What do you think?
Rate this book
Science and Creationism
Essays discuss creationism, conflicts between religion and science, fundamentalist views on science, paleontology, and court decisions concerning the teaching of evolution
432 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1984
1 person is currently reading
40 people want to read
About the author
Ashley Montagu
208 books69 followersBooks, such as
The Natural Superiority of Women
(1953), of Ashley Montagu, originally Israel Ehrenberg, a British-American, helped to popularize anthropology.
As a young man, he changed his name to "Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu". After relocating to the United States, he used the name "Ashley Montagu."
This humanist of Jewish ancestry related topics, such as race and gender, to politics and development. He served as the rapporteur or appointed investigator in 1950 for the The Race Question , statement of educational, scientific, and cultural organization of United Nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_...
As a young man, he changed his name to "Montague Francis Ashley-Montagu". After relocating to the United States, he used the name "Ashley Montagu."
This humanist of Jewish ancestry related topics, such as race and gender, to politics and development. He served as the rapporteur or appointed investigator in 1950 for the The Race Question , statement of educational, scientific, and cultural organization of United Nations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
September 7, 2022
If you want to understand the science behind Scientific Creationism (or Intelligent Design, as it is now called), you have only to look at its corpus of insightful, carefully researched, peer reviewed papers. Oh wait, there aren’t any. Scientific Creationism is as much about science as the New Orleans Saints are about sainthood.
I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, to tell myself that their faith was so strong it clouded their judgment, making them interpret evidence solely in terms of Biblical literalism. I couldn’t do it. The mendacity of their arguments, the willful misinterpretation of data, cherry-picking of facts and use of out of context quotes, and the deliberate manipulation of the scientific method all point to a conscious effort to deceive. This is what pious fraud looks like, as when medieval monks found a sliver of wood by the roadside and declared it a piece of the One True Cross. They justified their deceit by saying that it served the greater purpose of increasing the devotion of the faithful. It is the motive force behind televangelists.
Here is how the argument for special creation works: start by deliberately misinterpreting the definition of the word theory, so that evolution appears to be just an unsubstantiated guess dreamed up by atheists. Then present the normal back and forth debates of the scientists as evidence that they themselves don’t know what evolution is or how it works. Then insist that you have plenty of evidence for creation by an omnipotent (Christian) god, which actually consists of rehashing long discredited scenarios involving Noah’s flood. Next, appeal to the basic fairness of people, saying that your science is just as good as the evolutionists’ science, and therefore should be taught alongside it. Finally, when that does not work, and real scientists point out the ludicrous holes in your position, bypass the scientific establishment altogether and appeal to the legislature, whose members are always looking to curry favor with well connected constituent groups, and use them to force your creationist ideas into textbooks and school curricula.
So far, these attempts have been struck down by the Federal courts, first after the 1981 Louisiana law that required teaching creationism alongside evolution (and which was the reason for the creation of this book), and then with outcome of the 2004 Intelligent Design trial in Dover, Delaware. What has happened though, is that teachers, school boards, and textbook publishers, unwilling to face the wrath of evangelical churches and conservative parents, have quietly dropped evolution from the curriculum. If it gets mentioned at all it is often just a couple of quick sentences about “development,” and then on to the next topic. What’s more, the increasing ideological divide in society affects the court system as well, and judges are often chosen specifically for their political beliefs, so the issue of creationism could well come up again, and this time reason may not prevail. The creationists are playing the long game, waiting for the chance to get a court that will rule in their favor, and their ace in the hole is the Supreme Court, which drifts further rightward every year.
It is important not to lump all Christians together in the creationist swamp. Catholics, Jews, and mainstream Protestant churches are fine with the idea of evolution taking place over billions of years, they just say that it is directed by god. Only the fundamentalist sects, the kinds that wear their anti-intellectualism on their sleeve and believe in biblical literalism, oppose evolution in principle. According to the article “For Darwin Day, 6 Facts about the evolution debate” ( 11 Feb 2019) at pewresearchDOTorg, 38% of white evangelical Protestants and 27% of black Protestants believe humans have always existed in their present form. Somewhat more encouraging is the information that 81% of U.S. adults believe humans have evolved over time, 33% of which say it happened with no involvement by a creator, and 48% believe evolution was guided by god or a higher power.
