As part of the Darwin anniversary, there is a very interesting article on the Guardian Website today by Simon Moss. In this he compares the UK creationism community with that in the USA. It is an interesting comparison that has many similarities with other aspects of how things are done differently on either side of the Atlantic. The US creationist movement is a well organised and funded network with good political links; the UK are a group of poorly funded amateurs. The $26 million dollar creationism museum in the USA (designed by someone trained at Universal Studios) is contrasted with the UK creationist museum (yes there is one) in a converted disused bank building in Portsmouth.
However, the most interesting aspects of the article concern his interviews and observations of the creationism protagonists and their reaction to him. Why, for example, is Simon Moss not allowed to record a presentation by Todd Wood, director of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee? Perhaps this quote, reproduced by Moss might explain why. “Darwin’s was a sad life. He was a brilliant man who ignored the Lord’s pursuit of him. God was after him, but he allowed the hardships he faced [Wood is thinking principally of the death of Darwin’s young daughter] to harden him.” This seems to be a very vindictive God, but then at the extremes of monotheistic religion the believer seems to want a God that smites all who disagree with their particular beliefs.
The article is sympathetic to the creationists as human beings and explores where they find the faith that allows them to deny evolution and embrace the Young Earth hypothesis. The harshest words in the article are for “militant atheists” who are blamed by evolutionary theists (e.g. Michael Reiss and Ricard Harries) for playing into the hands of the (organised and US based) creationist lobby.
Thanks for that, Brian – interesting article. In my view the Dawkinsian branch of militant atheism has done science no favours. Whether or not it’s been a ‘recruiting sergeant’ for creationism I wouldn’t know, although I shouldn’t be surprised if it’s crystallized views in conventionally religious people who’ve never had to think about the issue before, and now they’ve been forced to, come down on the creationist side.
I had a relevant experience a few years ago at my (then) synagogue. This was a part of the small Liberal Judaism movement which is quite explicitly not literalist, and very friendly to modern science (see the official line on genetic research here). The rabbi, a former scientist, got me to give a post-service seminar on evolution and the fossil record as a way of promoting my book Deep Time (while another rabbi came along to show off his fossil collection).
It should be noted that the congregants of many Liberal synagogues, especially older people, are refugees from the much harsher Orthodox strand of Judaism. Some were genuinely shocked to learn that the the account in Genesis is not now thought to be literally true, as they had always assumed. These were intelligent, professional people, who were receptive to these new ideas, but who hadn’t been asked to confront them before in such a direct way. From this experince I suggest that addressing creationism in an aggressive and confrontational way is likly to backfire. Of course, one will never convince the hardliners, but if one can persuade the (presumably large number of) religious people who are open to reason of the evidence for evolution, then the fanatics can be marginalized.
The trouble with the militant atheist brigade is that they tend to grab the headlines, especially when RD is one of the few scientists with a media profile. It was their influence (in being able to grab the headlines) that forced Reiss out of the Royal Society post on education.
It was their influence (in being able to grab the headlines) that forced Reiss out of the Royal Society post on education.
I think history will show that the whole business of Reiss being forced out of the RS marks the beginning of the end of the RS as a credible entity that might exert any influence whatsoever. But, hey, no-one cares what I think. Carry on, everyone.
Whether or not it’s been a ‘recruiting sergeant’ for creationism I wouldn’t know
Sadly, I think its influence goes beyond conventionally religious people. Since they seem (even to me) as dogmatic and narrow-minded as the hardcore creationists they are crusading against, it’s easy to see how someone that hasn’t made up his mind yet about the controversy might as well asume that it really doesn’t matter which side you’re in. It’s kind of an arbitrary choice and all that matters is that once you have picked sides, you immediately start thoroughly trashing the other side by calling their names.
When they make you FRS, Henry, you’ll change your mind.
I think I’d be blackballed. Too Jewish.
… and to subvery Groucho Marx, I’m not sure I’d want to be in a club that wants me as a member. There goes the neighbourhood.
I think I’d be blackballed and we’re back to vasectomies.
You started it.
The main advice I had after mine was to lie down, flat on my back, for 48 hours, and not to lift anything more taxing than a teacup. This advice is hard to take as one feels entirely well, and indeed pleased that people are no longer sticking pins in sensitive parts of one’s frame.
A friend of mine chose to ignore this advice. Straight after the op he went to work, as a night-shift printer. The effect of standing up all night in front of a hot litho machine turned his balls to a couple of over-ripe avocadoes …
What’s this got to do with creationism, anyway?
Well, that hardly sounds like intelligent design now, does it?
(Badum, cha! Exits, stage left)
Oh my goodness, the comedian’s a bear!
No he’sa not – he’sa wearing a necka-tie
He’s here all week, folks.
Brian, what is a ‘militant’ atheist? One that expresses a concerned opinion? The problem here was arguably compounded by the media, which gets hold of such stories and shouts ‘Scrap, scrap!’ like kids in a school playground. The Royal Society then had to move to maintain its position and reputation in the public eye. Unfortunately for Reiss, he held a political position and made a politician’s mistake. It is worth noting that he had some sympathy from ‘militant’ Richard Dawkins, who was concerned about potential ‘witch-hunting’ by Richard Roberts, John Sulston and Harry Kroto.
I saw a great bumper sticker last week:
“MILITANT AGNOSTIC
I don’t know, and you don’t either"