![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In the interview in the January 2009 issue of Discover Magazine, Stanford's Professor Robert Proctor (who teaches the history of science) submits creationists' rejection of the Piltdown hoax as an example of good science coming from a strong, although incorrect, ideology. I submit that he is flatly wrong in, at the least, his choice of example.
Yes, creationists rejected the Piltdown skull as a fraud. They also rejected, and continue to reject, every other piece of data and scientific theory that contradicts their dogma that the Universe was created in seven days by divine fiat six thousand and twelve years ago. The mere fact that in the Piltdown case, they happened by sheer luck to be right that it was a fraud, doesn't make their rejection good science; in fact, it doesn't make it any kind of science at all, because their denial was based on dogma, not on scientific method. Their judgement on the Piltdown skull was made not for scientific, or even non-scientific reasons, but for actively anti-scientific reasons. It contradicted their dogma, and their dogma was by their definition unquestionably right, therefore the Piltdown skull was automatically and necessarily a fraud. It was not the "missing link" because, to them, no missing link could possibly exist.
Being right by sheer blind chance, one time in a hundred, for totally the wrong reasons, can't be good science — because it isn't science in the first place.
Minor Quibble
Re: Minor Quibble
I can do that. And for that, I have no qualms about describing myself as a Christian agnostic.
One of the things I especially love about Episcopalianism is its belief in triune dogma (and I don't mean dogma about the Trinity). In Episcopalianism, dogma must be supported by Scripture, by tradition, and by reason. If any piece of dogma fails on any of these three, it is considered suspect and not required belief of followers.
Re: Minor Quibble
Re: Minor Quibble
Re: Minor Quibble
Re: Minor Quibble
The great 20th century theologian Paul Tillich went so far as to say that no truly faithful Christian could ever assert the existence of God: that to assert God's existence was a slander to God's majesty. In Tillich's view, the proper Christian creed is not "God exists," but simply "God?"; the replacing of a declarative statement to our fellow man with a personal invitation to our Creator for a conversation.
I can't say as how I agree with Tillich wholeheartedly, but I do think that theologically speaking he raises some excellent points.
Re: Minor Quibble
I'm minded to quote Jethro Tull:
I don't believe you, you've got the whole damn thing all wrong
He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays...
Re: Minor Quibble
There's a greater problem, though, and I submit that it falls to Ockham's razor:
The world is full of creation myths, almost all of them incompatible, and almost all of which assert that they are the one truth and all others are false and heretical. In general, out of N faiths in the world, there are approximately N incompatible creation myths, for each of which n faiths assert its truth and N - n faiths deny it, where n is small compared to N. Further, in general they each assert that their version of events is not subject to logical proof or scientific verification, and must be taken solely on faith, even when they contradict scientific evidence and established theory.
The simplest and most obvious conclusion is that it is overwhelmingly likely that all of them are false.
Re: Minor Quibble
There are elements of science that can be profitably advanced by the application of religious writings. It is the religious supposings and creeds that are the problem.
I think your anti-religion hat is on too tight. There are some groups that still claim the earth is flat. They do not do so for religious reasons. You will have reactions against science theories from many sources, for many reasons, singling our religion as the only culprit does not acknowledge the entire set of resistance.