February 29, 2008
The Giant Dunce Cap
There are millions of Americans who believe the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old. Why? Because the Bible says so if you take it literally. The fact that the Bible was written by people who didn't have even the most rudimentary understanding of modern science and read by people who were less educated than they seems to escape the gaze of most fundamentalists. If you believe this planet was created around 4,000 B.C., then you have to believe that much of what we know about astronomy, geology, biology, radiology and chemistry is wrong.
I was thinking about this tonight as I listened to last night's "Coast to Coast AM" radio show. George Noory interviewed Walt Brown about his thoughts on creationism versus evolution and Noah's Ark. As I listened to caller after caller praise Brown for his work because creationism is "the only thing that makes sense", I was shocked and, to be blunt, embarrassed. This is who we are?
Then the thought hit me: millions of Americans believe 9/11 was an inside job. The idea that 19 radical Muslim subhumans flew four planes into targets or the ground is somehow too unbelievable. Or is it? If you watch some of the far-out documentaries available on the web concerning 9/11, it becomes obvious that other theories become more attractive if a)you hate the people in power and b) you don't know anything about basic science.
That's what this boils down to, at least on the surface---Americans are idiots when it comes to science, even on the most basic levels. If you don't know anything about metallurgy, then some theory about jet fuel not being able to cause a steel building to collapse makes perfect sense. If you know nothing about wind and water erosion, then it's easy to believe the idea that the Grand Canyon was formed in three weeks.
Learning real, provable science does not mean an automatic loss of faith. Instead, it creates a critical mind that doesn't buy into anything hook, line and sinker, something that many ministers, imams and the like (many of whom are not well-educated themselves) do not want to deal with.
Posted by Matthew at February 29, 2008 01:19 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1280
Can I hear an Amen?
Posted by: Kevin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 2, 2008 11:26 AM
Amen to that Brother Matt.
"Learning real, provable science does not mean an automatic loss of faith".
THANK YOU. It really bugs me about this perception out there in the religious community that science is somehow Anti-God. You can't believe the number of times I run into this. If God created the universe, does it somehow mean that he doesn't want us to know HOW, or the inner workings of this magnificent creation? Every stupid chain email on this subject will have the obligatory - how the polite God-Fearing Christian defeated the brash Godless scientist in an argument. And I guarantee that the subject mateer may start on black holes or quasars but will inevitably end up in EVOLUTION. And from what I have seen this is the norm NOT the exception in general thinking out there. Makes me ill every time I have to refute this nonsense.
Posted by: Hash at March 3, 2008 04:40 PM
Matt, I really respect you, but your continued critique of Christian fundamentalists borders between offensive and comedic. I wonder if these continued attempts to assail the intellect of fundamentalists resonate from some quiescent inner hostility. Last year you attempted to draw parallels between modern Christian fundamentalists and ancient Aztecs (see post from 11/13/2007). Yep, the modern fundamentalist’s stance on pro-life, benevolence and family values has an uncanny resemblance to the human sacrificing barbaric ancient culture of the Aztecs. Was that a study piece on hyperbolic humor?
Forgive me for not participating in the giddy (amen brother) self-congratulatory “we’re smarter than them” attitude prevalent in the blog. I noticed the normally principled Hash has even made an exception to his prior noble chiding of you Matt. Hey Hash, whatever happened to the ideal of confining your arguments to merits rather than personal attacks and remaining above the fray? Walt Brown has a Ph.D. from MIT, is a graduate of West Point and is a National Science Foundation Fellow. I guess pejoratives such as “Giant Dunce Cap” isn’t a personal attack when it’s leveled against fundamentalists like Walt Brown; rather it must constitute a respectable and astute observation?
Matt, Walt Brown has credentials for which he undoubtedly worked hard to achieve. Dare I ask for your academic credentials? I readily admit to obtaining only an associate’s degree from a community college myself. Honestly, why would someone consider the weight of your words over someone like Walt Brown? What formal academic achievements can you profess? Watching the Discovery channel and PBS don’t count. This is a prime example of modern injustice: someone lacking academic achievement can be lauded for their insights regarding the supposed intellectual shortcomings of someone obviously superior in all considerations of measurable professional and academic accomplishments. Sounds a bit like: “Bush is an idiot.” Yep, Harvard’s known for churning out morons and MIT is known for producing “Dunces” that prove an “embarrassment” to the enlightened among us.
