Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 16:43:38 -0500
From: Peter Folger 
To: Dr. Robert Sheldon 
Subject: Re: AGU session EP41

Dear Rob:

Thank you for your letter.  You'll forgive me if I respectfully disagree with
nearly everything you say.  Allow me to elaborate.

I will agree that scientists cannot and should not operate in a vacuum
blissfully ignorant of the larger socio-political context.  I think a few
speakers explained the context quite nicely: Lee Allison for the on-the-ground
analysis of what transpired in Kansas and Eugenie Scott for a broader
historical and national perspective.  Admittedly, this is tough to do in 20
minutes to an audience of Earth and space scientists, but I think both
speakers succeeded admirably.  But where I think your analysis of the session
goes seriously awry is what I interpret to be your force-fitting of what I
considered to be a fairly straightforward and non-pejorative expose of
young-Earth creationist claims, namely their unscientific interpretation of
Earth and space science, into a purely political context.  To me, and to most
of the people in the audience I'll wager, the speakers made the connection
between what the young-Earth creationists say about the Earth and what the
large geophysical community thinks, and there is a striking contrast.  In
fact, the creationist near the front of the room, John Baumgardner, who asked
"questions" of nearly every speaker, couldn't have done a more beautiful job
of representing how creationists engage the "debate" than if I'd asked him to
be present.  His exchange with the first speaker, Brent Dalrymple, was telling
in that regard.  Brent carefully distinguished between the young-Earth
creationist claims and other flavors of creationism, and then pointed out in
no uncertain terms why the young-Earth creationists are saying things that are
squarely in the scientific disciplines of many AGU members.  Mr. Baumgardner
tried to muddle the issue into one of religion vs. evolution, or all
Christians vs. evolution, but Brent would have none of it.  I believe that
exchange was instructive for most scientists unfamiliar with young-Earth
creationist tactics.

I believe your analogy of an AGU position statement regarding creationism and
the Catholic Church condemning Galileo is remarkably naive and off the mark.
Again, the reality in my view is much simpler than the post-modernist,
revisionist atmosphere that seems to be responsible for this all-out siege
against science that infuses your commentary.  The AGU position statement says
essentially two things: 1) creationism is not science, and 2) evolution is a
scientific theory in the same way that plate tectonics and relativity are
scientific theories.  In the latter, the theories are subject to change in
light of new evidence.  Scientific evidence is not required for creationism,
and therefore it falls outside of science.  You seem to miss the point of the
statement and why AGU adopted its first version nearly 20 years ago, namely
that powerful forces are claiming that creationism is science and should be
taught as an equivalent theory to relativity, plate tectonics, and I would
suggest as well the heliocentric theory of the solar system and gravitational
theory.  One of the thrusts of session EP-41A was to show that the young-Earth
creationists are devoting significant time and effort to assembling "evidence"
for the young Earth, e.g. the Grand Canyon example discussed by Wilf Elders
and radiometric age-dating discussed by Brent Dalrymple.  If the Earth and
space science community isn't willing to comment on the relative scientific
merits of the creationist claims about geology and geologic time, then who is?

AGU is certainly not a participant in "the wars on religion" and makes no
value judgement whatsoever in its position statement.  Moreover, I can't
believe you are serious by making the analogy between plate tectonics and
creationism.  Plate tectonics certainly was a radical departure for many
geologists, but did it invoke the supernatural?  Did it depend on the
inerrancy of scripture or any other religious text?  I suggest you read
through the Institute for Creation Research website and its tenets and
principles and rethink your analogy.

Is the superconducting supercollider failure really a good analogy?  I suggest
a better one, with the opposite result, is the continued funding of the
International Space Station.  The former failed as you point out in good
measure for political reasons, the latter is staying afloat for many of the
same reasons.  Like it or not, those who do their science with public funds
are always going to be subject to political forces, and the more scientists
who realize that the better.  Both those projects fall under a simpler
calculus of jobs, congressional jurisdiction, funding, and public support.
Young-Earth creationism is another matter entirely, in my view.  It doesn't
matter a whit whether a conservative Republican is elected, and I presume you
mean to the Presidency, in the matter of whether young-Earth creationism is
bad science.  AGU adopted its first policy statement opposing the teaching of
creationism and any other religious tenets as science in 1981, in the Reagan
presidency, and re-affirmed it through the Clinton Administration.  And it
doesn't matter, nor should it, who controls the White House and what their
political stripes are.  If Ralph Nader wins the presidency and claims that the
Earth has never experienced a global warming episode before in its long
history then Earth scientists should set his administration straight promptly.

Lastly, and in the interests of brevity (can you tell this is a topic of
interest for me?), I must point out that although I can't speak for other
members of the panel, I am not necessarily hostile towards the conservative
right.  I am a Republican who has worked for a Republican senator and consider
myself on the conservative side of the plate on many if not most issues.  But
I do take offense at attempts to muddle what is clearly an anti-science
fragment of the conservative spectrum embodied in the young-Earth creationists
with other non-scientific aspects of a political movement.  In the words of
Brent Dalrymple at the session, don't tar me with that brush.  From my
perspective, nobody "cajoles" the AGU Council into adopting a statement on
behalf of the members.  The process is necessarily slow and deliberative, and
follows guidelines that keep the statements to what scientists can
legitimately say about an issue.  I would suggest that if and when the radical
feminists, post-modernists, and revisionists assault Earth and space science
in the same way as young-Earth creationists do, our community should step up
and fight for good science in the same way.

Sincerely,

Peter Folger