January 2001 Edition
LETTERS
APS News Readers Respond to "Creationism Versus Physical Science"
Copyright2000 Paul Dlugokencky (aDailyCartoon.com) for APS News (first
printed - November 2000 issue)
I couldn't agree more with Stephen G. Brush's article "Creationism Versus
Physical Science" (APS News, November 2000). As Brush points out,
creationism affects not only biology but all the sciences. In fact, the
infamous Kansas State Board of Education decision strips from that state's
education standards not only all mention of biological evolution but also
all mention of the big bang, radioactive dating, continental drift, and the
age of Earth. The best response is education: teachers should include this
issue in every introductory science course. Based on 30 years' experience in
doing just that, I would like to recommend several pertinent topics for
physics teachers.
First and foremost, teach critical thinking, including the fallacies of
pseudoscience. As an irrational belief that is made to look scientific but
that is not supported by scientific methods, "creation science" is a perfect
example of pseudoscience. Second, teach radioactive dating as an application
of nuclear physics, and present the main geological ages along with
supporting radioactive and non-radioactive evidence. Third, discuss the
creationists' anti-evolution argument based on the second law of
thermodynamics, and the scientific reply (see Brush's article). Fourth,
present big bang cosmology and the supporting evidence: the expanding
universe, the three-degree background radiation, "ripples" in the background
radiation, and quantitative agreement between big-bang isotope-formation
predictions and observed isotope ratios in our galaxy's oldest stars. Fifth,
discuss the search for and possibility of extraterrestrial life, including
the hypothesis of the chemical origin of life on Earth and supporting
experimental evidence. Always stress the theme of "how do we know," i.e.
present lots of evidence.
I include these topics in my liberal-arts college physics course for
non-scientists and can testify that, while many students disagree with some
specific conclusions, nearly all students find these topics instructive,
interesting, and even fascinating.
Art Hobson
Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Arkansas
******
Recently, I have found this conflict very difficult to understand. Physical
Science and Creationists (indeed, religious persons of virtually every
creed) agree: The Universe had a beginning. You would think that this
fundamental agreement would be infinitely more significant than the
relatively minor detail of just how long ago that was. It would appear,
however, that Creationists are not really "Fundamentalists", as they style
themselves, but rather, "Literalists", which makes all the difference.
Another example: Brush reports, "If you teach children they are descended
from animals, the reasoning goes, they will assume they can behave like
animals." But as he correctly points out earlier, this is the fallacy of
assuming entropy increase only. What, one may ask, would the reasoning be if
you teach the children that they are "ascended" from animals?
T. Goldman
Los Alamos, New Mexico
******
In his helpful discussion, Stephen G. Brush mentions the guilt by
association between evolution and secular humanism introduced by
televangelists. The televangelists I have viewed are merely objecting to the
claim that evolution is an unsupervised, impersonal process (1996 Statement
on Teaching Evolution of the National Association of Biology Teachers). Such
a claim is a logical fallacy identified by Aristotle (350 BC). For, on the
basis of evidence from the material world, evolutionists are claiming that
there is no personal supervisor of evolution outside the material world. It
is as though Hamlet claimed that there was no Shakespeare because he could
not find Shakespeare within the confines of the play.
Finally however, in 1997, 138 years after Darwin's Origin of Species, the
NABT deleted the two words: unsupervised and impersonal from their
definition of evolution. This removal of the challenge to the supernatural
should remove much of the opposition to evolution by thoughtful people.
John A. McIntyre
Texas A&M University
******
The notion of a Creator who brought space time and all into being is central
to the book of Genesis and no scholarly exegesis can expunge that from it.
Those who believe in a Creator are not all "Young Earth Creationists" as
Stephen Brush implies and attacks.
Darwin meant by evolution the process whereby life arose from non-living
matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. This is a form
of scientific materialism that Freeman Dyson decries in "Science and
Religion Can Work Together." (APS News, November 2000.) Richard Dawkins,
famed author of "The Blind Watchmaker," has said that Darwin made it
possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."
