In a challenging book intended for the lay audience, G. Brent
Dalrymple reviews scientific evidence for the age of the Earth, Moon, and Solar
system in such well documented and critical manner that it leaves no room for
uncertainty or doubt: The Age of the
Earth, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1991. The book’s
greatest virtue is its detailed analysis of radiometric dating methods. The
many, many examples and the exhaustive chronology that are presented reveal how
imaginative but sometimes wrong researchers have been in the past. But then he
shows how tirelessly other researchers have checked their work, finding the
errors and developing more reliable methods. It is also clear that the results
of proven techniques have been checked rigorously against the results of other
methods, until there can be little scientific doubt about the final conclusions.
One cannot read that book with an open mind and continue believing a few warped
scientists conspired to conjure up a patently false system and that hundreds of
later scientists simply fell into line and confirmed their bizarre fantasies.
Philip Kitcher, a philosopher of science at the University of Vermont, has
written a marvelously lucid summary of the evidence for evolution and the
overwhelming case against its opponents in a thoughtful and witty attack on 'scientific' creationism, Abusing Science:
The Case Against Creationism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Updated March 2001;
go online and read the excerpt, “Creationist’s Blind Dates” at:
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Geology/KitcherBlindDates.htm. Kitcher, who as a
philosopher is concerned with the way science operates, is particularly adept
at showing how creationists distort Karl Popper’s views on scientific method
and how they misuse such books as Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Of course, readers interested in the geoscience side of the
argument over creationism should read Arthur N. Strahler’s marvelously written
and well-reasoned, Science and Earth
History: The Evolution/Creation Controversy, 2nd ed., Amherst, New York:
Prometheus Books, 1999. Strahler was professor of geomorphology in the
Department of Geology at Columbia University and author of numerous textbooks
in geoscience. His book is a comprehensive treatment of the ongoing conflict
between scientists who accept the theory of evolution and creationists. He
reviews the philosophy, methods, and sociology of empirical science from
astronomy to zoology, contrasting those with the belief systems of religion and
pseudoscience. In one very interesting section he establishes sound criteria
for distinguishing science from pseudoscience and demonstrates with devastating
logic that creation science fails to meet the criteria of scientific
enterprise.
A more recent and delightful work based on sound science and
leavened with literary grace and elegance is also well worth reading, no matter
what your evolutionary point of view, but only if you have an open mind, which
by my personal experience is something almost entirely lacking in creationists:
Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor’s Tale: A
Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2004. For
a very well written and tightly reasoned point of view of a Christian
geophysicist, see: Roger C. Wiens, PhD, Radiometric
Dating: A Christian Perspective, material originally written in 1994 and
revised in 2002: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html.
And don’t forget the early and remarkable essay by the evolutionary biologist and devout Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky that criticized Young Earth creationism and espoused what he called evolutionary creationism: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 35 125-129, 1973. Note that that article may have been inspired by the work of Jesuit physical anthropologist and philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Dobzhansky much admired.
And don’t forget the early and remarkable essay by the evolutionary biologist and devout Russian Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky that criticized Young Earth creationism and espoused what he called evolutionary creationism: “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution,” American Biology Teacher, vol. 35 125-129, 1973. Note that that article may have been inspired by the work of Jesuit physical anthropologist and philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom Dobzhansky much admired.
Everyone interested in the cultural war between the
adherents of evolution and creationists (in this camp I squarely place those
who believe in intelligent design) should read two recent books. The first, by
the physical anthropologist Eugenie C. Scott, is Evolution vs. Creationism, Berkeley, California: University of
California Press, 2005. It is both a history of the debate and a collection of
essays written by partisans from both sides. Its main attribute is its clear
explanation of the scientific method and the astronomical, biological,
chemical, and geological bases of evolutionary theory. As good as that book is,
even better is Michael Ruse’s The
Evolution-Creation Struggle, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University,
2005. As a philosopher of science, Ruse (self-described as an ardent Darwinian)
has testified against the inclusion of creationism in public school science curricula He cautions all of us on the use of the word “evolution,”
especially since it has two meanings: the science of evolution and something he
terms evolutionism, which is the part of evolutionary ideas that reaches beyond
testable science. In other words, Ruse interprets the struggle between science
and theology as a war between two rival metaphysical worlds.
Matt Young (PhD physics-optics) and Paul Strode (PhD
biology-ecology) provide a series of clear, concise, and lively discussions for
everyday people in their excellent book, Why
Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press, 2009. Their narrative is a well-written and highly readable response
to creationists’ objections to evolution. Their science-based work takes pains
to demonstrate that creationists profoundly misunderstand the very nature and
structure of science and avow positions that are contradictory and
inconsistent.
One positive indication, though no one should put much
“faith” in it, is that courts at various levels repeatedly have held that
public schools must be religiously neutral and must not advocate religious
views. In that vein, in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism
in the public schools was unconstitutional.
And finally, I wonder if it ever occurred to our creation
science and Young Earth friends to explain with scientific rigor the fossilized
marine sedimentary rocks (from the Ordovician) forming the summit of Mount
Everest, known locally as Chomolungma, Goddess Mother of the World, and explain
how those marine sediments were pushed and shoved to an elevation of nearly 30,000 feet.
For the latest and slickest version of neo-creationism that has many rich,
powerful, and right-wing political backers, interested readers should consult
published articles that discuss the implications of the late-2005 decision of a
federal judge against the Dover (Pennsylvania) School District in what may have
been a critical test case that ruled intelligent design and creationism are one
and the same and have no place in a biological science curriculum.
Certainly many arguments can be and have been made that demonstrate the fallacy of creationism/young earth/intelligent design (see above). One that I personally hold dear is practical in nature. To believe in creationism etc., etc., one must reject not only biology and geology but also basic principles in astronomy-astrophysics, physics, geophysics, and geochemistry. How people are prepared to do that I simply can not imagine, even when it is explained to me by those who have faith in creationism. It's a puzzle that can only be explained by Julius Caesar's famous dictum: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Men willingly believe what they want.
HAPPY 2013 TO ONE AND ALL from SOB
Certainly many arguments can be and have been made that demonstrate the fallacy of creationism/young earth/intelligent design (see above). One that I personally hold dear is practical in nature. To believe in creationism etc., etc., one must reject not only biology and geology but also basic principles in astronomy-astrophysics, physics, geophysics, and geochemistry. How people are prepared to do that I simply can not imagine, even when it is explained to me by those who have faith in creationism. It's a puzzle that can only be explained by Julius Caesar's famous dictum: Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt. Men willingly believe what they want.
HAPPY 2013 TO ONE AND ALL from SOB
