Robert Mann writes:

           << I have worked for some years on this fraught issue of
'Creationism'
v. evolution.  I believe it is essentially a non-issue, a misunderstanding,
and I hope we don't waste much time on it.>>

    Yes, it is a misunderstanding, but if the moderators will allow, perhaps
its worth looking at the causes of the misunderstanding. I have
qualifications in both geology and theology, and an ongoing interest in the
dialogue between scientists and theologians.

    The philosophical basis of science is essentially NOMINALISM, which was
developed by late medieval theologians under the influence of Aristotle's
writings, and adopted by the Protestant reformers, from whom it was inherited
by the first scientists. It says that the fundamental 'essence' (I'm avoiding
the medieval terms, which might be confusing) of an object is to be found in
the object itself, so if I want to know more about bees, let's say, the
logical way to do it is to study the bees, and interpret what I see. From
this basic idea, science developed on the basis that verifiable, repeatable
observations (and nothing else) could be analysed by a system of formal
logic, taken over from medieval theology, in order to gain information about,
and understanding of, the world around us. This has obviously proved to be an
extremely powerful tool, but it's nothing more than that. It can never, for
instance, 'prove' anything finally or absolutely, a scientific theory is
nothing more than the interpretation which seems to fit the available facts
better than any other. I accept the theory of evolution, for instance,
because it fits the facts. If anyone can come up with any better idea, or can
come up with verifiable facts which contradict the theory, I don't think I
would have much difficulty in changing my mind.

    I am aware that 'creation science' claims that the facts don't fit the
theory, but I don't think it is legitimate science (see below), and I don't
accept their 'facts'. For instance, it has often been claimed that human
fossils have been faked. Apart from Piltdown Man, which was gleefully exposed
by the scientists themselves as soon as the techniques became available to do
so, there is no evidence of faking, and having handled some of the fossils
myself, I can see it just ain't so.

    Creationism is based on a sort of incoherent REALISM, a philosophy which
dominated much of medieval theology. It holds that the ultimate essence of a
thing is not to be found in the thing itself, which is merely an
'appearance', but elsewhere. It therefore makes no sense to attempt to learn
about a thing by studying it; answers are to be found elsewhere, normally by
appeal to authority, in this case the Bible. So if the Bible clearly says
(and I reserve the right to dispute this) that God created the earth in seven
twenty-four hour days, and if it really supports Archbishop Ussher's dating
of the process (originally 9am on the 23rd October 4004 BC - that's what was
printed in the margin of some early editions of the King James Version), then
the whole of geology *must* be wrong whatever the facts say. That's why
'creation science' isn't science, and why the two sides usually end up
shouting past each other. To the creationist, Biblical authority settles the
matter, and the facts are irrelevant (so I wonder why they claim to offer an
alternative 'science' - I never could understand this one); to the scientist,
the facts are what matters, and the Bible is irrelevant, at least while they
are at work. If we could only deal with this on the basis of philosophy, not
as a polemical attack on science with the real issues submerged, we might be
able to build some understanding on both sides.

Regards,

Robert Brenchley

[log in to unmask]