A recent email exchange with a creationist brought up this sentiment again:
He has to believe in evolution because that is the career he chose. He sucked up what they told him.
This creationist tactic is disingenuous. They are taught that the reason scientists accept evolution, is because they would not otherwise get a job, and thereby find an excuse to distrust the opinion of any expert or professional in the field. Yikes.
Why is this so effective? Because it is true… albeit with a nasty spin. In order to get a job as a scientist, you need to accept the scientific method. The scientific method leads to the acceptance of evolution. Thus, indirectly, you do have to accept evolution to get a job as a scientist. Rejecting evolution requires either rejecting the evidence, or rejecting the scientific method.
I suppose if you’re in a field of science where you can remain wilfully ignorant of the evidence, you can get by while ignoring evolution. Maybe that explains why some students refuse to study the section of the work devoted to the “E” word, too “satanic” to even say the word… They choose ignorance, maybe suspecting that the evidence will be too convincing to ignore. Rather refuse knowledge of the evidence than having to find another excuse, like rejecting the scientific method.
Did he “suck up what they told him”? Sure, yes, he did, because it was backed by evidence and peer reviewed studies in reputable journals. That’s the reason he “sucks it up”. Evolution had as hard a time as any paradigm shift in science, when it was first introduced, and it was only eventually accepted due to the body evidence piling on, and being much more accurate than any other alternative theory.
Now we can turn the tables on the creationists: creationists also suck up what they’re told. I suggest it is not because of a body of evidence, because no creationist has presented evidence for creationism or provided an alternative scientific theory that stands up to scrutiny yet. That’s why they go for attacks like this disingenuous one. They have to believe in creationism because that is the interpretation of the Bible they choose, a literal one.
For creationists, I would suggest one of the following two courses of action:
- accept and admit that you are rejecting the scientific method in favour of a literal interpretation of a Judeo-Christian version of the ancient Sumerian creation myths (using the academic definition of myth: I’m not implying they are true or false — in fact, I believe they do contain profound truths despite being non-factual), or
- find yourself a church where the preacher/pastor has a degree in theology from a reputable seminary, and is able to recognise the human imprint and prophetic imagination in the book of Genesis. Among Stellenbosch churches, that includes Stellenbosch Gemeente and the Moederkerk. In authors, that includes CS Lewis, though I could recommend going with contemporary authors like Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, or Ron Martoia.
The unfortunate thing is that that short list likely ended up on a number of “authors and churches to avoid” lists, which can contribute to the impression that creationists and Shofarians are “anti-intellectual”.
Other alternatives include staying at Shofar while realising the leadership is incorrect about Genesis and evolution, or else choosing to remain ignorant on science. I just wish people choosing the last option could realise that they are choosing ignorance.
UPDATE: Sorry, “choosing to remain ignorant” is somewhat loaded. Rather, “choosing to get on with your life, not paying any more attention to the creationism/evolution thingy, and just leaving it with oh, I don’t know.” It is not possible for everyone to know everything, and knowledge of science is not necessary for everyone. Just please leave it at “I don’t know” then, and stop spreading disinformation. Thanks!
·
6 responses so far ↓
1 Marthelize // May 15, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Very nicely done and very well put.
And of all the thoughts bumbling around in my slightly over-crowded mind right now, the one i immediately want to let out is that your comment on “choosing to remain ignorant” is NOT in fact all that loaded. I understand that you are not at all out to offend anyone, just as I understant how some people could find that comment offensive or condescending.
But the truth is if anyone, be they hard-core creationists or average (non-scientist) church-goers, chooses to simply choose to ignore science, then by definition they are choosing to be ignorant. (Definition of ignorant being “The condition of being uneducated, unaware of uninformed).
Now hear this: I am not expecting anyone who has an opinion on creationism or evolution to be scientists of the highest calibre. But out of respect for scientists and science (which allows us to blog here, get a flu shot, warm our leftover pizza in the microwave and fly from continent to continent etc etc) at least get your facts straight, if it’s the facts you’re going to attack.
And if it’s the scientist you’re going to attack… well then you’ve missed the point completely.
2 Marthelize // May 15, 2008 at 3:24 pm
*understand.
Geez my spelling has become decrepit…
3 Kenneth Oberlander // May 16, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Basically, to second what Marthelize said.
Hugo. Excellent post.
You’re setting yourself up for a truly marvellous quotemine there…hehehe.
I agree with Marthelize. Ignorant as an accurate description of someone can be completely objectively applied. Meaning only lack of knowledge in a field. Of course, there is the figurative, pejorative sense of the word as well, which is why you are being so careful. In cases like this, I have gotten around the inferred insult by actually including the definition of the word ignorant in the conversation. It helps to keep down the swear words…;-)
To me, both options reduce down to rejecting the evidence, because the use of the scientific method is experimentally supported as the best way to go about explaining the universe.
4 Hugo // May 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm
To be quote-mined, is to know you have “arrived”.
If that does happen (I doubt it, I’m sure I’ll never be a famous scientist): I’m actually thinking of starting a “quote mine project” (inspired by the Talk.Origins project), where all kinds of mining is encouraged. Including mining creationists, The Bible, etc, but also explaining the context of the quote mine, and why it is misleading. I wonder if it could be a useful resource, allowing demonstration of the evils of quote mining by using it against creationists?
Okay… however, based on what do you measure “good/better/best”? By the results/achievements of the process, I guess? (I.e. technology et al.) I’m not so sure about that claim: some would claim “going to heaven is better than having a good life in this life”, and would therefore consider technological advancement at the cost of loss-of-religious-faith a clearly detrimental influence.
So reducing the two options to only one (evidence) is dependent upon your world-view.
But yes, I have faith in the scientific method, and in evidence. And I measure things by the fruit they bear. (Quoting Jesus here… but again, the subjectivity of “good fruit” and “bad fruit” is where the problem may lie.)
5 Kenneth Oberlander // May 16, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Yes, sorry, I explained this poorly. Your measure success by the results. In other words, if you have several alternatives to explaining the universe, such as myth, scripture, revelation etc. etc., the scientific method is obviously superior because it gives results. To give a specific example, it is obvious that the Norse myth of Thor and his hammer is less predictive and powerful a theory of lightning than our current meteorological models. The Bible’s description of the the Tower of Babel as the source of language diversity is clearly inferior to our current scientifically derived understanding. And the constant predictions of Doomsday and Armageddon put forth by various loony cults are also refuted by science, not to mention reality. So our most successful way of looking at reality objectively, and of predicting the behaviour of reality in the future, is the scientific method. This is not to imply it is perfect, of course. It is merely the best we’ve got. It’s still pretty damn good, if you ask me
Heh, yes. As I mentioned…;-)
6 The First TTM Gathering: Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, Episodes 1 to 3 // May 17, 2008 at 3:18 pm
[...] Blog | Comments ← Scientists Have To Believe In Evolution… [...]
Leave a Comment