In 1981 Act 590, the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act” was introduced to the Arkansas legislature in the final days of its session, received only fifteen minutes of floor debate, and was signed by the governor who admitted he had not read it. The ACLU challenged the law based on its violating the First Amendment prohibitions against favoring religion. The state of Arkansas defended it, saying that creation science was in fact legitimate science and therefore was justified in being taught alongside evolution. The trial was from 7 to 17 December 1981, presided over by Judge William R. Overton. He issued his decision on 5 January 1982, finding for the plaintiffs that the law was in fact a disguised attempt to insert religion into the school curriculum, and issued an injunction prohibiting it from being enforced in the schools.
This book was published in 1984 under the editorship of anthropologist Ashley Montagu. It consists of eighteen essays, plus the full text of judge Overton’s decision. One might wonder why such a book would be needed at all, since most educated persons know something about evolution and its basis in science, and know that creation science/intelligent design is hogwash. However, this was not necessarily so clear in the early 1980s. The Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 was a distant memory, and a sizable majority of Americans favored “balanced treatment” of evolution and creation based on Creation Science’s highly publicized claims that they had solid proof of their position. Ronald Reagan had just come out saying that he favored teaching both.
The value of this book is that it provides a deep dive into its subject, a comprehensive look from a variety of perspectives. Some of the essays are written for a popular audience, such as those by Stephen Jay Gould and Isaac Asimov, and some address technical aspects of the subject, such as Sidney W. Fox’s Creationism and Evolutionary Protobiogenesis, a look at biochemistry and speciation which should put to rest once and for all the creationists’ claims that there are no intermediate fossils.
Other essays look at the chicanery behind creationism’s “scientific” claims; for instance, “If, as creationists argue, every natural object is evidence of design, and every evidence of design argues for the existence of a Designer, then everything that can be observed argues for the Designer. Thus the argument from design is tautological: one argues both from design to Designer and from Designer to design. But tautologies cannot be valid scientific explanations because they cannot be falsified. (p. 72-73; Robert Root-Bernstein: On Defining a Scientific Theory)
Although the creationists went to great efforts to distance themselves from authorship of Act 590 to try to maintain the fiction that it was motivated by reputable science, not religion, their previous writings clearly showed the driving force behind it. Henry Morris, head of the Institute for Creation Research, had written that “The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed.” (from The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth; cited in Kenneth R. Miller’s essay Scientific Creation Versus Evolution: The Mislabeled Debate, p. 56)
They want to be seen as scientists, and tell the world that is what they are, but they then resort to special pleading to explain why the standards of the scientific process do not apply to them. As Ashley Montagu says in his introduction, “The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof.” (p. 9)
One of the most interesting essays is A Philosopher’s Day in Court, by philosopher and historian of science Michael Ruse, who was a member of the plaintiffs’ team and was one of the witnesses to take the stand. It is an entertaining look at the enormous amount of work that went into preparing for the trial, the strategies of both sides, and some of the personalities involved.
There is even a humorous take on the events, Gene Lyons’ Repealing the Enlightenment. He comments on the genesis of Act 590 by remarking that “Arkansans in general are probably no more ignorant than the American public at large, but all the ignoramuses do agree. Political tradition here pardons a legislator who votes on symbolic issues to sooth the prejudices of the mouth-breathing element in the dirt-road churches.” (p. 346) It reminded me of a quote by H. L. Mencken from the 1920s bemoaning the proliferation of colleges: “They are even spattered over such barbaric states as Mississippi and North Dakota, where it would be dangerous to be educated in any real sense.”
Judge Overton saw through the half-truths and evasions of the creationists, and his ruling is clear, tightly reasoned, and devastating. It is as close to literature as the judicial system gets, and can be summed up with his statement that, “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion he chooses, he cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific if he starts with a conclusion and refuses to change it, regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.” (p. 352)
Not all of the essays here make for easy reading, but all are worth spending some time on. Creation Science, renamed as Intelligent Design, emerged again in 2004 and was once again struck down, but it will return under a new name and with a new strategy, and those who care about science and the education of our young people need to understand how it operates and how to respond.
I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, to tell myself that their faith was so strong it clouded their judgment, making them interpret evidence solely in terms of Biblical literalism. I couldn’t do it. The mendacity of their arguments, the willful misinterpretation of data, cherry-picking of facts and use of out of context quotes, and the deliberate manipulation of the scientific method all point to a conscious effort to deceive. This is what pious fraud looks like, as when medieval monks found a sliver of wood by the roadside and declared it a piece of the One True Cross. They justified their deceit by saying that it served the greater purpose of increasing the devotion of the faithful. It is the motive force behind televangelists.
