Creationists and the Missing Link
In an earlier post, I suggested that the discovery of Tiktaalik, the "missing link" fossil, would not dent the confidence of Creationists, notwithstanding the claims by some in the media that the find would hammer a nail in the coffin of that religious movement.
Today on Sunday Sequence, we invited a Creationist to go head-to-head with an evolutionary biologist. I asked the biologist, from Queen's University, if the fossil strengthened the case for evolution. Not really, was essentially his reply; evolution is so well attested in any case that it wouldn't need a fossil find of this kind to support it. The Creationist, Dr Robert Beckett -- an Evangelical Presbyterian minister with a PhD in animal breeding -- doubted that the fossill was a transitional form of life; instead, he thought it was simply a fish fossil. But, he went on, even if it is a transitional form of life, Tiktaalik would not challenge Creationism, any more than any other fossil constitutes a challenge to Creationism.
I'd predicted this response from Creationism in my earlier post, but it does raise an interesting question about just what kind of scientific evidence would be sufficient to challenge a religious view like Creationism. Would any discovery amount to a knock-down-drag-out refutation of that view?
This, of course, is not merely a question one could ask about Creationism. What about the belief that God exists. What kind of scientific evidence, even in principle, would constitute a refutation of that belief? We entered the territory of that question, also this morning, with the scientist Lewis Wolpert, who was talking about his new book, , which attempts to give an "evolutionary" account of religious belief.
Comments
I'll try not to sound like I am typing in green ink ... but why, oh why, does Sunday Sequence give so much air-time to Creationist spokesmen? You cover science and religion topics brilliantly, but isn't Creationism a strangely bizarre minority view which really does not merit quite so much attention by serious people? To extend a point made on today's programme, can you imagine giving so much time to defenders or practitioners of astrology? Indeed, I imagine that there may be more supporters of astrology in the world than creationism.
You're right when you say that NO amount of evidence will ever change a Creationist's mind. The problem seems to be that whereas Science proposes a thesis and then tests the evidence to see if the thesis holds, changing the thesis if the evidence proves otherwise, Creationists have a thesis which also acts as a conclusion, therefore needing to twist and tweak the evidence until it fits the original proposal. Anyone who starts a debate by saying "This is the way it is and there is no other way" will very soon find themselves painted into a corner.
If you want an example of the most extreme type of 'intellectual' contortionism with regards to the Creationist argument I would direct you to Ken Hams' article (the paint fumes have obviously got to him) at www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp. I would challenge anyone to read it all the way through without laughing! It's the intellectual equivalent of trying to eat a Gravy Ring without licking your lips - impossible!
My comment is simply to provide a little bit of defence for 'creationism'. Creationism is not really a "strangely bizarre minority view" but a widely held belief. In fact recent polls demonstrate that 46% of the British public actively disbelieve evolution.
'Ok' you may say, 'The layman may well believe in creation - Crazy Frog also made it to the top of the charts, The BNP may get into power - stupidity is on the rise - public opinion does not constitue good taste or the truth'. Fine, I couldn't agree more.
However, follow these links. Here are flag waving creationists all with fully fledged degrees and phds ranging from biology, chemistry and paleontology right through to neuroscience and embryonic development.
Take Wayne Frair, Professor Emeritus at New York University. He has phds coming out of his ears - and he's an ardent creationist. I could name thousands of creation scientists, fully credentialed and fully respectable.
Look at www.trueorigins.org and www.rae.org. I challenge you to refute a single word. With less of the fundamental ravings found by Ken Ham and colleagues, these sites demonstrate that truly intelligent, credentialed and well balanced scientists argue convincingly for their case whilst appealing to strong empirical evidence for creation.
I admit that I am uncomfortable with the more extreme literal translation of a six day creation, or recent dinosaurs and even Noah's Ark, and I do not consider myself a creationist. However, it takes little more than a bit of honest reading of some honest intelligent design literature and some honest reflection to realise the dogmatic way we cling on to evolution in this country has less to do with our honest interpretation of the facts and more to do with what we have constantly been told our whole lives.
Would any creationist like to indicate here what test or evidence would cause them to reject creationism? Just asking. I am not asking them to embrace evolution - I am not asking them to reject their overall faith. I just want them to indicate the terms under which they feel creationism could be tested.