Friday 12 September 2008

Creationism In Schools?

Creationism is scientism.

Scientism is the belief that the only objectively true knowledge is that derived from the application of the natural-scientific method. It is ruinous of science, since that method can only function on certain presuppositions which it cannot prove, but rather must (and, historically, happily did) accept on higher authority.

Creationism is a form of scientism, which has accepted the scientistic argument and then applied it to Genesis. Creationists may seem to be the polar opposites of Stephen Hawking, Peter Atkins and Richard Dawkins. But, in fact, they are all of a piece.

I would not teach the works of Dawkins - wholly incompetent in the field that he has long chosen to colonise - in schools. Nor would I teach creationism. For exactly the same reasons in both cases.

That is one of the many reasons why I am not, and have never been, New Labour. New Labour was and is happy to teach Dawkinsian scientism to its own children and creationist scientism to other people's, at public expense all round. I am not happy with the teaching of either of them to anybody.

Nor am I happy with the assumption that teenagers are so thick that they can be fobbed off with "the fossil record": of course, the fact that two species inhabited the same place at different times and resembled each other does not prove anything at all, still less that the later one was descended from the earlier one. With teaching like that, it is no wonder that, once you take out the Don't Knows and adjust accordingly, the creationist proportion of the British population is comparable to the creationist proportion of the American population, and growing.

There is really only one thing about evolution that truly interests the popular mind. That is the common ancestor of Man and the great apes. No such ancestor has ever been found, and children should be taught that fact, for fact it is. And as long as fact it remains, it further remains perfectly legitimate to believe that, whatever might have gone on or be going on among plants and animals, the first man was created directly from inanimate matter, and the first woman from out of the first man, exactly as the Bible teaches.

Why not? If that was what happened, then science, which is purely descriptive, would just have to deal with it. And it has produced no reason whatever to disbelieve it; no other species from which we are demonstrably descended.

Likewise, since the emergence of the first living cell from inanimate matter remains wholly incapable of repetition, then there is no scientific reason whatever not to believe that that, too, was a direct act of creation. Who can show that this is scientifically impossible? Who can say what really happened instead?

Of course, whether or not God exists at all is not a scientific question.

23 comments:

  1. Is this really your field?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is it yours?

    If so, then perhaps you can tell me:

    1. How you can know, purely from science, the falsehood (which science must presuppose) of eternalism (the belief that the universe has always existed), animism (that the universe is an animal, a living and organic being), pantheism (that the universe is in itself the ultimate reality, the first cause, God), astrology (that all earthly phenomena are caused, or at least influenced, by the pantheistic movements of the stars) and cyclicism (that every event repeats exactly after a sufficiently long time the precise length of which varies according to culture, and has already so repeated itself, ad infinitum), all of which are held universally apart from the Judaeo-Christian revelation?

    2. Why science never started anywhere except Mediaeval Europe, and ultimately didn't last in the Islamic world? (I know this one, but would be very interested to see if you did.)

    3. Exactly what is proved by the fact that two species inhabited the same area at different times and resembled each other, which is exactly the "proof" of evolution taught in schools?

    4. Why are there are so many creationists in Britain, and why their number is growing, when most people attend secular state secondary schools, and most of the rest attend either Anglican or Catholic secondary schools?

    5. From which species Man and the great apes are both demonstrably descended?

    and

    6. How the first living cell emerged from inanimate matter?

    Just for a start, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If children were taught that fact that no such common ancestor has ever been found, then there would be far fewer creationists in Britain, the USA or anywhere else.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Quite so.

    People are revolted at the thought of being of one blood with animals, which entitles the rich and mighty to treat people as animals, or the sentimental (also often rich and mighty) to treat animals as people.

    But no such common ancestor has ever been identified. For all that the science can show, human beings might be the products of a special creation, "in the image and likeness of God".

    There is no scientific evidence to the contrary, since, as I said, whether or not God exists in the first place is a philosophical, not a scientific, question.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Could the biology teacher then say "So, you can be a perfectly good scientist and believe that the first human beings were specially created, outside evolution"?

    ReplyDelete
  6. How the first living cell emerged from inanimate matter?

    1. Simple organic compounds formed by atmospheric gases.
    2. Formation of nucleoproteins.
    3. Primitive biochemical pathways, ie. hypercycles.
    4. More complex hypercycles, ie, cellular hypercycles, eventually enclosed in a primitive cell made of lipids.
    5. Producing progenote, the first self-replicating metabolizing cell, possibly made if RNA and proteins, with DNA arriving later.

    You've answered the anon question at 17.58 with embarrassing clarity.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Would have to, in fact.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yes, can't see how (s)he could get out of simply saying that.

    In other words, of keeping adolescents away from creationism, the way into which is "evolution says that we are descended from monkeys". Even phrased more subtly and accurately, it does not in fact say any such thing.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "1. Simple organic compounds formed by atmospheric gases.
    2. Formation of nucleoproteins.
    3. Primitive biochemical pathways, ie. hypercycles.
    4. More complex hypercycles, ie, cellular hypercycles, eventually enclosed in a primitive cell made of lipids.
    5. Producing progenote, the first self-replicating metabolizing cell, possibly made if RNA and proteins, with DNA arriving later."

    How do you know? It can't be repeated. Why can't it be repeated?

    This is just a list of "so long as it wasn't something else", and I think we all know what, and Who, that something else is. But what if it was that something else? Or, indeed, any other something else?

    And what about my other five questions?

