The Creationist Paradigm

I have been wondering about why it is so hard for scientists, and evolutionary biologists in particular, to communicate and convince Creationists of scientific ideas. I have also been reading a lot of Thomas Kuhn lately. I don't think you need to be familiar with Kuhn's entire philosophy to understand where this is going, but I'll give a brief summary.Kuhn says that different scientific fields exist in different paradigms, which is the context in which scientists investigate their field of sceince. Researchers in different fields work under different paradigms, and so often have trouble interacting, since their methods and terminology are so different. E.g. Fluid mechanists recognize solids and fluid, whereas chemists recognize solids, liquids, and gases. Marine biologist wonder what happens to larvae that are released from a specific point, physical oceanographers model how the entire ocean moves. A molecular biologist thinks of a species as forming a phylogenetic clade, whereas an ecologist thinks of a species as a groups of animals with ecological similar roles, whereas an evolutionary biologist thinks of a species as a reproductively isolated group of individuals.The point is, the communication problem results from the fact that different terminology is used, that we are interacting under different paradigms. Many creationists (and cdesign proponentsists) use scientific terminology in the wrong way, indicating that they are thinking in an alternate context, using alternate terminology like random mutation, natural selection, evolving into a new species, humans coming from apes, etc. They have been taught to put together phrases about evolution in a manner which differs from the biological manner, which indicates they they are thinking in a different Kuhnian paradigm.I'd like this thread to focus on whether this paradigm division exists, and also on ways to bridge the division, if we agree upon its existance.

Hmmm, well that's a good question. I don't think that I can make one answer for all of them.For astrology, yes, a paradigm difference. They view the movement of planets as symbols of upcoming events, whereas scientists view the planets movements as the result of physical laws. So yes, defnintely a difference in paradigms.For alien abduction, no. They simply believe some facts are true, when they are not true. They accept a falsehood, and deny true facts.For homeopathy, well that's a tricky one. My parents raised me on homeopathic remedies, and for some of them, there is scientific evidence in support of them. For example, boosting certain amounts of vitamins and nutrients can help you fight off a disease, just as taking a flu shot or penicillin can. The method and approach of treating the disease, homeopathy being bottom up and flu shots being top down, is definitely different, so I would say in this sense they are different in paradigms. But this is much more of a grey area. For example, tumeric has always been though to be good for your general health, homeopathically. And then recently, a scientific article found that turmeric can reduce the risk of altzheimers.Now, if you want to talk about holistic healers (essential oils, pills with natural extracts), then yes, a major paradigmatic difference from conventional medicine. The methods and techniques are different, yet even these two field are fusing. The same article listed above says that fish oils, a common holistic remedy, may have beneficial effects. Rather than scientists convincing holistic healers to see their side, scientists are actually beginning to see the other side through applying the scientific method to test these alternate cures. Though I should note that even if holistic remedies are found scientifically to work, the reason that holist healers think that their methods work (inner chi) is different from the reason scientist think that holistic methods work (testing on mice), so there is still an unbreachable paradigm difference.To bring this back to the issue at hand, are creationists just plain wrong and misinformed, like the alien abductionists, or have they been taught to ask the wrong sorts of questions, like the holistic healers? I tend to believe the latter, especially concerning discussions about information theory. Creationist have asked scientists to show that information can be gained in order to prove Darwinism. The correct answer from the evolutionist perspective is that the idea of animals evolving more or less information is nonsensical- their evolution does not follow paths of information, it follows paths of greatest survival probablities. I think creationists have been told many falsehoods, but the reason our communication with them is so unsucessful is that they are taught to think about evolution in a different paradigm, which often involves asking questions and making statements that are not exactly wrong but better described as nonsensical statements about how scientific evolution really works.

Well, I think we can all agree creationists are ridiculously stubborn. But I don't think that's really the whole story. Evolutionists and creationists are talking past each other. Creationists are not simply disagreeing, or refusing to listen. The words that one side says are simply nonsense to the other side. There's no way to make heads nor tails of it.I see what you're saying with but for some reason I don't feel like I ever get to that point with creationists, like I do with most other people I argue with. We never find that ultimate source of disagrement, and I'm just wondering why. I mean, yeah, with the Bible and God I often have to agree to disagree, but most creationist arguments about evolution don't really rely on the Bible hey try to use outside "evidence." They rely on arguments about information theory or creation of new species, and argument on those topics never really seem to go back to the Bible.

Hey Brad,Yes, the problem-situations I think are what people normally call paradigms nowadays and that is what I'm talking about. But I don't think the first passage from Kant is really relevant, since he is talking about an agrement between two kinds of theologians. Scientists have already backed out of the theologian role, they're not trying to parts of the Bible to support reason, whereas the creationists are still trying to extrapolate reason from the Bible. In other words, no compromise can be met when one group has already comprised their half and the other group hasn't.I do agree with you that creationists are trying to create their own paradigm, or organized structure, and indoctrinate their children and followers with it. I think this is intentional, because it allows their views to last longer. If they spoke the same scientific language as us, it would be much easier for us to just show them that their facts are wrong and to get on with our life. But by creating a different paradigm, they can claim that scientists are spouting nonsense, and it will sound like nonsense to the average creationist. This is a much more dangerous strategy, and I don't think its one we've fully picked up on or learned how to deal with yet.