Howdy!
I am a creationist, but I am uncomfortable in many
respects with much of the current creationist's
anti-science dialogue, and so I hesitate to connect myself
with the current "creationism wave". Nevertheless, I have a
few things to say and want to state outright where I'm
coming from, so I will declare myself a creationist. I
would like to add, however that I find that the most
successful evolutionary science challenges my beliefs in
the strongest way. Consequently, not without some
frequency, I re-think what I believe and why. The process
can be painful at times; nevertheless, often the most
painful process leads to the most valuable discoveries. The
net result is that certain aspects of my creationist view
become stronger, while other parts either become less
important, or discarded as, I cross paths with evolutionary
science. I think that is as it should be.
At heart, and in practice, I suppose that I am more of a
philosopher than a scientist. I am an associate professor
in the chemistry department of a small (religious) liberal
arts college, nationally recognized for academics.
I have been reading the comments on Popper vs. "real"
science and found them very informative. The analogy of the
teacher/ janitor was lucid. However, in every school, in
addition to janitors, there are parents and school boards.
Many janitors are parents, and I would imagine that there
might even be an executive of a janitorial company, or even
a janitor, sitting on the board of one or two schools
somewhere. Evolutionary science is not so far removed (in
my humble opinion) as it would suppose, from those elements
of the social web (including, philosophy and/or religion)
that it might sometimes like to see itself as distant from.
Science may be a big fish, but I contend, arguably, that
society is a lot smaller fish bowl than science often likes
to acknowledge.
One protest that I have about evolutionary science as I
have encountered it, is the way that even though it has
effectively eliminated dependence upon the "divine" in its
methodology for acquiring knowledge, it frequenlty ignores
the fact that it is still a only a human enterprise.
Science pretty much takes the attitude that what is
knowable can be known ONLY by its methodologies, and that
exclusively, whatever it assumes or discovers must be of
ultimate validity. What I like about Popperism, is that it
suggests some restrictions on what science can be expected
to achieve which are at least secular and therefore I would
expect palettable to science and scientists. I am disturbed
by any enterprise which feels it must exclude itself
completely from accountability or validity testing other
than by its own internally prescribed methods. This seems
to be assuming rather "divine" perogatives and the result
is a rather parochial approach to gaining knowledge.
On a related issue, as a creationist, I am puzzled over
the extent to which even serious evolutionary scientists
exhibit at least some degree of anxiety over creationism
(as an approach to understanding, not as a social force),
in that evolutionary science frequently justifies itself on
the standard of overcoming "creationist" or other
metaphysical approaches. Why the anxiety?
Moreover, I am surprised to observe the extent to which
evolutionary science at times seems to be still struggling
to "gain a foothold" or "prove itself", even though it has
so successfully entrenched itself in society. It's sort of
like listening to a divorcee go on and on about the
ex-spouse, even 10 years after the divorce.
Cheers!
MM