Here is how the argument for special creation works: start by deliberately misinterpreting the definition of the word theory, so that evolution appears to be just an unsubstantiated guess dreamed up by atheists. Then present the normal back and forth debates of the scientists as evidence that they themselves don’t know what evolution is or how it works. Then insist that you have plenty of evidence for creation by an omnipotent (Christian) god, which actually consists of rehashing long discredited scenarios involving Noah’s flood. Next, appeal to the basic fairness of people, saying that your science is just as good as the evolutionists’ science, and therefore should be taught alongside it. Finally, when that does not work, and real scientists point out the ludicrous holes in your position, bypass the scientific establishment altogether and appeal to the legislature, whose members are always looking to curry favor with well connected constituent groups, and use them to force your creationist ideas into textbooks and school curricula.
So far, these attempts have been struck down by the Federal courts, first after the 1981 Louisiana law that required teaching creationism alongside evolution (and which was the reason for the creation of this book), and then with outcome of the 2004 Intelligent Design trial in Dover, Delaware. What has happened though, is that teachers, school boards, and textbook publishers, unwilling to face the wrath of evangelical churches and conservative parents, have quietly dropped evolution from the curriculum. If it gets mentioned at all it is often just a couple of quick sentences about “development,” and then on to the next topic. What’s more, the increasing ideological divide in society affects the court system as well, and judges are often chosen specifically for their political beliefs, so the issue of creationism could well come up again, and this time reason may not prevail. The creationists are playing the long game, waiting for the chance to get a court that will rule in their favor, and their ace in the hole is the Supreme Court, which drifts further rightward every year.
It is important not to lump all Christians together in the creationist swamp. Catholics, Jews, and mainstream Protestant churches are fine with the idea of evolution taking place over billions of years, they just say that it is directed by god. Only the fundamentalist sects, the kinds that wear their anti-intellectualism on their sleeve and believe in biblical literalism, oppose evolution in principle. According to the article “For Darwin Day, 6 Facts about the evolution debate” ( 11 Feb 2019) at pewresearchDOTorg, 38% of white evangelical Protestants and 27% of black Protestants believe humans have always existed in their present form. Somewhat more encouraging is the information that 81% of U.S. adults believe humans have evolved over time, 33% of which say it happened with no involvement by a creator, and 48% believe evolution was guided by god or a higher power.
In 1981 Act 590, the “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act” was introduced to the Arkansas legislature in the final days of its session, received only fifteen minutes of floor debate, and was signed by the governor who admitted he had not read it. The ACLU challenged the law based on its violating the First Amendment prohibitions against favoring religion. The state of Arkansas defended it, saying that creation science was in fact legitimate science and therefore was justified in being taught alongside evolution. The trial was from 7 to 17 December 1981, presided over by Judge William R. Overton. He issued his decision on 5 January 1982, finding for the plaintiffs that the law was in fact a disguised attempt to insert religion into the school curriculum, and issued an injunction prohibiting it from being enforced in the schools.
This book was published in 1984 under the editorship of anthropologist Ashley Montagu. It consists of eighteen essays, plus the full text of judge Overton’s decision. One might wonder why such a book would be needed at all, since most educated persons know something about evolution and its basis in science, and know that creation science/intelligent design is hogwash. However, this was not necessarily so clear in the early 1980s. The Scopes Monkey trial of 1925 was a distant memory, and a sizable majority of Americans favored “balanced treatment” of evolution and creation based on Creation Science’s highly publicized claims that they had solid proof of their position. Ronald Reagan had just come out saying that he favored teaching both.
The value of this book is that it provides a deep dive into its subject, a comprehensive look from a variety of perspectives. Some of the essays are written for a popular audience, such as those by Stephen Jay Gould and Isaac Asimov, and some address technical aspects of the subject, such as Sidney W. Fox’s Creationism and Evolutionary Protobiogenesis, a look at biochemistry and speciation which should put to rest once and for all the creationists’ claims that there are no intermediate fossils.