I realize the following is anecdotal: I am personal friends with 2 U.S. Naval Academy graduates and multiple physicians ALL of whom believe in a creation account. My point is there are plenty of rational, competent and intelligent people who believe in a Genesis account. Just because someone believes in a literal Genesis does not mean they have forfeited analytical thought or have not considered the same evidence as you. Fundamentalist beliefs do not always manifest solely from faith.
Forgive me for my atypical harshness. I couldn’t allow silent decency to be mistaken for passively agreeing with you. It makes me livid this modern acceptance of venomous ridicule towards fundamentalists. The window dressing of words change from argument to argument, but inevitably the fundamentalist is characterized as lacking the ability to think in a critical manner. You don’t even attempt to counter Walt Brown’s assertions; just circumvent the challenge by insulting the mass hordes of “idiots” for not arriving to the same conclusions as you. Has the definition of a “critical mind” become synonymous with conformity? If my beliefs really are inferior to your comprehensions of truth, should you not indulge my inadequacies with a spirit of humility, confidence and patient instruction? Or are those approaches yet more out-dated concepts replaced by a post-modern notion of elucidation?
Matt, I believe you obfuscate the distinction between observable and historical science, the latter of which creationism and evolution BOTH fall under since neither can be repeated and directly observed. We could all agree the basic principles of observable science can be monitored, measured and understood. It appears you intentionally blur this line (observable and historical) just for the payoff of comparing fundamentalists to conspiracy nuts. Congratulations on the smooth segue.
Regardless if you believe the earth is 4.7 billion or merely 6,000 years old, at some point faith is required of everyone. Ultimately we each arrive at some unprovable axiom or postulate by which we interpret and build upon future thought. I think everyone agrees you are a smart guy. I know the blog can be a leisurely endeavor, but it seems beneath your abilities to attack an ideal on anything less than its defining attributes and presented arguments. (Hash would appreciate that last sentence if only he realized “Giant Dunce Cap” and “idiot” are not points of merit.)
Sorry if my post is offensive or lacks the slick subtlety of euphemistic critique. It’s probably because I’m an uneducated “fundamentalist hick” (see post from 11/06/2005). Btw, I’m an ordained minister and occasionally preach here in Louisville. I guess that makes me one of the “not well-educated” ministers too. Also, my wife and I are having our second child tomorrow. I hope you don’t find the prospect of yet another fundamentalist too frightening. In fairness to my ineptness, please tender any response in small one or two syllable words as to not “escape my gaze.” ;-)
at March 5, 2008 11:45 AM
Travis -
First - Congratulations on the new baby.
I'll stay out of the "name calling" argument and leave that between you and Matt. But to adress a few points in your response.
"Matt, I believe you obfuscate the distinction between observable and historical science, the latter of which creationism and evolution BOTH fall under since neither can be repeated and directly observed."
Err... Sorry. I don't buy that for one bit. Science is science. YOU have made this convenient distinction. Did Dalton "observe" electrons interacting when he came up with chemical reactions? NO. What he observed and so can we are the effects of those reactions. Creationism or "intelligent design" as it is fancied to be called now is NOT science. If you want to call it a hypothesis - fine. But that is as far as I have seen it go. And no matter haw many points you come up with to refute evolutionary theory that is NOT proof of creationism. That is NOT how science works. Unless you can mathematically "disprove" that creationism is wrong, you can't prove creationism is right by claiming evolution is wrong. This is a common pitfall people fall into.
"Regardless if you believe the earth is 4.7 billion or merely 6,000 years old, at some point faith is required of everyone. Ultimately we each arrive at some unprovable axiom or postulate by which we interpret and build upon future thought."
WRONG! THAT is again NOT how science works. You observe. You put forth a hypothesis. You prove the theory mathematically or through experimentation to prove or disprove the theory. You CANNOT get to an unprovable axiom and build upon that. A simple example. Black holes exist in our universe. Within the singularity NO ONE knows what exists. Every physicist worth his salt will tell you that. I cannot build upon that and say that since I can't peek inside a black hole they each have 16 pink planets in them.
