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

I speak regularly to church groups and individuals about the difficulties 
caused by militant creationism and militant scientism. I have succeeded in 
persuading a significant number of people to stop opposing mainstream 
science, or to stop seeking wacky alternatives to it. My experience has 
mainly been with Christians but this is also a huge issue for others, 
especially Muslims.

Being a Christian and a science communicator with a special love of 
Darwinian insights, I often find myself able to silence arguments but at 
other times seem uniquely qualified to get both sides shouting at me.

So, this email might help steer the ASTC ‘Evolution Statement’ away from 
hidden rocks or it might just make folk mad. Anyway, here goes…

I find myself in a rather different kind of conflict. On my side are people 
(who may or may not be Christians) who don’t think mainstream science is 
incompatible with Christianity. The odd thing about this position is that 
we find ourselves opposed by Darwin’s bulldogs and militant creationists 
shouting on the same side, for the same cause: that mainstream science and 
Christianity MUST be incompatible.

There are two strategies for persuading militant creationists that 
mainstream science is OK. (1) You try to convince them that it need not 
conflict with the basis of the faith they are committed to live by. (2) You 
try to convince them that science must conflict, that science is right, and 
that the faith they are committed to live by is false. In my personal 
experience the first strategy has been more effective. The ‘bulldog’ 
approach has certainly encouraged some to abandon their faith, but has also 
been a principal cause of creationist militancy and a misguided public 
notion that science is intrinsically opposed to everything sacred. In my 
work as a science communicator, I have not found this helpful.

A notable ally against the combined efforts of Darwin’s bulldogs and the 
militant creationists is the late Stephen Jay Gould, a self-professed 
Jewish agnostic and passionate populariser of evolutionary science. Here is 
the URL of a typically readable article in which he pleads eloquently for…

“…NOMA, the nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion. NOMA permits 
indeed enjoins the prospect of respectful discourse, of constant input from 
both magisteria toward the common goal of wisdom. If human beings are 
anything special, we are the creatures that must ponder and talk.”

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html

Ten syllables in two words are too many for most of my audiences and I have 
figured out a simple way to get the same idea across. I put a circular 
piece of card on an overhead projector and say this represents creation. 
Then I put a square piece of card on the projector and say this represents 
evolution. I ask people to suggest things my two images have in common. 
Both are shadows. No other similarities.

Then I put a can of baked beans on the projector. On the screen we see a 
circular shadow. I turn the can on its side. On the screen we see a square 
shadow. True science and honest faith are dealing with shadows … shadows of 
a reality existing in dimensions beyond our comprehension. The shadow we 
see depends entirely on the viewpoint we choose.

To argue whether the can of beans is round or square is meaningless because 
we are arguing about shadows of a greater truth. Both viewpoints are 
totally separate and neither is qualified to comment on the other.

This is about maintaining boundaries between clearly defined areas of 
teaching (magisteria), and is not at all the same as the sloppy ‘cultural 
relativism’ that implies ‘all truth is relative’, and that anyone’s view on 
technical details of evolution are equally valid. As Richard Dawkins said 
(as best I can remember), “Show me a cultural relativist in a passenger 
aircraft at 30,000 feet and I’ll show you a hypocrite.”

1600 years ago in four hundred and something AD, in a commentary on the 
book of Genesis (“Genesis in the Literal Sense”), Saint Augustine wrote:

“...We must be on our guard against giving interpretations that are 
hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the Word of God to the 
ridicule of unbelievers.”

(In the same book by the way, despite its title, this highly respected 
authority of traditional Christianity pleads clearly for a non-literal 
interpretation of the six ‘days’ of creation. Which undermines the popular 
fallacy that the ‘Young Earth’ variety of creationism is solidly grounded 
in traditional doctrine. But there are just so many modern myths and 
misconceptions. A striking example is to compare what really happened in 
the famous Tennessee ‘Scopes monkey trial’ of 1925 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial with the popular myth and 
better-known Hollywood version, ‘Inherit the Wind’.)

I feel strongly that the most helpful thing the ASTC ‘Evolution Statement’ 
could establish would be a clear endorsement of Gould’s NOMA rule. I really 
hope this can be agreed, despite inevitable protestations from those with 
personal prejudices against religion.

Also, a caution about terminology. The word, ‘creationist’ has been 
misleadingly hijacked to give credibility to opponents of mainstream 
science. In a sense, all Christians are ‘creationists’, but only a minority 
are ‘militant creationists’. It is very important to make this distinction. 
ASTC is up against ‘militant creationists’ and must be careful not to 
alienate the majority of Christians who generally consider themselves 
‘creationists’ by definition but may or may not have strong views on the 
processes by which creation happened.

I’m not a Roman Catholic but most professing Christians are. It’s worth 
noting that in 1997 Pope John Paul instructed them to accept evolution as 
an established fact of nature. He said, “Truth cannot contradict truth…” 
and the rest is rather less readable than the analysis in Stephen Jay 
Gould’s paper, referred to earlier. 
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/articles/johnpaul.html

Here in Britain, we struggle with similar issues but seem less prone to 
extreme polarisation than our American friends. I’d aim to reduce 
polarisation of this issue, without backing down in any way over matters 
within the jurisdiction of science, and I’d ask ASTC members to stay 
carefully within the boundaries of that jurisdiction to avoid inflaming the 
situation.

Whatever ASTC does next, please remember that Darwin’s church-mice are at 
least as effective as his bulldogs and that not all Christians are 
uneducated fanatics. See for example: http://www.cis.org.uk and especially 
http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm


[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]