‘Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon.’ Fodor, J. ‘Why Pigs don’t have wings,’ London Review of Books, 18th Oct 2007

Friday, 4 December 2009

Doubting Darwin

Theos have now published their final report on Darwinism in 2009. The report Doubting Darwin - Can be read here. It investigates the thinking of creationists and evolution sceptics in the UK, and is suprisingly balanced in its approach, although a bit dry at times.

There is also an interesting debate here Have we misunderstood Creationism

Paul Bickley writes; "The first myth is that there is such a thing as a movement which we can legitimately call ‘creationism’." Undoubtedly that is correct, although there are as many views amongst those who hold to evolution. Undoubtedly also there is some bitter disputes, but I would suggest mainly at the fringes. Most creationists I know seek dialogue in a respectful manner.

"The second myth is that evolution sceptics are, in the words of Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, “…anti-science…" Again quite right, most creationists are not anti-science, as even Ron Numbers has pointed out.

"The third myth is that the way to take the wind out of creationist sails is fierce rebuttal and public derision in the mode of Richard Dawkins or Harry Kroto. On the contrary, if evolution scepticism could ever be moulded into a movement, it would be due in no small measure to the galvanising effects of Dawkins’ rhetoric:" Again a good point, although the report does note that many creationists feel like a minority under attack.

"Bickley finishes with this useful statement,"If the public debate on faith and evolution is to move beyond its stale polarities, we could do worse than starting with rigorous analyses of the protagonists’ respective positions. The evolution-sceptical community is not really what reputation would make it. Listening carefully – knowing who ‘creationists’ really are and what they really think – is a first step to understanding the roots of their antagonism. In time, this understanding could undergird strategies which improve public engagement with science."


Human Ape said...

most creationists are not anti-science

I can't imagine anyone more anti-science than an evolution-denier. Evolution is a basic scientific fact, as basic as our planet's orbit around the sun. Denying facts that are supported by 150 years of scientific discoveries is extremely anti-science.

The problem with creationists, besides their laziness, brainwashed minds, and their inability to understand even the most simple scientific concepts, is whenever a biologist tries to explain the evidence for evolution, they immediately bury their heads in the sand. They keep denying what is obvious to the world's biologists. Why do they do this? It's the power of faith - the power to make stupid people even more stupid.

Human Ape said...

Nice blog list. Your "Uncommon Descent" should be called "Uncommon Stupidity". I never saw so many uneducated morons in one place.

Anonymous said...

Darwinists believe that those who reject evolution don't understand it well enough. But perhaps it is because some have understood it too well and see it as the same as believing that a stage magician can really pull bunnies out of hats. Isn't that ultimately what Darwinism is about?

John said...

Human Ape,

You've convinced me that evolution is true. I'm now an ex-creationist.

What finally convinced me, you ask?
It was your superb use of the word 'moron' to describe creationists. That was the clincher for me. A great and well-thought out argument, Human Ape. I'll be eternally grateful.