RE: "What Are Evolutionists So Afraid Of?"
August 31, 2014 at 9:50 am
(This post was last modified: August 31, 2014 at 9:55 am by Michael.)
I'm a scientist and a Christian. I believe in an ancient universe, extremely old earth and the evolution of life from simple to complex, with man being part of that evolution. I see a dynamic unfolding creation, a creative creation that has evolved, is evolving and will continue to evolve.
But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).
When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.
But I am perplexed by some of my scientific colleagues who are reluctant to engage with young earth creationism. It does come across as wanting to wrap evolution in cotton wool and to protect it from other perspectives. This, for me, is so against good science which comes of of challenge stronger, if slightly altered. The IDists, in particular ask some good questions about development of complexity (and I am not an IDist). It does look as if some scientists are reluctant to engage with those questions, because answers are frequently not yet known. But to close down discussion and debate, in schools even, is not the type of science that I know and love. An excuse if 'we don't want to give the enemy publicity' is far from the science of Galilieo or William Harvey, who willingly engaged with Ptolomists and Galenists. That closed-off form of science is scientisim, a form of science that seeks to protect itself where it appears weakest because it wants to present itself as a 'know all' philosophy (a science-stopper if there ever was one).
When I see creationists more interested in engaging in debate than fans of science, or even eminent science communicators like Richard Dawkins, then I can't help but feeling that science is coming off second-best. When a school is reluctant to let creationism be discussed then I can't help but feel science looks weak.
