Science must begin with myths, and with the criticism of myths.

Karl Popper

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Galileo Galilei

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.

Albert Einstein

 

---

In Part I, the possible similarities between creationists accepting evolution as a scientific theory as compared to the trial of Galileo and the heliocentric universe were discussed. In this, the final installment of this post, I’d like to address the actual differences between science and religion.The Creation Museum’s mission statement is thus:

Exalt Jesus Christ as Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer through a safe, wholesome, family-friendly center for learning and discovery that clearly presents major biblical themes from Genesis to Revelation.

Well, it certainly does that. The problem is that it goes well beyond its mission statement. We call that “scope creep” in IT. The problem isn’t the presentation per se; it’s referring to the information presented as “well-researched science.” The Creation Museum isn’t even presenting a hypothesis, because one of the bits that makes a hypothesis valid is being able to test it. Rather, it’s presenting a literal interpretation of the Pentateuch (or the Heptateuch, or even the Hexateuch, depending on your particular flavor), and the version used, KJV, traces its basic literary genealogy from KJV –> Vulgate –> Septuagint, with many side-roads ‘twixt wind and water in the translation process.

I don’t think anyone–I certainly wouldn’t–would have had any problem with the place if it had billed itself according to its mission statement, and constructed its PR machine accordingly. The problem is in presenting itself as science. We have a scientific method that is followed to test, retest, and ultimately prove a scientific idea. That’s what makes it science. What religion and religious beliefs require, as any religious person will tell you, regardless of demonimation, is faith. That’s what makes it religion.

The phrase “creation science” is a contradiction in terms. We certainly don’t want our doctors practicing “faith-based medicine,” do we? We have a name for physicians of that ilk: “witch doctors.”

The entire Creation Museum strikes me as making as much sense in its current incarnation as “eating about dancing.”

Humans, in their infinite curiosity, have always wanted to have the “how did I get here” satisfyingly answered. The first way we bipeds did this was by myth. However, the entire thrust of being sentient is that we should be questing for more information–reference the Galileo quote at the top of this post.

Let’s have a look at cosmology through the ages, shall we? Initially, the Greeks believed that we were surrounded by a sphere of fire with the earth at the center. Note: I’m leaving out all the early mankind cosmological instances, such as the early Chinese belief in Phan Ku the Giant Creator who hatched from an egg, the Krachi people’s blue god Wulbari, the West African Yoruba tribe’s Olorun, Owner of the Sky, etc., etc. The fire sphere idea matured into an earth-centered solar system, followed by the Copernican heliocentric theory, until now we have a theory of the universe shown by the image to the right.

The question that is necessary here is now did we get from our early ideas about the universe to the detailed timeline we have now?

Easily–by observing. We’re humans–we like to know how things work. And here’s where science and religion diverge. Religion is about faith–believing in things not seen (or proven). Science, conversely, requires proof. In fact, a valid theory must not only be descriptive–fitting the facts which exist–but also be predictive–fitting facts which are not yet known, but will be discovered. In short, a scientific theory can be proven, or disproven. If a theory doesn’t fulfill both of these requirements, then it is, simply stated, wrong, and must be reformulated.

What separates today’s “creation scientists,” intelligent design, and dogmatic proponents of a God-created universe from those of the past is their absolute adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible as a science text. I find this bizarre–but then again, I find much about today’s religions bizarre.

Once upon a time, tolerance was a byword. This no longer seems to be the case; in fact, simply wishing to make one’s own choices today is viewed by the masses of fundamentalists as an attack on their faith (e.g., “Why are you always persecuting us Christians and depriving us of our rights”) Please note that this militant, arrogant political presence of Christian fundamentalists and fundamentalist politics is a relatively new phenomenon. Lest we forget, one of the most brilliant 20th century cosmologists was Monsignor Georges Lemaître, who posited the Big Bang theory–and the ancientness of the universe–before Einstein. And he was a Catholic priest. Lemaître had no problem at all with an ancient earth, nor did he have a problem with evolution; his stance–and the stance of most devout Christians in the early 20th century–was that the Bible was chock full o’ parable, not an instruction manual.

Religion isn’t the same any longer. A exceptionally strident, deafening minority of Christian leaders now traffic in political power and influence, not spirituality of any flavor. In fact, several of today’s Protestant denominations refer to the Catholic church as a cult. Go figure. I was told by a distant acquaintence recently that the Constitution of the United States guaranteed me freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, and that I had to pick one. No, really.

The primary difference, then, between scientific cosmologists and religious cosmologists is that science is always attempting to improve itself. When theories don’t fit data, they’re thrown out or rewritten. When new facts come to light, new thinking reigns. However, in today’s right-leaning, narrow-minded, religious, literal-Bible cosmology, the stock answer is–and I’m not making this up; visit religioustolerance.org, or the new kid on the block, answersingenesis.org–”When God created the pine trees which are now dead, he may have created them complete with tree rings as if they had been alive before they were created.”