Religion REQUIRES faith. Science DOES NOT! Are there things we cannot explain through modern day science? Absolutely. Lots of them. And the correct answer a scientist should give you for that is that "I DON'T KNOW". The whole goal of science is to FIND OUT. To seek the truth. But since you brought up that example - You can look at the evidence and NOT accept that the earth is 4.7 billion years old. That's your prerogative. But if you are going to offer a theory that the earth is only 6000 years old, you need to come up with better proof than "because my interpretation of the Bible says so". That is FAITH and I will absolutely argue with you that THAT is NOT science.
"Fundamentalist beliefs do not always manifest solely from faith."
Ok, I'll bite. NAME ONE. If it doesn't originate from science, because that would make it a scientific fact, and it doesn't originate from Faith, then what does it originate from?
For the record, my belief (based on nothing but PURE faith) is that God created the universe. My quest as a person of science is to find out how. As simple as that.
Posted by: Hash at March 5, 2008 03:19 PM
Hash, I appreciate the congrats on the baby.
My motivation in posting was not to engage in a debate on evolution versus creationism. I respect whole-hearted your current beliefs which I’m sure are a result from careful consideration of many things. My entire point was this: insulting someone contains no persuasive value and there are plenty of well informed people (including scientists) who believe in a young earth and are not suffering from a delusion, but have followed a chain of evidence to a separate conclusion.
I agree science is science and that Dalton would have only seen the reactions, not the electrons. But those reactions were current and active before him. My use of the word “observable” was not intended as a branch of science itself, merely the manner in which information is gathered. Re-reading what I had written, I can see the confusion I caused.
What I was trying to explain was that scientists are limited in what they can directly observe, just like Dalton. He could only observe what was before him and current technology enabled him to witness or measure. When examining a fossil, scientists are unable to DIRECTLY observe the historical events leading to the fossil. This was the distinction in my mind between direct observation and historical events. I still standby my remark that neither evolution (for clarification macro, not micro) nor creationism can be repeated and directly observed.
I’m unable to follow the bouncing ball and how you arrived at:
“And no matter haw many points you come up with to refute evolutionary theory that is NOT proof of creationism. That is NOT how science works.”
I don’t believe anything I had written came close to refuting evolutionary theory. Again, my overall intent was to combat the derogatory nature of Matt’s original post. I also agree that disproving evolution doesn’t give an automatic pass to creationism.
“WRONG! THAT is again NOT how science works. You observe. You put forth a hypothesis.”
Are you saying that evolution is a provable law? The last I heard it was still a theory, yet it’s used in almost every discipline of science to “build upon”. Everything from molecular biology, zoology to geology is greatly influenced by the theory of evolution. You make it seem like scientists restrain themselves from moving forward until something is a proven absolute truth. Yet with evolution, just the opposite has taken place in the scientific community. It reminds me in certain ways of global warming.
Please re-read my comment of: “Fundamentalist beliefs do not always manifest solely from faith.” I think you might be assuming that “beliefs” is somehow referencing only controversial stances within Christian fundamentalism. As an example: I think it’s fair to say that most fundamentalists believe in the arrangement of our planetary system, yet there is little scriptural support. My point was to illustrate how fundamentalists do accept provable science. In the back of my mind, I also had the thought of how archaeology often validates what is written in scripture with regards to historical events. For example: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200475897717&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
As I stated earlier, my wife and I are having our 2nd child tomorrow morning. I wish that I could devote more time to this spirited debate, but will likely be unable to participate further. Again, I’d like to apologize for coming across too harsh in my post. I can see that I might have gone too far in certain aspects of my sarcasm. I’m not the veteran to this blog that you and Matt are, and so if I’ve crossed any lines of civility please forgive me. I probably should participate more often. I’ve not spoken up in the past and probably built up a level of anger disproportionate to what circumstances justified.
Matt you’re great guy and as I said earlier, I have a lot of respect for you. Too bad you’re wrong. ;-)
You guys have a great evening.
Posted by: Travis at March 5, 2008 07:57 PM
Travis,
Congrats on your second child. Hate to see you get involved in the debate and then bail. How about handling things "old school"? Have the wife handle the kids so you can continue with the debate. For the record my education is as follows. I graduated numero uno from the School of Hard Knocks. That's right. Check out the big brain on Brad! So for the record are you saying the earth is only 6000 years old?
Posted by: SLY at March 5, 2008 09:04 PM