creationists involving "intelligent
design" of biomolecules and other detailed structures; B. To let
paleontologists in other countries where creationists are making inroads know
that they may be confronted as this world-wide effort continues; C. To tell
paleontologists about renewed efforts that are underway to counter creationism
by the National Research Council, the Paleontological Society, and others; D. To
suggest that all of us work towards increased scientific literacy because it
seems required in our highly scientific and technical society; and, E. To tell
paleontologists who had not directly encountered creationists of my own
experience in one of their centers.
2. To show my presumptuousness, Toby White quotes the first two sentences of my
penultimate paragraph. Done that way, I look like I am attempting to
"convert the heathen, to send missionaries to the unenlightened, and to
uplift the ignorant masses". The complete paragraph aimed to emphasize the
need to educate the general public about science and how science works. This is,
in fact, not original with me--Carl Sagan, Leon Lederman, Paul Ehrlich, and the
National Research Council among many others have all urged that Americans become
literate in science because our very way of life depends on it. I urged that the
public (which is about 95% scientifically illiterate) be educated about how
science works so that they can understand and evaluate scientific issues in
their lives, their nation, and the world. Nothing philosophical here, just the
tools to learn how to do it. . I have done that elsewhere too (Lipps, 1996,
1998,1999).
I agree with White that scientists pretending to have the truth are frauds. In
fact, they are not even scientists since we don't do science that way. We use
our various methods to eliminate wrong ideas, and thus perhaps move closer to
some truth. We have plenty of examples in geology and paleontology where we have
gone astray in the past, and we surely are headed down some wrong paths now. But
eventually we hope that the methods of science will correct that course and
bring us closer to the truth. Eliminating false ideas, whether they be
scientific, pseudoscientific, or just the claims of your insurance salesman, is
a good thing for people in general, and the tools of science provide a powerful
way to do that.
If we live in a materialistic, real world, then the methods of science are a far
better way to understand it than the dogma of "socialists and libertarians,
Catholics and Klansmen, saints and libertines". Science eschews dogma. That
is a fundamental difference, and one that people in general should know. The
methods of science provide a reasonable way to live, even for creationists, who,
like everyone else, already practice science in one degree or another.
The last sentence of my paragraph reads: "Cooperation and collaboration
with these media [TV, radio, newspapers, etc.] seems to me the only way to
accomplish the kind of educated society required by our science- and
technology-dominated lives."
That is the whole point.
Lipps, Jere H.
1996. The Decline of
Reason. Paleontological Society Papers 2: 3-10
1998. The Media, Trash Science,
and Paleontology. Palaeontologia Electronica.
1999. Beyond Reason: Science and the Mass Media, p. 71-90, In J. W. Schopf
(Ed.). Evolution! Facts and Fallacies. Academic Press.
4 April 1999
I think that creation "science" should be taught in schools. Yes, I do but not as an equal contender against evolution but as a platform upon which teachers can launch their discussions of evolution.
In physics class (I'm only 17) I still learn about Aristotlelianism but not as though it were fact (of course). Understanding the way things aren't is imperative to understanding the way things are!
Early this year I was involved in my first debate against a creationist. I learned to understand the general ideas about creation science. At that time my knowledge of evolution was limited, I knew what I did from my own knowledge of dinosaur research and from having read a great book called The Beak of the Finch (Jonathan Weiner). I understood micro- and macro-evolution in their basic concepts.
When encountered with creationist arguments and supplied by my own determination I was quite capable at understanding WHY his attacks were empty.
What this did was cause me to probe deeper into the concept of evolution by means of natural selection. I cannot begin to describe to you how much more I understand evolution from the inside out and with my limited education. I learned so much that I re-examined the school's biology curriculum (the course I had taken last year) and noticed how pitifully weak the unit on evolution was. I asked the teacher how much time he actually was going to spend on it (1 or maybe 2 weeks!). I took the opportunity to do a guest lecture for one day (I was able to teach the teacher).
If evolution were compared to the "stock" creationist arguments in a biology class ( which I did not do). and then the students were asked to deconstruct the creationist attack on the basis of what they knew I think that they would benefit from the same learning experience that I had.
I'd really like to know what anyone else thinks, and If I'm not clear about anything in my explanation I'd be glad to elaborate!
Martin Brazeau
Grade 11, Philemon Wright High School Hull, Quebec
CANADA
3 March 1999
Wonderful to be introduced to your Palaeontologica Electronica. I got onto it from a news article published by our Australian Broadcasting Commission Web Page. I shall be regularly accessing your site.
Being retired, I have not had any problems with the creationists for a while. Sorry to hear that they are still a major problem. I would recommend two books to you that really helped with my discussions with these people.
These books have a wonderful "double whammy" effect when read sequentially. First the Geology and then then Rescuing the Bible. Yesssss! You really can use a scientific method on observations made from the Bible. Maybe you cannot test all your predictions, but you can generate some very interesting ideas.
Malcolm Oliver
Brush Grove, New South Wales, Australia