21st Oct 2007
DUP calls for creationism on science syllabus
The DUP MLA, Mervyn Storey, has today called for Intelligent Design (a form of creationism) to be taught in science classes in Northern Ireland. This is likely to start (and pardon the biblical pun) an almighty row which will divide the Assembly, the churches and the people of Northern Ireland. This issue has not come out of the blue, for some four years now a number of DUP politicians have been seeking to have the creationist analysis presented alongside the geological interpretation at the proposed Giant’s Causeway Interpretive Centre. They believe the Causeway was formed some 4,500 years ago as a result of the biblical flood, slightly at odds with the geological explanation for one of the finest examples of basalt columns in the world. Good reason some more cynical observers would suggest why the party seems so keen on having it built by a private concern and potentially beyond Assembly scrutiny.
For those of you who have not been following this debate, Creationists believe the Bible to be more or less literally true and that the universe, earth and life were created by God and were not the product of evolution or can be explained scientifically. This view is most strongly held amongst fundamentalist Protestants. The vast majority of those in other major faiths such as Islam, Catholicism and progressive Protestantism see the biblical explanation as compatible with modern scientific theories: an allegory which helps us understand our origins.
Intelligent Design, which is a very polished argument, is what Mr Storey is advocating for our science syllabus. Dr Iain Stewart, one of the best known earth scientists in these islands was discussing this with me over a pint after the Tellus Conference earlier this week. As an eminent scientist he is not surprisingly in total disagreement with Intelligent Design. Whilst flawed in his mind he is critical of mainstream scientists simply trying to ignore creationists rather than dedicating some time and energy to rebutting their flawed arguments. This will have to change if Mr Storey’s campaign is to be resisted. There is a desperate need for science to tackle those who are trying to turn Intelligent Design into a credible scientific theory. Not unsurprisingly Northern Ireland could end up at the centre of a global debate in the years ahead.
For what it’s worth I think creationism is something to be discussed and considered in a religion class, not a science one.
…he is critical of mainstream scientists simply trying to ignore creationists rather than dedicating some time and energy to rebutting their flawed arguments.
Interesting post Conall, but one problem with this particular sentiment is that the primary substantive claims of the ID lot were refuted by David Hume in the 1750s. And their methodological confusion was highlighted by Karl Popper in the 1960s. When one set of claims is refuted, they come back with the same claims under a new trademark (viz creationism to ID).
I suspect that a lot of scientists don’t engage with the ID faction because they suspect that they are not amenable to the idea that science is rooted in concepts like falsification and, indeed, evidence. In other words, ID people don’t engage with them. So what’s left to say?
On the same issue as Ciarán, I suspect the reason many mainstream scientists don’t engage is because they feel a public debate will grant a level of credibility to what they see as a redundant argument. To paraphrase Dawkins ‘a heated public debate between me and a creationist is going to look much better on their CV than it ever would on mine’
I hear you both and I think intentionally or not you have hit the nail on the head. Most credible scientists do consider themselves above this debate. They see things as science and not as society. Fine if the powers that be support separation of church and state but not so when legislators are divided on the issue as here in NI. This is now a communications issue and a major communications challenge for the scientific community.
I think there are increasing numbers of people who would give some credibility to ID even though they do not interpret the bible literally, or at all. There are probably a surprising number of people out there who are not religious as such, but believe in God, or a god, or in something after death. For people who have such beliefs, it’s not a huge jump to believe that something outside human understanding created the universe purposefully. But isn’t this all based on faith?
Yes, but the weakness with the scientific argument is that for most people it too involves a leap of faith. The decline in the study of science is widely discussed, but even for those with a good grounding in science, like me with an engineering degree, there is no way we can go back to first principles. So when Dawkins or whoever starts by describing a process at the beginning of the universe or the concepts in genetics, he is giving no more than a high level, prose approximation of a deeply involved mathematical model which suggests a big bang or whatever. And since the ordinary man cannot get back to these first principles, he has to believe Dawkins. So we are back to an article of faith.
Having said that, the scientific community attempt to base their theories on rational argument and emprical evidence. On the other hand the creationists seem to pluch from the air. In that sense, no real debate is possible, because the deabte if it is to have a conlcusive victory for science has to go back to first principles which only the experts understand. The theological experts cannot and will not engage and simply end by saying they believe it is so.
I’m not hopeful therefore of a genuine debate nor of a conclusive victory for science. It will be rather worrying though if the ID arguments start to take hold.
We thought you might be interested –
SCIENCE AND SCIENTIST
Inquiring into the Origin of Matter and Life
January-March 2008
Bhaktivedanata Institute’s latest quarterly newsletter
is now available online.
You can download the January-March 2008 issue from:
http://scienceandscientist.org/current.php
______________________________ ______________________________ __
What’s it about?
Modern science has generally been directed toward investigating
the material world, excluding consideration of the conscious
scientist who is essential to the whole process, since, of
course, the very existence of the scientific endeavor itself
depends upon consciousness. Complete scientific knowledge must
consequently include both objective science and subjective
consciousness.
In addition to other programs, Bhaktivedanta Institute’s Science
and Scientist Newsletter is humbly offered to inspire scientists
and scholars to contribute their sincere efforts toward
developing this grand synthesis. The result will be valuable not
only for helping to better understand the “hard” problems of
science such as the nature and origin of life and the cosmos, the
mind-brain connection, artificial intelligence, etc. But the
pressing problems of ethics in science, world peace, and
interfaith dialog will also benefit from a more inclusive
scientific worldview.
In our modern era science and religion are the predominating
influences determining the fate of mankind. Promoting and
developing a culture of harmony between such diverse fields has
the potential to expand our conception of reality and advance
human knowledge in the new millenium, in which it is said the
study of life will be pre-eminent. Let us welcome the dawn of
that new epoch with great hope and determined endeavor.
______________________________ ______________________________ __
Newsletter Homepage: http://www.scienceandscientist.org
Newsletter Subscription:
http://www.scienceandscientist.org/subscribe.html
Please send comments/questions to:
editors@scienceandscientist.org