Other essays look at the chicanery behind creationism’s “scientific” claims; for instance, “If, as creationists argue, every natural object is evidence of design, and every evidence of design argues for the existence of a Designer, then everything that can be observed argues for the Designer. Thus the argument from design is tautological: one argues both from design to Designer and from Designer to design. But tautologies cannot be valid scientific explanations because they cannot be falsified. (p. 72-73; Robert Root-Bernstein: On Defining a Scientific Theory)
Although the creationists went to great efforts to distance themselves from authorship of Act 590 to try to maintain the fiction that it was motivated by reputable science, not religion, their previous writings clearly showed the driving force behind it. Henry Morris, head of the Institute for Creation Research, had written that “The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is the actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronologic problems thereby entailed.” (from The Remarkable Birth of the Planet Earth; cited in Kenneth R. Miller’s essay Scientific Creation Versus Evolution: The Mislabeled Debate, p. 56)
The scientific creationists do not pose and test alternative creation models. Doing science is not the business of scientific creationists; destroying the public credibility of evolution is their real goal. “New evidence,” the press is told, reveals “major weaknesses” in evolution. Oddly the creationist tactic of discovering controversies within evolutionary biology amounts to discovering that evolutionary biologists are guilty of doing science – posing, testing, and debating alternative explanations. (p. 171: Laurie R. Godfrey; Scientific Creationism: The Art of Deception)
They want to be seen as scientists, and tell the world that is what they are, but they then resort to special pleading to explain why the standards of the scientific process do not apply to them. As Ashley Montagu says in his introduction, “The scientist believes in proof without certainty, the bigot in certainty without proof.” (p. 9)
One of the most interesting essays is A Philosopher’s Day in Court, by philosopher and historian of science Michael Ruse, who was a member of the plaintiffs’ team and was one of the witnesses to take the stand. It is an entertaining look at the enormous amount of work that went into preparing for the trial, the strategies of both sides, and some of the personalities involved.
There is even a humorous take on the events, Gene Lyons’ Repealing the Enlightenment. He comments on the genesis of Act 590 by remarking that “Arkansans in general are probably no more ignorant than the American public at large, but all the ignoramuses do agree. Political tradition here pardons a legislator who votes on symbolic issues to sooth the prejudices of the mouth-breathing element in the dirt-road churches.” (p. 346) It reminded me of a quote by H. L. Mencken from the 1920s bemoaning the proliferation of colleges: “They are even spattered over such barbaric states as Mississippi and North Dakota, where it would be dangerous to be educated in any real sense.”
Judge Overton saw through the half-truths and evasions of the creationists, and his ruling is clear, tightly reasoned, and devastating. It is as close to literature as the judicial system gets, and can be summed up with his statement that, “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion he chooses, he cannot properly describe the methodology used as scientific if he starts with a conclusion and refuses to change it, regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.” (p. 352)
Not all of the essays here make for easy reading, but all are worth spending some time on. Creation Science, renamed as Intelligent Design, emerged again in 2004 and was once again struck down, but it will return under a new name and with a new strategy, and those who care about science and the education of our young people need to understand how it operates and how to respond.
June 12, 2018
This book is a collection of works by scientists, historians, and philosophers challenging creationism, now called intelligent design, but it is pretty much the same thing. The scientists work to defend evolution as a fact and evolution by natural selection under the modern synthesis with genetics as a correct theory. They also argue against the creationists attempts to discredit evolution in both its forms. The historians, one of whose field is religion, work to give the necessary background for understanding the creationism movement. Philosophers work to show the unsoundness and falsehood of the creationists’ arguments against and their challenging of the evidence for evolution. The decision of Judge William R. Overton that ruled an Arkansas law to demand equal time in science classes for evolution and creationism as unconstitutional is also included. It seems like this case was the major impetus for the book.
I have a number of comments on some of the text based on notes I took while I read the book. Page numbers appear in brackets [] before the cited text. Pagination is from the Oxford University Press’s hardbound edition of 1984.
[14] “In conclusion, on the matter of religion and science, it needs to be said that there is no real incompatibility between the two.” This was written in the introductory chapter by the book’s editor. First, I would say that not all the authors of the individual chapters would agree with this statement. And, I would add that I severely disagree with it. I am currently working on a blog post that explores this incompatibility. Religion needs supernatural sanction in order it to be followed by many people. Science searches out what the universe is up to with an often unstated methodological naturalism perspective. To some extent they rely on different epistemologies. Finally, religion is unproven, against any type of empirical evidence, where the bedrock of science acceptability is exactly this type of evidence.