Here’s a depressing quote right from Ken Ham’s site. He’s explaining how to handle us silly bastards who want some kind of proof before we believe, believe, believe. Unintentionally, this quote highlights why Christians like this are dangerous, rabid animals who will ultimately rend reason, logic, and common sense to shreds, then burn the entrails before our eyes:

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me…Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition.

Whoa, Kenny! Presuppositions? FACTS DON’T REQUIRE PRESUPPOSITIONS! You line up the observational data, perform calculations and make graphs and shit! You don’t need the presence of a Higher Power to do arithmetic! Then again, the Church condemned Kepler and Brahe for using parallax, so I guess you stack up favorably with other narrow-minded boobs throughout history. (I’m not making any of this up, Gentle Reader: visit his site to read yourself how if your scientific observations don’t match God’s Word then your science is bad. Here’s a tidbit: “If there is no God, ultimately, philosophically, how can one talk about reality?” Well, um, because I’m typing this blog entry, sir? That’s the anthropic principle, in case you were wondering.)

Or, in other words: Christians have all the right answers because God told them. If you disagree, then that’s because you just aren’t up to the Christian level yet. Here, drink this Kool-Aid so that you may better be taught, and, by the way, suspend all disbelief and shut yore mouf. The current mainstream Christian stance on the origins of the universe and the origin of the species is the height of hubris and arrogance, and lockstep fascism at its finest.

And why do some people respond to this mindless drivel? Because it’s easy, requires no mental labor on their part, and presents the philosophy, theology, cosmology, life, the universe and everything in a neat, gift-wrapped box, with batteries included. No thinking required, just follow the Charismatic Leader and shut that brain off. Because, Gentle Reader, most of humankind is as lazy as a fat hog. Surely you’re not surprised!

I close with a few quotes:

Compare the consequences [of your theory] to experience…if it disagrees with experience, the guess is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t matter how beautiful your guess is or how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experience, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it… Don’t invent elaborate calculus to make your guess seem right, or claim intervention by a higher power. Just admit you’re wrong.
Richard Feynman

Science is the disinterested search for the objective truth about the material world.
Richard Dawkins

And, one from the other side:

‘Facts’ are neutral. However, there are no such things as ‘brute facts’; all facts are interpreted. Once the Bible is eliminated in the argument, then the Christians’ presuppositions are gone, leaving them unable to effectively give an alternate interpretation of the facts. Their opponents then have the upper hand as they still have their presuppositions — see Naturalism, logic and reality.
Ken Ham

Yes, you read that right: if you’re a Christian, you need the bible to “interpret” facts. If you’re an “opponent,” then among your evil weapons are logic and reality.

The tragedy is that this is not, nor has it ever been about Christians vs the world; most Christians consider the bible to be allegorical. As mentioned above, it’s a vocal, shrieking subset that have lost their senses–but they’re the ones with the torches, nails, and stakes.

This argument is about fact vs myth. None of my Christian acquaintances mention that “mute servitude” is part of their creed. To those of you who do count yourself as Christians, I implore you: Do something about Ken Ham. He’s making you all look like idiots. Recall 1st Corinthians, 15:33: “Bad associations spoil useful habits.”

Succinctly, science is about learning. Right-wing fundamentalism is about following. I know which I prefer.

As everyone with eyes is aware, Ken Ham & Co. opened their Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky last month. The bottom line, as I have enunciated in other posts of this ilk, is that no sentient being who is wholly (holy?) convinced that s/he has a direct line to The Truth from The God can be convinced that their worldview may be flawed. Introducing provable facts to the debate only gives rise to elaborate “explanations,” e.g. “God put the fossils in the ground to fool us,” etc.

However, the religious establishment’s view of what’s true and what’s not has changed markedly over the centuries, usually under overwhelming factual weight–but NEVER until the weight became utterly unbearable.

Remember our friend Galileo; the apocryphal E pur si muove quote (which, while it is debatable if he actually uttered, still makes a point) certainly didn’t cause the Catholic Church to change its view on the structure of the universe. However…and stick with me here, as I’m attempting to use the Galileo trial as an object lesson with regard to *all* excursions of organized religion into hard science.

At Galileo’s second trial in 1633, the concern was not about the doctrine of a heliocentric universe as with the person of Galileo, and his manifest breach of contract in not abstaining from the active teaching of a scientifically proven theory. (Note: Remember, several years earlier, Galileo had been threatened with some pretty heinous consequences if he didn’t keep his cake-hole shut and stick with the literal reading of the book of Joshua with respect to the earth being the center of the universe. Again–the LITERAL INTERPRETATION of a Biblical story as hard science.)

Now follow this: The sentence, passed upon him in consequence, clearly implied a condemnation of Copernicanism, but it made no formal decree on the subject, and did not receive the pope’s signature.

So, in a neat semantic trick, the Catholic Church condemned the MAN, without having to actually go on record condemning what he was teaching. Mr. Galilei was told he’d be burned alive for teaching science–but the science itself wasn’t actually condemned! The Pope *did* put the Copernican publication on the banned Index, and it didn’t get removed until 1758, LONG after a heliocentric universe was accepted as fact. That’s 218 years after its publication, boys and girls, and over 125 years after Galileo’s trial.