    ReplyDelete
  10. If Adam's parents were animals, would have been entitled in principle to kill and eat them?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can't be repeated? Your knowledge of science is a joke. Try googling Miller-Urey, 1953. Never heard of it, have you, poor dear?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just as well that they weren't, then, isn't it? He never had any, and nobody can prove scientifically that he must have done. (There must, of course, have been an Adam, a first man.)

    On the first cell point, not only can it not be repeated in a lab or wherever, but it never repeats itself spontaneously, either. Why not?

    And everything listed before is in fact creation from inanimate matter, exactly as I said from the start, now that I think about it. The point is that it has only ever happened once, and apparently only ever can happen once.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "the common ancestor of Man and the great apes. No such ancestor has ever been found"

    If we are an ofshoot of chimpazees then the most recent common ancestor of Man & chimpanzee would be the chimpanzee. The "missing link" is not a common ancestor he is somebody who is our ancestor & a descendent of the chimps. My understanding is that we have found many of them fromm the Neanderthals backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "And everything listed before is in fact creation from inanimate matter, exactly as I said from the start, now that I think about it."

    So carbon is living, is it? Good grief.... Your knowledge of science wouldn't fit on the back of a postage stamp. No wonder you're running scared and refusing to post comments that expose your ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Miller-Urey did not create a living cell from inanimate matter! Where are its descendants? Come on!

    Clearly, it is not my knowledge that is a joke.

    It's no wonder that there are creationists, it really isn't.

    Now, what about my other five questions? Go on, give us all a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "So carbon is living, is it?"

    No, it is inanimate. Can you speak English? (This is a recurring problem with my critics on many subjects, I find. Bloody Lenin High Schools for the rich and thick.)

    You detailed, in list form, a process whereby the first cell might have been created from inanimate matter. Well, it might very well have been so created, just as you described. The point is that it was so created at all. From inanimate matter. Such as carbon. Can you speak English?

    If so (or even if not), then you might attempt to answer my other five questions.

    Neil, we and the great apes are supposed to be descended from a common ancestor. "Supposed" is the word. Even Darwin admitted that he couldn't prove it.

    No one else has ever proved it, either. And the teaching of this unproven supposition as fact is the recruitment sergeant for creationism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. So first you wonder about the miracle of how carbon can be created from inanimnate matter -- and it turns out carbon is inanimate. I have to run but I'll enjoy torturing you some more later.

    ReplyDelete
  18. David,

    ALL of science is unproven supposition. The scientific method (as I understand it) is to suggest a hypothesis and then test its predictive power by experiment. Newton's law of gravitation is the usual example. It works in most circumstances to a high degree of precision (enough to engineer the Apollo missions) but Einstein gravity is more accurate. You can never prove a theory is general, only prove that it ISN'T valid in certain regimes. So, if we can't prove any of it, does this mean we shouldn't teach *any* science?

    And, incidentally, could you furnish us with your definition of "life" -- a cell seems a little advanced to me, I'd be happy with a nucleic acid.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David, it's not going to get you out of the hole to claim that your critics are thick. It's obvious this isn't your subject and just insulting people doesn't get you anywhere. There are completely coherent naturalistic explanations for the origin of life that break no known natural laws and you should be familiar with these if you're going to post frankly ignorant stuff like this. I'll give you one example, the Cairns-Smith hypothesis.

    This points to crystals as the original replicator and catalyzing agent. They are structurally very simple. They grow and reproduce (perhaps you grew them yourself as a childhood experiment) because of completely mechanical forces. They carry information which can be modified. They can incorporate impurities while they grow. These alter the crystal's structure and can be inherited when the original crystal breaks (in other words the information can be modified). Crystals have a minimum capacity for catalyzing chemical reactions.

    All of these are facts of chemistry and they lead to primitive organisms. If those organisms then incorporated short polypeptides in the primeval soup this wound increase the crystals catalysis. Catalysis then allows a gradual increase in the importance of proteins and then of nucleic acids, so they completely supplant the crystals and become living organisms.

    This is one completely feasible way of how life began. You don't seem to know anything about bio-chemistry and I'll assume you have no response except insults, if you even publish this comment at all.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "This points to crystals as the original replicator and catalyzing", &c.

    Yes, but that, if anything, positively supports my point: this is the inanimate matter out of which, for all anyone can tell, the first living cell was created directly. If life emerged spontanousely, then how come it doesn't keep doing so?

    "ALL of science is unproven supposition"

    Yes, so why not tell people that? Specifically, why not tell them that no common ancestor of Man and any other species has ever been identified? There would then be prcatically no creationists, since it is to this, morally ruinous as it is, that people object.

    Anonymous, no, I am enjoying the fact that you cannot read English. Are you deliberately acting out the stereotype of an unlettered scientist, or are you actually like that?

    Meanwhile, to full posts - how science started, why it never quite took off in the Islamic world, and your real motivations...

    ReplyDelete
  21. David It may be the case that Darwin thought there would be a common ancestor but he was working from 19thC information. DNA research suggests that modern Man split from chimpanzees 2.7 million years ago
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Citation&list_uids=3934395#
    As the article points out this produces some problems with what were previously assumed to be our descendents but this is how science advances. If God were to be allowing all other creatures to evolve & then creating humans by what we must call miraculous means I can think of no reason why he should wish to create us not only visually similar to apes but almost blood brothers to chimps on the DNA level.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Until they produce the common ancestor, then the point stands.

    "If God were to be allowing all other creatures to evolve & then creating humans by what we must call miraculous means I can think of no reason why he should wish to create us not only visually similar to apes but almost blood brothers to chimps on the DNA level."

    I can think of no reason why He wouldn't. Indeed, I can think of no reason why God would or wouldn't do all sorts of things, because I'm not God.

    ReplyDelete