[23] Like the editor, Kenneth R. Miller writes in a similar vein, “And finally, the attempt to pretend that evolution is an inherently atheistic theory (thereby calling all Christian citizens automatically to their camp) must be exposed and refuted. A critical fact which is often lost in the debate, namely the lack of of conflict between modern science (including evolution) and belief in God, must be brought out.” While, certainly some scientists have a belief in god of some sort, as a practicing scientist these beliefs have no bearing on the science they practice. Science, while not required of all scientists, has to maintain at the very least an agnostic attitude; there is no room for the supernatural.
[58-9] Miller continues later on “We would be foolish to maintain that our advancing understanding of the cosmos and the biological world in any way argues against the existence of God.” It certainly makes it untenable. At every scientific advance there is less and less for a god to do. The end result could be that there is no god. “I, like many other scientists, therefore see no conflict between my religious beliefs and the work of science.” But, maybe he should. “. . . the question of god is a nonscientific one and therefore is entirely beyond our reach as scientists.” And the reach of anyone else. Where is the evidence. I feel we have a case of wishful thinking here.
[81] Robert Root-Bernstein quotes H. M. Morris [who was at the time of the book was the director of the Institute for Creation Research (I have no idea if this is the case today)]: “If I lose faith with Genesis, I’m afraid I’ll lose my faith in the rest of the Bible; and if I want to commit larceny, I’ll say I don’t believe in the part of the Bible that says ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ Then I’ll go out and steal. The same thing applies to murder.” This is obviously false. There are many ex-believers, who never go on to steal or murder, or even consider it. It also points out how religious belief is steeped in fear.* And, it does not seem to prevent fundamentalist Bible believers from committing these acts.
[84] Root-Bernstein is another author in the book who sees no conflict between religion and science because they operate in different “domains.” Certainly, religion could never offer any kind of scientific explanation, and the work of scientists shows no evidence of god. Science demands evidence; religion has none. How is this not a conflict?
[140-1] Gunther S. Stent argues against sociobiology in human affairs. However, he presents no effective argument as to why it is false. Just the damage it could cause to our functioning in the moral realm. While, in some circles damage might be done, it is not the falsification of a scientific theory. Using atomic bombs certainly involves many moral issues, but these issues do not negate the science that provides the understanding to make them.
[245] L. Beverly Halstead quotes from Duane T. Gish’s Evolution? The Fossils Say No!
[365] William R. Overton “Decision of the Court” begins: “Judgement: Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion filed this date, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The relief prayed for is granted.” (my italics) How odd that the word “prayed” is used hear, given that it is a religious case, albeit, used in a different sense.
[Final Chapter] Finally, here Sidney Ratner gives a defense of naturalism and rationalism to the detriment to religion.
Despite my issues with the compatibilists in this book, which most of my comments seem to be related to, I found the book to present great defenses of evolution, and devastating critiques of creationism. Some of my favorite chapters were: Root-Bernstein’s “On Defining a Scientific Theory”; Stephen Jay Gould’s “Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Garrett Hardin’s “’Scientific Creationism’ - Marketing Deception as Truth”; Laurie R. Godfrey’s “Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion”; Sidney W. Fox’s “Creationism and Evolutionary Protobiogenesis”; Roger J. Cuffey’s “Paleontological Evidence and Organic Evolution”; and my favorite, Michael Ruse’s “A Philosopher’s Day in Court”. Because of the insistence in a number of chapters of the compatibility of science and religion I could not give this book four stars that these favorite chapters would demand with Ruse’s meriting five.
For those who are interested in the arguments against creationism and for evolution, albeit from somewhat dated material, which has historic interest, I could suggest the book. Creationists on the other hand would want to avoid it like a plague, since it in my opinion embarrasses them.
I have a number of comments on some of the text based on notes I took while I read the book. Page numbers appear in brackets [] before the cited text. Pagination is from the Oxford University Press’s hardbound edition of 1984.
[14] “In conclusion, on the matter of religion and science, it needs to be said that there is no real incompatibility between the two.” This was written in the introductory chapter by the book’s editor. First, I would say that not all the authors of the individual chapters would agree with this statement. And, I would add that I severely disagree with it. I am currently working on a blog post that explores this incompatibility. Religion needs supernatural sanction in order it to be followed by many people. Science searches out what the universe is up to with an often unstated methodological naturalism perspective. To some extent they rely on different epistemologies. Finally, religion is unproven, against any type of empirical evidence, where the bedrock of science acceptability is exactly this type of evidence.