Lesson to be learned: Darwin (Wallace, Lyell, Hooker, et. al.) published On the Origin of Species in 1858. Using the publication of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium as a model, then, we can possibly expect the fundamentalist, literal readers of the Bible to accept evolution–and all the explanations for fossils, the age of the earth, etc.–as a viable model for the origin of life around 2073.

The promulgation of reason, proof, and fact over mythology and anthropological folk-tale (Gilgamesh, anyone?) is a hobby of mine.

My advice to those of you who are irritated at the wrong-headedness of the Creation Museum and the mythology which it very slickly purports to be science, is to simply wait. You can lead a fundamentalist to evidence, but you can’t make him think–until enough evidence accrues that continuing to insist on a literal interpretation of whatever scripture is their Final Word starts to make them look idiotic. Then, and only then, will an avenue to compromise be built.

Remember, friends, we’re talking about people who suggest that their God built the Earth, fossils and all, just to fool us poor humans. What kind of narrow-minded folks would believe in their own creation myths so deeply as to turn the very God they worship into a mean-spirited Loki figure? Just approaching them with provable facts doesn’t stand a chance.

See you in 2073!

(part II tomorrow)

A quote worth repeating:

When the enemies of freedom come to “rescue” us from the regnant social chaos, they will not be wearing brown shirts and hailing der Führer; they will come waving the flag and clutching the Bible—seemingly innocent symbols of American culture. –James Luther Adams, in 1972.

Haven’t read it yet–am GOING to.

If this site HAD a “No Shit!” section, this would be in it.

---

Study: College students more narcissistic (AP)

NEW YORK - Today’s college students are more narcissistic and self-centered than their predecessors, according to a comprehensive new study by five psychologists who worry that the trend could be harmful to personal relationships and American society.

“We need to stop endlessly repeating ‘You’re special’ and having children repeat that back,” said the study’s lead author, Professor Jean Twenge of San Diego State University. “Kids are self-centered enough already.”

Twenge and her colleagues, in findings to be presented at a workshop Tuesday in San Diego on the generation gap, examined the responses of 16,475 college students nationwide who completed an evaluation called the Narcissistic Personality Inventory between 1982 and 2006.

The standardized inventory, known as the NPI, asks for responses to such statements as “If I ruled the world, it would be a better place,” “I think I am a special person” and “I can live my life any way I want to.”

The researchers describe their study as the largest ever of its type and say students’ NPI scores have risen steadily since the current test was introduced in 1982. By 2006, they said, two-thirds of the students had above-average scores, 30 percent more than in 1982.

Narcissism can have benefits, said study co-author W. Keith Campbell of the University of Georgia, suggesting it could be useful in meeting new people “or auditioning on ‘American Idol.’”

“Unfortunately, narcissism can also have very negative consequences for society, including the breakdown of close relationships with others,” he said.

The study asserts that narcissists “are more likely to have romantic relationships that are short-lived, lack emotional warmth, and to exhibit game-playing, dishonesty, and over-controlling and violent behaviors.”

Twenge, the author of “Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled — and More Miserable Than Ever Before,” said narcissists tend to lack empathy, react aggressively to criticism and favor self-promotion over helping others.

The researchers traced the phenomenon back to what they called the “self-esteem movement” that emerged in the 1980s, asserting that the effort to build self-confidence had gone too far.

As an example, Twenge cited a song commonly sung to the tune of “Frere Jacques” in preschool: “I am special, I am special. Look at me.”

Some analysts have commended today’s young people for increased commitment to volunteer work. But Twenge viewed even this phenomenon skeptically, noting that many high schools require community service and many youths feel pressure to list such endeavors on college applications.

Campbell said the narcissism upsurge seemed so pronounced that he was unsure if there were obvious remedies.

“Permissiveness seems to be a component,” he said. “A potential antidote would be more authoritative parenting. Less indulgence might be called for.”

The new report follows a study released by UCLA last month which found that nearly three-quarters of the freshmen it surveyed thought it was important to be “very well-off financially.” That compared with 62.5 percent who said the same in 1980 and 42 percent in 1966.

Yet students, while acknowledging some legitimacy to such findings, don’t necessarily accept negative generalizations about their generation.

Hanady Kader, a University of Washington senior, said she worked unpaid last summer helping resettle refugees and considers many of her peers to be civic-minded. But she is dismayed by the competitiveness of some students who seem prematurely focused on career status.

“We’re encouraged a lot to be individuals and go out there and do what you want, and nobody should stand in your way,” Kader said. “I can see goals and ambitions getting in the way of other things like relationships.”

Kari Dalane, a University of Vermont sophomore, says most of her contemporaries are politically active and not overly self-centered.

“People are worried about themselves — but in the sense of where are they’re going to find a place in the world,” she said. “People want to look their best, have a good time, but it doesn’t mean they’re not concerned about the rest of the world.”

Besides, some of the responses on the narcissism test might not be worrisome, Dalane said. “It would be more depressing if people answered, ‘No, I’m not special.’”