Creationists are Killing Me

I subscribe to a "Copenhagen" view of theories. That is, that a theory is like Picasso's description of art: "Art is a lie that tells us the truth." But to say this not to imply that theories are somehow untrue or that all theories are equally valid. (O'Brien was wrong: we can’t rise up and float about the room merely because the party wishes it!)A theory is just a story, but it is a story about reality; a story about how things work. Not all theoretical models are equally valid. The best theories explain all of the existing observations and predict the answers to new questions that we didn't even know we'd be asking when the theory was developed. In my opinion, RM&NS meets this test, while creation science doesn’t. Since RM&NS is just a theory it will probably fail someday and be replaced by a truer story about reality. But that story will no doubt owe a lot to RM&NS and — in hindsight — its proponents will realize that we can tell that new story because of the truths we learned from the old one.Much of Christian thought relies on a fusion of theology with Hellenistic philosophy. This is to be expected: the first century world was heavily steeped in the juice of Hellenism. In this context, the creation science use of just a theory as a disparaging remark makes sense. God is seen as the great, absolute geometer — laying down Platonic rules with a straight edge and compass. In this view, just a theory is a damning criticism of a body of ideas, since a theory is equal to the truth.Perhaps I’m more comfortable with the Copenhagen approach, since — though I’m Christian — my philospophy and theology are more Zen-like. Maybe God isn’t the great geometer; maybe God is directly concerned with the suchness of real things and natural laws are there just to make things easy for congnitive brains like ours.-Neil

quote:

---

It could also have something to do with a disregard for science. Scientific inconsistencies aren't a problem if your beliefs are based in faith. With faith, all things are possible.

---

I wonder whether the situation isn't actually the opposite. There are a large number of fundametalist Christians who believe in creation based on faith, but who are completely disconnected from the "creation science" movement. Also, the very few faith-based believers who also do real science (e.g. Kurt Wise) openly admit the cognitive disconnect.However, I think a lot of people in the creation science movement place too much emphasis on science -- in a sense, they believe what they accuse "evolutionists" of believing: that science is a religious belief system. This forces them to try to reconcile their two belief systems: Christianity and science. It also fuels a need to find legitimacy via science.So, fundamentalists see science and faith as belief systems. Creation-science fundamentalists believe in both science and faith, so they couch the argument as creation+science vs. "evolutionism."Also, as someone who is trained as both a scientist and an engineer, I think engineers have a tendency to deify science. Scientists take a more pragmatic view: science works because it's the best method that several thousand years of human thought has been able to achieve.(To fellow Christians: I'm not trying to be snide or judgemental, I'm just trying to describe how it looks to a non-fundamentalist Christian. I may be wrong and I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.)-Neil[This message has been edited by NeilUnreal, 02-28-2003]