[23] Like the editor, Kenneth R. Miller writes in a similar vein, “And finally, the attempt to pretend that evolution is an inherently atheistic theory (thereby calling all Christian citizens automatically to their camp) must be exposed and refuted. A critical fact which is often lost in the debate, namely the lack of of conflict between modern science (including evolution) and belief in God, must be brought out.” While, certainly some scientists have a belief in god of some sort, as a practicing scientist these beliefs have no bearing on the science they practice. Science, while not required of all scientists, has to maintain at the very least an agnostic attitude; there is no room for the supernatural.
[58-9] Miller continues later on “We would be foolish to maintain that our advancing understanding of the cosmos and the biological world in any way argues against the existence of God.” It certainly makes it untenable. At every scientific advance there is less and less for a god to do. The end result could be that there is no god. “I, like many other scientists, therefore see no conflict between my religious beliefs and the work of science.” But, maybe he should. “. . . the question of god is a nonscientific one and therefore is entirely beyond our reach as scientists.” And the reach of anyone else. Where is the evidence. I feel we have a case of wishful thinking here.
[81] Robert Root-Bernstein quotes H. M. Morris [who was at the time of the book was the director of the Institute for Creation Research (I have no idea if this is the case today)]: “If I lose faith with Genesis, I’m afraid I’ll lose my faith in the rest of the Bible; and if I want to commit larceny, I’ll say I don’t believe in the part of the Bible that says ‘Thou shalt not steal.’ Then I’ll go out and steal. The same thing applies to murder.” This is obviously false. There are many ex-believers, who never go on to steal or murder, or even consider it. It also points out how religious belief is steeped in fear.* And, it does not seem to prevent fundamentalist Bible believers from committing these acts.
[84] Root-Bernstein is another author in the book who sees no conflict between religion and science because they operate in different “domains.” Certainly, religion could never offer any kind of scientific explanation, and the work of scientists shows no evidence of god. Science demands evidence; religion has none. How is this not a conflict?
[140-1] Gunther S. Stent argues against sociobiology in human affairs. However, he presents no effective argument as to why it is false. Just the damage it could cause to our functioning in the moral realm. While, in some circles damage might be done, it is not the falsification of a scientific theory. Using atomic bombs certainly involves many moral issues, but these issues do not negate the science that provides the understanding to make them.
[245] L. Beverly Halstead quotes from Duane T. Gish’s Evolution? The Fossils Say No!
[365] William R. Overton “Decision of the Court” begins: “Judgement: Pursuant to the Court’s Memorandum Opinion filed this date, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The relief prayed for is granted.” (my italics) How odd that the word “prayed” is used hear, given that it is a religious case, albeit, used in a different sense.
[Final Chapter] Finally, here Sidney Ratner gives a defense of naturalism and rationalism to the detriment to religion.
Despite my issues with the compatibilists in this book, which most of my comments seem to be related to, I found the book to present great defenses of evolution, and devastating critiques of creationism. Some of my favorite chapters were: Root-Bernstein’s “On Defining a Scientific Theory”; Stephen Jay Gould’s “Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Garrett Hardin’s “’Scientific Creationism’ - Marketing Deception as Truth”; Laurie R. Godfrey’s “Scientific Creationism: The Art of Distortion”; Sidney W. Fox’s “Creationism and Evolutionary Protobiogenesis”; Roger J. Cuffey’s “Paleontological Evidence and Organic Evolution”; and my favorite, Michael Ruse’s “A Philosopher’s Day in Court”. Because of the insistence in a number of chapters of the compatibility of science and religion I could not give this book four stars that these favorite chapters would demand with Ruse’s meriting five.
For those who are interested in the arguments against creationism and for evolution, albeit from somewhat dated material, which has historic interest, I could suggest the book. Creationists on the other hand would want to avoid it like a plague, since it in my opinion embarrasses them.
August 21, 2014
This book came out as a result of Arkansas passing the "Balanced treatment for Creation Science and Evolution Science Act "in 1981 and the subsequent court case to overturn it. It is a selection of various essays on or about creation science and the court case. It is something of a rag bag. Everyone from George M Marsden to Stephen Jay Gould. But my favourite is Michael Ruse's "A philosophers's day in court" which shows the absurdity and dishonesty of Creationism.
September 24, 2017
Comprehensive look at "scientific"creationism & its ongoing destruction of true science in North America.
August 18, 2024
A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES CRITIQUING CREATIONISM
This 1984 collection includes essays by such persons as Ashley Montagu, Stephen Jay Gould, Kenneth Miller, Garrett Hardin, Isaac Asimov, Sidney Fox, Michael Ruse, etc.