Scientists and teachers ought to make it clear, as Brush indicates, that
evolution and cosmology are working assumptions, not established facts.
Unlike physics, evolution and cosmology are sciences in the sense of
forensic science. The evidence for evolutionary transition of humans from
apelike ancestors is not abundant enough to conclude, beyond a reasonable
doubt, that it has occurred. That is why the overwhelming majority of
Americans still believe in a Creator.
The foundation of modern science was laid down by devout Christians
(Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck, etc.) who studied nature to know
more about its Creator. It was the extension of the evolutionary ideas of
Darwin to an atheistic world view that accentuated the false antagonism
between science and religion. Such mixing of science, philosophy, and
theology must be openly discussed. What people object to is the teaching of
an atheistic world view in the guise of science. Students of faith ought not
to come out of biology classes with the notion that there is no God.
Otherwise, theology and not merely biology is being taught in such classes.
Clearly everything evolves. However, it is not self-evident to me that the
fundamental question of origins is a truly scientific question. If not, then
the answer must be sought in the very same places where we seek answers to
questions regarding meaning, values, and purpose. One must never forget that
an explanation of the totality of the human experience may lie outside the
realm of science.
The honest pursuit of an answer to the question of origins may lead
ultimately to an Intelligent Designer. Max Planck, Nobel laureate and father
of quantum physics, said: "God is at the beginning of every religion and at
the end of the natural sciences." Let us not forget that our nation is
founded on the creed that our freedom and unalienable rights are endowed by
our Creator.
Moorad Alexanian
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
******
Stephen G. Brush's essay makes some good points about creationism.
Unfortunately, he repeats some untrue statements about secular humanism that
have been promoted by televangelists. Secular humanism is a philosophy that
originated in the Enlightenment. It is based on the idea that a good, moral
life can be led without the belief in a deity. The humanistic approach is
that human affairs in the natural world are more important than concerns
about the supernatural or an afterlife. For example, the US Constitution is
a famous secular humanist document, in which the government is founded on
the practical concerns and needs of citizens, rather than requiring a
religious justification. Humanists base their morality on reason and
compassion in a way that is consistent with scientific evidence about the
world and human nature. Although there are not a large number of people who
call themselves secular humanists, there are a growing number of local
organizations led by the Council for Secular Humanism in Amherst, NY,
publisher of Free Inquiry magazine.
William Creasy
Abingdon, Maryland
******
I am delighted that Professor Brush has added his name to the regrettably
small cohort of physicists who take seriously the threat of creationist
teaching in American public schools. As physicists, we must always bear in
mind that no matter how specialized our own interests may be, science is a
seamless whole. This is especially true from the point of view of teaching
scientific methodology, a vital area which students too often fail to grasp.
If, for example, biological evolution is "only a theory," why, then, perhaps
quantum mechanics is "only a theory" as well. I urge physicists to take heed
of what goes on in their local schools. Those who wish to look into the
specifics of what goes on in their home states may refer to my recent study,
Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution In The States, The Thomas B.
Fordham Foundation, Washington, D.C., September 2000. Single free copies may
be obtained by calling 1-888-823-7474; the report is also posted on-line at
http://www.edexcellence.net.
Lawrence S. Lerner
California State University, Long Beach
******
I'm always amazed at the extremes to which Creationists will go in harming
science education. Yet, in so doing, I believe, they also hurt themselves if
their goal is to get closer to God. As an Orthodox Jew and a physicist, let
me give another perspective. One of the most famous Jewish sages and
legalists, Moses Maimonides (12th century C.E. author of Guide to the
Perplexed) explained that one very important way to get close to God is to
learn and understand His creation. This means studying and uncovering the
mysteries of the physical universe using the tools of science. The models
scientists create in cosmology or biology may indeed be working hypotheses
subject to modification as new observations are made, as Brush pointed out.
