Dear Peter,
I am responding to the EOS article on the evolution/creationism position
statement. I think AGU is misguided in publishing position statements on
evolution because:
- a) few AGU members read or respond or react to position statements
E.g. this statement is not designed to help members.
- b) non-members who read / respond / react are most probably going to
react negatively
E.g., this statement has significant negative PR impact.
- c) The people who need an AGU statement are likely to use it as
justification for programs / policies which many AGU members may
oppose. E.g., this statement is mostly of political significance.
Therefore, it appears to me, AGU is potentially sacrificing its
"scientific neutrality" for the questionable support of politicians, and
the unquestionable ire of the public. If public education is the purpose
of this statement, I believe AGU is better served with curriculum
activities. If modifying public opinion is the purpose of this statement,
I think it will have the opposite effect. If support of certain political
parties is the purpose of this statement, then it will function admirably.
The Superconducting Super Collider is a burning example of mixing
politics and science. I do not wish this upon anyone, least upon AGU.
But there is a far deeper reason than the pragmatic reasons listed above.
If AGU labels "creationism" as religion, and "evolution" as science, it
has committed the exact same error it accuses of its enemies. The recent
debate followed in the letter section of Physics Today concerning the
Sokal "hoax", is exactly about this subject. Scientists who naively and
arrogantly define "science" to be the hobby of their club, whereas
"religion" is the hobby of their enemies, are guilty of every approbation
used by post-modern sociologists.
If science is defined by application of the scientific method (which is a
somewhat naive view of reality, but at least has a 200 year if not
Aristotelian heritage), then creationism is also science. It may be bad
science. It may be inconsistent and self-contradictory science, but it is
not a religion. Certainly religious beliefs dictate where the creationist
inserts his "leaps of faith", but the exact same criticism can be applied
to the evolutionist. Darwinism too has its "leaps of faith", as is ably
pointed out by Johnson's book "Darwin on Trial",
or Behe's "Darwin's Black
Box".
Leaps of faith may prove the incompleteness of science, which has
been known at least since the 1930's when Einstein, Podolsky & Rosen
proved it for Quantum Mechanics, and Kurt Goedel proved it for
mathematics, but leaps of faith do not turn science into religion. Indeed,
one might argue, as Stanley Jaki has ("Science and Creation", "God and the
Cosmologists","The Savior of Science"), that leaps of faith prove that
science is dependent upon religion, returning theology to its medieval
throne of "Queen of the Sciences". Since this view of science and religion
has a long and storied past, it seems extremely short-sighted of AGU to
ignore this 1000 years or so of relevant history in formulating its
position statement.
That is, to apply a meta-standard, calling one a religion and the other
a science, is to beg the question concerning the tools used by AGU to
determine "what is science". Frankly, if my experience with scientists
can be generalized, I would imagine that AGU is terribly unprepared
to debate the metaphysics and epistemology of Evolution and Science. I am
apprehensive that the debate will embarass all of us who are both active
members of AGU and orthodox Christians. Not so much that the leadership
disagree with us, we enjoy that sort of dialog, but that the leadership
reveal their naivete and political aspirations in such a disagreably
contentious manner.
Therefore I would urge AGU, both on practical and theoretical grounds, to
refrain from making inflammatory position statements about evolution and
creationism.
Sincerely,
Dr. Robert B. Sheldon
TOP
Comments? E-mail r*bs@rbsp.info
Due to spamming, delete asterisk.