Kenneth Miller's essay notes that Judge William Overton noted in his 1984 ruling against creationism, "Some of the state's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was 'close-minded' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation-science arguments. Yet no witness produced an article for which publication had been refused." Miller comments, "Obviously, Dr. [Duane] Gish and his associates have not availed themselves of the open platforms of scientific meetings and societies... but have taken their case to the general public." (Pg. 20)
Another essayist notes, "Twenty years after the publication of 'On the Origin of Species,' one might have thought that a form of theistic evolution was well on its way to acceptance among Bible-believing American Protestants... No better evidence of this can be found than the fact that in The Fundamentals... that gave the name to the fundamentalist movement, two of the three major discussions of science and religion allowed that the earth was far older than suggested by literal readings of Genesis, and that limited forms of evolution were compatible with design and theism." (Pg. 102)
Gould argues against the "sorting" of fossils proposed by Flood Geologists such as Henry Morris [The Genesis Flood'], "The lower strata abound in delicate, floating creatures, as well as spherical globs. Many oceanic creatures---whales and telost fishes in particular---appear only in upper strata, well above hordes of terrestrial forms. Clumsy sloths (not to mention hundreds of species of marine invertebrates) are restricted to strata lying well above others that serve as exclusive homes for scores of lithe and nimble small dinosaurs and pterosaurs." (Pg. 132)
Against Gish's contention that "Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in Precambrian rocks," an essayist points out, "This statement is entirely incorrect. The stromolites formed by ancient blue-green algae of the early Precambrian are well known throughout many sequences of Precambrian rocks from Australia, Canada, China, and many other regions. The later Precambrian is represented by a whole suite of multicellular animals... Precambrian fossils most definitely do exist." (Pg. 249)
Of the Creation/Evolution debates, "Afterward, Montagu said that he would never again engage in debate with any creationist. Why? 'Gish had agreed to limit his discussion to scientific "facts." Yet it was clear to everyone that what he was attempting was conversion to creationism---to prove his belief. This is neither honest nor scientific.' ... University of California geneticist G. Ledyard Stebbins also says that he will never debate ICR people again, particularly Morris and Gish. One reason---they are highly skilled and practiced debaters, and Stebbins admits that he is not. Another is that the house is usually packed with fundamentalist supporters carrying Bibles and frequently shouting 'Amen!' whenever ICR seems to score a point, an observation also made by Montagu." (Pg. 302)
This book is an excellent resource for anyone studying the Creation/Evolution issue.
This 1984 collection includes essays by such persons as Ashley Montagu, Stephen Jay Gould, Kenneth Miller, Garrett Hardin, Isaac Asimov, Sidney Fox, Michael Ruse, etc.
Kenneth Miller's essay notes that Judge William Overton noted in his 1984 ruling against creationism, "Some of the state's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was 'close-minded' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation-science arguments. Yet no witness produced an article for which publication had been refused." Miller comments, "Obviously, Dr. [Duane] Gish and his associates have not availed themselves of the open platforms of scientific meetings and societies... but have taken their case to the general public." (Pg. 20)
Another essayist notes, "Twenty years after the publication of 'On the Origin of Species,' one might have thought that a form of theistic evolution was well on its way to acceptance among Bible-believing American Protestants... No better evidence of this can be found than the fact that in The Fundamentals... that gave the name to the fundamentalist movement, two of the three major discussions of science and religion allowed that the earth was far older than suggested by literal readings of Genesis, and that limited forms of evolution were compatible with design and theism." (Pg. 102)
Gould argues against the "sorting" of fossils proposed by Flood Geologists such as Henry Morris [The Genesis Flood'], "The lower strata abound in delicate, floating creatures, as well as spherical globs. Many oceanic creatures---whales and telost fishes in particular---appear only in upper strata, well above hordes of terrestrial forms. Clumsy sloths (not to mention hundreds of species of marine invertebrates) are restricted to strata lying well above others that serve as exclusive homes for scores of lithe and nimble small dinosaurs and pterosaurs." (Pg. 132)
Against Gish's contention that "Not a single, indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in Precambrian rocks," an essayist points out, "This statement is entirely incorrect. The stromolites formed by ancient blue-green algae of the early Precambrian are well known throughout many sequences of Precambrian rocks from Australia, Canada, China, and many other regions. The later Precambrian is represented by a whole suite of multicellular animals... Precambrian fossils most definitely do exist." (Pg. 249)
Of the Creation/Evolution debates, "Afterward, Montagu said that he would never again engage in debate with any creationist. Why? 'Gish had agreed to limit his discussion to scientific "facts." Yet it was clear to everyone that what he was attempting was conversion to creationism---to prove his belief. This is neither honest nor scientific.' ... University of California geneticist G. Ledyard Stebbins also says that he will never debate ICR people again, particularly Morris and Gish. One reason---they are highly skilled and practiced debaters, and Stebbins admits that he is not. Another is that the house is usually packed with fundamentalist supporters carrying Bibles and frequently shouting 'Amen!' whenever ICR seems to score a point, an observation also made by Montagu." (Pg. 302)
This book is an excellent resource for anyone studying the Creation/Evolution issue.
