ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

At 01:02 09/06/2005, Amanda Chesworth wrote:

>What I think concerns me the most, however, is when I see scientists just
>adding fuel to the flame by not recognizing the twists in logic, the
>invented arguments (like micro and macro evolution), the great haze of
>confusion spread by misinformation.

At 22:59 08/06/2005, William Katzman wrote:

>I have read part of one anti-evolution book state that there is a conflict
>between religion and evolution, precisely because evolution says that the
>process of natural selection and that of mutations is RANDOM.  Thus the book
>argued that people who believe that the process is random can't believe that
>God has any hand in any of it or ever did, and therefore don't believe in
>God.

"No-chance-ism", in my experience, seems to be the principal root of 
militant creationism, especially the Intelligent Design variety.

And Amanda is right. There seems little headway against the endless flow of 
theoretical objections to evolution, because they are emotionally rooted in 
something else. A major cause of creationist militancy is "no-chance-ism".

However, you could try this:

1. By definition, Darwinism = Chance

2. By definition, Intelligent Design = The Hand of God

3. According to traditional Christian theology, Chance = The Hand of God

4. Therefore, logically, seen ONLY from the viewpoint of traditional 
Christian theology, Darwinism = Intelligent Design = The Hand of God

5. Seen from the scientific viewpoint, even for the many scientists who are 
Christians, chance is unpredictable chance. It has to be viewed like this. 
It is how science works. This is what science is. And because of this 
self-imposed limitation, science is not qualified to comment on the 
theological viewpoint.

This only applies if the "Hand of God" operates invisibly within the laws 
of probability (science is only able to make non-specific, statistical 
predictions about coin-tosses or quantum events). Because of course 
Darwinism MUST be based on observable randomness. So 'chance' has entirely 
different meanings theologically and scientifically.

I find this approach works pretty well, depending very much on how gently 
it is presented. Line 3 is the sticking point for most militant 
creationists, who show a distinct deist tendency to conceive of a limited 
god who periodically "intervenes" (they use this word a lot) by breaking 
through natural processes and chance events he is otherwise powerless to 
control. Line 4 looks equally outrageous from either viewpoint, until the 
logically separate nature of the viewpoints is digested. (NOMA again.)

So there seem to be two lines of attack:

A. We can insist that militant creationists cease to believe in their 
Creator, as a necessary pre-condition of shutting-up about evolution.

or

B. Whatever our personal beliefs, we could ask them, with careful respect, 
to consider the implications of a bigger Creator and Sustainer than they 
have previously imagined, ruling over 'natural' phenomena and working 
within his own laws of  'chance'.

If Dawinism is your religion, go for A. If you want results, I personally 
recommend B.


[log in to unmask] * http://www.interactives.co.uk
*
Give people facts and you feed their minds for an hour.
Awaken curiosity and they feed their own minds for a lifetime.
*
Ian Russell  

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]