But they none-the-less seek the truth and are generated using the very tools
given by God to man- his mind and senses.
I'm also amazed at how limited the Creationist view of even the Bible can
be. They take a simplistic English translation of an original Hebrew text
and think they can make conclusions from it. Volumes of Biblical exegesis
have been written trying to understand what the original Hebrew text of
Genesis means at its various levels. The Jewish view has always held that
the world is 5761 years old, as counted from the moment a human soul was
placed in a human body.
The 13th century talmudist, kabbalist, and physician Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman
of Gerona, stated that all matter and energy that composes the universe was
created in the first instant of God's creation. Everything else was formed
from the basic building blocks of material following the initial creation,
and follows a general evolutionary trend from simple and chaotic to complex
and ordered. Furthermore, says R. Nachman, time was created at the initial
instance of creation, and the universe was created starting as a "small,
thin, point". All this came many centuries before any Big Bang theory and
while the rest of Europe thought the world was flat.
More recently, physicist Gerald Schroeder has written two books (Genesis and
the Big Bang, Bantam Books, and The Science of God, Broadway Books)
detailing his thesis that the Biblical version of creation can coexist in
harmony with the modern standard cosmological model without having to resort
to a metaphorical understanding of the first chapter in Genesis. He states
that the first six Genesis days were indeed six twenty-four hour periods of
time, though measured in a different reference frame, one looking forward in
time rather than backward as we do now. Time, as viewed dynamically from
this reference frame with its extreme gravitational potential dilating time,
behaved very differently from time as measured on earth today. The two
reference frames came into synch on the sixth Genesis day, when the first
soul was placed in a human body. I personally would love to see his thesis
written up as a paper for review in the physics community. Such a paper
might help me evaluate his thesis better as well as appreciate and
understand the meaning of this other preferred reference frame.
Larry Bigio
University Heights, Ohio
Paean to Religion Ill-Placed
In the November 2000 APS News, Freeman Dyson asserts that science and
religion are both trying to figure out why we are here. But the whys of
religion and science differ. Science asks why in exploring and understanding
the physical universe, while the why of religion (discounting the
creationists) concerns purpose and interposes an undefinable god. Moreover,
what does Dyson mean by religion? It seems to me to be what the Priests say,
a domain of shifting meanings, sometimes interpreting of the mysteries of
(man's place in) the world, other times trying to establish codes of human
conduct. It is all about indefinable, vague, and shifting notions of god.
Religion and science do not in fact address the same reality.
Furthermore, what is this infallible scientific dogma that Dyson uses as a
straw man? In trying to demonstrate that neither party, scientific or
religious, holds The Whole Truth, he trivializes the problems of the
conflict of rationality and God. Dyson seems to resent the fact that
scientific materialists scorn God, i.e., are insensitive to the religious
and religion, and hence to morality. But why equate religious beliefs to
morality? Moreover, it seems unfair to equate the influence of scientific
materialists and religious creationists. For one thing, their numbers are
vastly different, even if the media exaggerates their importance. Church and
state problems are not exaggerated; school prayer and support of religious
instruction are issues that challenge us everywhere.
Finally, Dyson praises the social importance of churches and temples in
Princeton in creating a cohesive and healthy community. The other side of
the coin can be found in Israel, Afghanistan, Turkey, and in religious
conflict throughout history. It is highly questionable whether religion is
the essential mortar in building a diverse, tolerant, and cohesive
community.
I can't object to Dyson's desire to warn us of the possible consequences of
unbridled technology upon life, and that scientists ought to consider moral
issues of life and humanity. But his paean to religion as the home of a
beneficent morality and sensitive humanity is ill placed.
Morton K. Brussel
Urbana, Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- Copyright 2001, The American Physical Society. The APS encourages the redistribution of the materials included in this newsletter provided that attribution to the source is noted and the materials are not truncated or changed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 24 2000 - 13:44:17 EST