Read
December 15, 2024Gave it three stars because it is a one-sided collection of long-refuted arguments against Creation science. I got it at a Christian bookstore and discovered it was a compilation of arguments for spontaneous unguided biogenesis. Having been a solid believer in spontaneous biogenesis and the so-called "Darwinian tree of life" in college, and at the time of reading this, had become a Christian.
So. I approached the reading, with a bit of trepidation even then, thinking there would be arguments difficult to refute, espcially after seeing the names of Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, whom I had held in high regard before.
I was actually disappointed in the essays against Creationism, especially Asimov's, because he only refuted that "God said" was not a convincing argument. DUH! STUPID argument, Asimov, since he based all his "logic" on the assertion that Creationists only use arguments that assume a priori that God did it, or the Bible says it. In other woords, a straw horse idea.
But Cretaion is much more than that. The essay trying to assume chemistry of inorganics building from amino acids are enough for spontaneous biogenesis to happen. There was nothing about how you could claim that the (1) totally symbolic language built up from four "letters" of the amino acid alphabet in the nucleotides of DNA, (2) the "translator" RNA, and (3) all the complex structures and their parts of the cell, (4) could form from primordial soup, or (5) or out of a non-oxygenated atmosphere that would tend to break down any proto-organic compound that "threatened" to appear without another proto-organic compound as catalyst.
So sponateous generation requires a three-legged stool that appears with all the three -legs of the stool at the same time.
Around the beginning of the 21st century, some millionaire donated a million dollars to Harvard University to come up with a credible theory of how life could have arisen from non-life. Still waiting. In the 1950s (or 1960s?) somebody started an experiment with a simple bacteria in a sealed environment to observe it over ensuing years, expecting to see some evolution. Many generations later, it is still the same type of bacteria, after many more generations than they conjecture for pre-human evolution.
So. I approached the reading, with a bit of trepidation even then, thinking there would be arguments difficult to refute, espcially after seeing the names of Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, whom I had held in high regard before.
I was actually disappointed in the essays against Creationism, especially Asimov's, because he only refuted that "God said" was not a convincing argument. DUH! STUPID argument, Asimov, since he based all his "logic" on the assertion that Creationists only use arguments that assume a priori that God did it, or the Bible says it. In other woords, a straw horse idea.
But Cretaion is much more than that. The essay trying to assume chemistry of inorganics building from amino acids are enough for spontaneous biogenesis to happen. There was nothing about how you could claim that the (1) totally symbolic language built up from four "letters" of the amino acid alphabet in the nucleotides of DNA, (2) the "translator" RNA, and (3) all the complex structures and their parts of the cell, (4) could form from primordial soup, or (5) or out of a non-oxygenated atmosphere that would tend to break down any proto-organic compound that "threatened" to appear without another proto-organic compound as catalyst.
So sponateous generation requires a three-legged stool that appears with all the three -legs of the stool at the same time.
Around the beginning of the 21st century, some millionaire donated a million dollars to Harvard University to come up with a credible theory of how life could have arisen from non-life. Still waiting. In the 1950s (or 1960s?) somebody started an experiment with a simple bacteria in a sealed environment to observe it over ensuing years, expecting to see some evolution. Many generations later, it is still the same type of bacteria, after many more generations than they conjecture for pre-human evolution.
April 22, 2018
Essays about the whole "creation science" endrun attempted around the Constitution by biblical literalists.
may-read
February 23, 2009I want to see what the evolutionists have to say about creationism, what their arguments are, what holes they see in the biblical story. I have no doubt that they have legitimate concerns, and I want to know what they are.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews