linuxmafia.com 2016/linuxmafia.com.tar/linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/creation.txt

Text File | 1996-02-19 | 9KB | 180 lines

CREATIONISM'S OTHER FACE

by Yves Barbero

"Follow the money!"

-Journalist's Maxim

Scientists all over the United States have stepped into the
breach and have spoken for evolution as fact and theory. The
need for them to step away from their instruments and address
this question has become clearly obvious.

While this is time consuming and takes them away from the
interesting activities they were trained for and prefer
doing, a failure to address the question would pose a
threat to the educational system and create misunderstandings
of their role and views by the public. The opposition
generates, both intentionally and unintentionally, a lot of
misinformation.

Quite aside from the heady victories science has experienced
in the courts and in public opinion in recent years, the
debate has served to heighten awareness of scientific issues
in general and the educational system in particular. It has
also made scientists better understand their role in the
public forum. Volunteer groups which have supported the
effort to keep scientific education "scientific" have
grown stronger and the members of these groups have benefited
in their individual educations. On the whole, they should be
grateful to the Scientific Creationists...

...Now if they would only go away.

Unfortunately, they won't and the fight is far from over.
Creationist groups will keep coming back again and again,
beating after beating, denunciation after denunciation until
(they hope) a more amenable government gives them the victory
they desire. They can only hope for a political victory.  As
of this writing, there isn't even a hint from the evidence
that science has a need to reverse itself on evolution.

And they can afford to wait. Their support and funds do not
come from the usual scientific sources but from supporters
who have a predisposition as to the "scientific"
conclusions they will reach. (Would a proper research
institution accept money on the grounds that certain
conclusions be reached or verified?)

At this point, I depart from the usual presentation of
scientific evidence (there are people better equipped for
this role) and from the politeness of assuming honest motives
on the part of the professionals who support Scientific Creationism.
To be sure, there are some who genuinely "believe." But for the
majority, a cynicism has crept into the lecture circuit.

After all, giving lectures for fee or selling books beats
working for a living or the anonymity of a colorless job. The
temptation of public notoriety can be overwhelming to some.
On top of that, it's difficult for an individual who has
invested years of his life to suddenly thrust it aside and
admit defeat. If scientists can hold on to notions long past
their useful life (history is full of such examples), and
even if we were to assume sincerity on the part of
professional Creationists, can we expect better from the
untrained?

Sincerity is usually assumed of the rank and file believers
in Scientific Creationism because they donate time and
money without reward (except perhaps some sort of
fellowship). That's fair enough. Their leaders, however, are
better rewarded (and often better educated). If sincerity has
been assumed of them, it's been more because scientifically-
oriented groups acknowledge that they can't read minds and
are wary (however tempted) to ascribe motives to others.
Trained in the scientific method, they are cognizant of the
hazards of "assuming" anything. On top of that, most
have middle-class backgrounds and have the habit, part and
parcel with that background, of fair play. Finally, let's not
forget the legal hazards of assuming anything but sincerity
unless (like here) we speak in general terms.

Let us, for the moment, resolve to be made of sterner stuff
and examine the powerful underlining motivations which could
prevent a change in lifestyles by the Creationist should he
become convinced of the error of his ways.

Unlike the atheist who suddenly sees the light, he cannot
come sobbing to the nearest scientific conference and give
testimony. His potential colleagues will still expect him to
come up with original research and produce some sort of
legitimate credentials. A former hydraulic engineer will not
be accepted into a crowd of zoologists without going back to
school. Scientists, however foolish the notion, usually
prefer merit to ideological solidarity.

The former Creationist (often in middle age) will have to
stop selling books (although one bearing his testimony of how
he changed his mind might find a modest place) and avoid the
lucrative lecture circuit (although he might be invited to
lecture on what changed his mind for the usual fee paid
speakers at scientifically-oriented volunteer groups - a beer
after the talk).

The Creationist would certainly lose prestige as well as
followers. He would be denounced by his former flock and
possibly be subject to the violence of the more fanatical
elements of that flock (something to think about in America).

Mailing lists, the backbone of any American enterprise, would
be lost. Checks would stop coming in. Without the mailing
lists, the politicians who once came courting would now send
form letters.

Political agendas, as everyone knows, come in clusters. The
guy who's willing to mess around with the First Amendment by
disguising a religious idea, however meritorious, as a
scientific theory, usually has (to put it politely) a very
eclectic political agenda. Giving up one part is likely to
bring down the house of cards. Historically (meaning, without
rational cause), Creationists have seen themselves as
conservatives (to the embarrassment of Barry Goldwater and
other real conservatives) and they may feel that giving up
one facet of a political ideology will require them to become
bleeding-heart whatevers. Because facets of the Creationist's potpourri
of right-wing reactionary political beliefs are not dealt
with on a day-to-day analytical basis, he may actually retain them
after giving up beliefs that he can analyze...Creationism.
This becomes a powerful motive to continue preaching an absurdity.

It is human nature to turn on sincerity, whatever the person
really thinks, whenever arguing for a point. Thus, our
Creationist, from the evidence that he must have come across,
may have become convinced that Creationism is nonsense while retaining
other facets of his cluster of ideology. But in order to do his
"job," he must perform a "mini-brainwash" on himself to be convincing.
(The used car dealer, knowing he's selling lemons, will first convince
himself that the cars are wonderful before approaching a mark. He
understands that you're really selling yourself.) An emotional motive,
that of retaining an ideology, combined with financial incentive can
make a person spin his wheels for a long time.

In addition, there is the "in-group" phenomenon. Whenever
a group with minority views is suddenly thrust into the lime-
light, as Creationists have been, everything is reduced to
two-minute bites in order to fit into the public media. They
have to get our attention instantly to be heard. If the group
is relatively tiny, as are the Creationist professionals (we
must remember that they exist outside of mainstream religious
thought), they don't have the panorama of peers or the stacks
of professional publications to keep them in check or force
them to think out their ideas as scientists and mainline
theologians would have and they begin to mistake slogans and
ad hoc conclusions for reality during those moments when they
have to turn on "sincerity."

Let's not forget the personal problems this can also cause.
Creationists share, as with most people, a social life
oriented around their interest. Even confidence people who
know and acknowledge that they operate outside the law have
their own internal rules of behavior when dealing with each
other. Creationists would have to give up friends and lovers.

All the court decisions and scientific ridicule; all the
legislative acts and removal of certifications will do
nothing to stop them and will barely slow them up. What will
stop them, in the long run, is the better scientific
education of our children. When the checks stop coming from
below, they will find other, hopefully honest, work.

Copyright (c) 1990 Yves Barbero

Published in BASIS, Bay Area Skeptics Information Sheet
                    4030 Moraga
                    San Francisco, CA 94122

                    415-LA-TRUTH


                              -end-