Todd Wood draws our attention towards an interesting letter that was published in the latest CRSQ. I quote:
A couple issues back, CRSQ published an article by Bill Johnson titled “Biogeography: a creationist perspective,” in which the author failed to cite a number of pertinent creationist writings on biogeography but nevertheless lamented that “creationists have largely remained silent on the issue.” In general, I found the article to be poorly written, overly basic, but especially unhelpful because Johnson seemed to be unaware of what creationists had actually written on biogeography.
In the newest issue a letter from Carl Froede is published writing that many creationists have already elaborated on biogeography and that this article is not new, but overlooked a substantial amount of creationist papers about this subject.
My opinion is not really relevant, because I never published anything, but I have seen more articles that just did not investigate already published work.
It’s scientific misconduct and should not be done.
This is something that creationists should always remember!
A while ago I read an dutch article that was emphasizing that the evolution-creation debate should focus on the broad lines that focus on the whole body of the evolution theory.
As example is the pepper moth taken, which was for a long time a favorite example of creationists to demonstrate that they have the truth on their side.
The article said that the debate should be centered around the broad issues. I think the broad lines are more or less, the philosophical basis of the evolution theory in relation to creationism. Second, also the foundations of the evolution theory like common descent, evolution from microbe to humans, and more.
Creationist call the peppered moth evidence for the non-existence of evolution, and evolutionist demonstrate that because of the peppered moth evolution is true. Much is written about it, and time and time again this does not result into any progress in the debate.
More or less the evolution-creation debate is trench warfare in which one side shoots, and the other side ducks. Then the opposing side shoots and the other sides ducks again. Really, there is most of the time no confrontation. Even this was illustrated in the discussion that was below the article in dutch. People from both sides shoot one liners at each other.
I have to admit that it is difficult to reconcile your differences and to listen to each-other. Some people or scientists do that in a real good way. But as in a proper marriage, differences should sometimes be set aside to get a real conservation going.
The article says that one liners are not useful in the evolution-creation debate. I agree. This shooting and attacking on the person does not show any progress at all. In fact, when people are looking for answers to important issues it is extremely difficult to get them. Between all the noise, no real question can be posed without attack and counterattack. Again, it is a trench warfare.
Another point the article makes is that in the debate people should not focus on the details. The little details are not that important. In one way I agree. People need to distinguish between the broad issues at hand and the details that come with them.
But as I illustrated in my last post, I think that focusing on the details is extremely important. If creationists want to overthrow the paradigma of the evolution theory, they need to break down the cornerstones, the foundation pieces, of the evolution theory. In my opinion that starts with the details. A house is not broken down easy, you start with the roof and go down to the ground.
At the same time, as the article also says, creationists need to think of a proper scientific theory that has the explanatory power of the evolution theory. And that is the real problem. Breaking down is easy, but building up is extremely difficult. You need engineers for that. For building scientific theories you need scientists, and creation scientists are vastly outnumbered.
Building a house goes also brick for brick, so piece by piece. In my previous post I said that creationism in the current state is pseudoscience. A house is not a house without a roof. We need to focus on the details to build a sound scientific creationist theory.
Why another blog about science and religion? For thousands of years people thought about what science was, and still the debate is going strong. Many voices are living in the society, and many different opinions about the relation between religion and science are around.
But no one has given the final answer. A definitive answer has yet to be discovered. At least, if we look at the different opinions that are out there.
I define religion on this blog as Christianity, because I do not want to tell anything about religions like the Islam or Buddhism. I simply do not have the knowledge to say anything useful about that. This blog will therefore primarily be focused on religion in the christian way.
What do I believe? For starters, I believe in a God that created the earth in six (literal) days, and that on the seventh day he laid down and rested from his work. Second, I believe that mankind has fallen in the paradise, and that only little traces of knowledge and goodness are found in humans. Sin has a deterring function in society and in the lives of humans. Third, I belief in a God that has sent his Son to the earth to redeem mankind. I will not go further in detail about my faith, but I think this covers pretty well the basics.
This blog will primarily be written from a christian viewpoint, based on the above criteria. For me the Bible has absolute authority and I believe that it is Gods Word.
Good, enough about my viewpoints on that. What do I want to attribute to the debate about science and religion. First of all is it a search for knowledge and also an application of that knowledge to built a christian view on the relation of science and knowledge.
Second, my interests are within science, and I want to pursue a scientific career. My academic study leads me to uneven paths, in which I do not always want to follow, but where I sometimes have to set aside my own believes for an more ‘scientific’ approach (which by the way, I do not call science, but mainstream does it).
What can be found on this blog? I want to contribute to the fundamental debate about the science and religion debate. I know that this is philosophy, and that I do not know a lot about that, but in my opinion that makes me not less qualified to talk about those subjects. Second, I think that there is a big opportunity to explore a biblical model for science. Why? Because I think that everything is centered around the Word of God, and that means that there has to be answer to those questions.
There is more to say, but I will leave that for later posts.
Thanks for taking time to read this!