Sanity versus "biblical truth"

[matgb]

Quickie, aimed specifically at two people^[1] but of general interest to all who value decent science education, nannyo excellent post about her encounter with the people that run the Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm. I am very scared that that place exisits within the UK. On a similar vein, those that haven't seen it should probably read Scalzi's report of his visit to the Creation Museum. Does anyone have any brain bleach?

Heh: I do like this from the comments at Scalzi's report though:

Galatians 4:24
These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants.

So, um, the bible, if literally true, is literally a metaphor according to St Paul?

ETA: innerbrat has put on her day job hat and got into contact with them, removing the bit that she studies evolutionary morphology from her NHM email sigline. Go Debi!

---

[1] innerbrat and davegodfrey based on their regular postings on such topics.

Comments

[shaysdays.livejournal.com]

he's certainly skeptical of just accepting without question all the evolution stuff we learn in high school.

Is there something wrong with that? I always thought that how scientific progress was made- someone wasn't satisfied with the 'way things are' and looked in new directions.

I don't know why people think 'evolution' as currently presented is the end all and be all of science when it comes to life and how we change over time- there's still a lot of processes we don't totally understand or completely dismiss as 'quack science' that could possibly turn out not to be. I mean, c'mon- people thought Galileo was a total freakazoid at the time, you know?

No, I don't believe in a Creation story (though I do have faith in the divine) or think a public institution should be able to do what this private zoo and museum are doing, but I think that to hold up evolution as some sort of holy grail does both evolutionary theory and scientific inquiry a disservice.

As Darwin himself said:
Nothing before had ever made me thoroughly realise, though I had read various scientific books, that science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or conclusions may be drawn from them.

Yes, according to that I can positively conclude that men are murdering rapist bastards. I read a lot about them that are in the history books so it must be true. /sarcasm

Evolution's a good theory, but ironically if a better one comes along, then it's survival of the fittest, yes?

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

Absoplutely; the whole point about science is that it's NOT set in stone: it's a process of enquiry, whereas fundamentalist religion is a method of quashing processes of enquiry... Which is ironic, because religion used to be (and sometimes still is) the main driving force of research - to find out about all the wonders of God's creation.

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

To give a specific example of the above...the majority of research being done in regard to African languages right now is being funded by Christian groups intent on publishing a Bible in every language spoken on the planet.

Do I think that this is a worthwhile goal? Not particularly.
Do I think that conducting more research about African linguistic traditions is a highly important endeavor? Yes, which is why I'm not going to complain that it's the Crazy Christians paying for it.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

* nodnod *

Absolutely. Research is an end in itself. The problem comes when (like Gallileo) the research provides results that the Christian sponsors don't like...

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

The literal creationist model of life was disposed of by scientists who didn't accept evolution. They looked at geology and saw that it didn't fit the bible. They also recognised that the history of life didn't fit either and proposed "waves of creation" and similar models.

We won't be going back to models based on religion, even if it turns out that pure natural selection isn't the be-all and end all. (Which it isn't there's sexual selection, non-adaptionism, etc.) Creationists don't do any research, so they won't be turning science on its head any time soon.

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

I suppose I could also be skeptical of the cell mitosis process, the legitimacy of ancient civilizations, and the notion that millions of people in the world have HIV, many of them without knowing it.

These things are taught to me in school with about the same amount of proof as evolution as a concept. True, we haven't yet figured out all the links between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons, but that doesn't mean that there isn't truth in evolution. Similarly, we don't know exactly how many people are living with HIV/AIDS, but from the evidence we have and the limited scope of our treatment programs, we can conclusively state that more people have it than we know about.

I'm all about maintaining a healthy skepticism towards unfounded theories. That being said, I think that if you're going to regard evolution as an unfounded theory, you're going to have to add a lot of other things to your list.

[shaysdays.livejournal.com]

I didn't say unfounded, I said it's not the end of the subject- big difference. I've known a couple people who cling to "Survival of the fittest" like a baby lemur, and that's not healthy either. (Excuse me for a moment while I awww over the thought of baby lemurs. Awwwww. Okay, I'm back.)

Mitosis of cells can be proven through observation/deduction, I think, so can the people with AIDS, assuming enough money for a worldwide blood test. Neanderthals and Cro Magnon link theories can't be proven as of yet, since we can't observe them. (Though with DNA and carbon dating we can make really educated guesses.) I think you're confusing "theory" with "hypothesis."

Evolution: Theory (a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained)

AIDS population: Hypothesis. (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation)

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

Well I agree with you that it's not the end of the subject. I just don't agree that there is any substantial evidence for NOT evolution. Obviously there are holes in what we know, most likely attributable to the lack of abundant skeletal evidence. That, however, does not mean that the evidence does not exist. Assuming enough money for a worldwide blood test is similar to assuming enough money to excavate the entirety of Africa. Much as I would love to tear down Addis Ababa in search of bones, it's not going to happen.

Within the field of evolution, I believe that there is room for much debate. The how of evolution is what is most incomplete in our current spectrum of knowledge. Survival of the fittest, sexual selection, natural selection, population and bottleneck effects...all of these are only the beginnings of what we know of selection.

And I'm quite aware of the difference between theory and hypothesis, most notably the concept that theories are based upon tested hypotheses (see the comment by professoryaffle below) - the scientific method.

[raven-oreilly.livejournal.com]

Hey, Phillip Johnson ("father" of the ID movement at the Discovery Institute) is an HIV-Causes-AIDS denier. :D

[susanne-est-moi.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. Well documented fact, doncha know?