Replies

Actually, it was written in 1981, but published in 1984. And the creationists haven't changed a word of their "science." They just get more strident.

I'm surprised I haven't seen this composition before, since I've always been such an Asimov fan. I'm even more surprised to find that I disagree with some of his analysis, especially regarding the second law of thermodynamics as it applies to the question of evolution.

However, rather than argue all the points of creationism vs. evolution, I would just like to point out an intersting aspect of this whole discussion.

Those who believe in Creationism do so as an article of faith. It cannot be proven, anymore than the existence of God can be proven. This is well known, and one of the main reasons that believers of Evolution scoff at Creationists. However, how many people out there, who unquestioningly accept Evolution as the answer to our existence, really understand the nature of the theory? Even Darwin's theory is not generally taught in any great depth in high school or college (undergraduate level), and the modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's original theories by leaps and bounds. Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

I will say that I think the 'scientific' approach to Creationism is more of an attempt to bypass the current extremely anti-religious interpretations of the Constitution than it is real science, since the best that Creationist science could hope to achieve is to disprove evolution.

However, how many people out there, who unquestioningly accept Evolution as the answer to our existence, really understand the nature of the theory? Even Darwin's theory is not generally taught in any great depth in high school or college (undergraduate level), and the modern theory of evolution is different from Darwin's original theories by leaps and bounds. Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

This is just the inverse of Asimov's Argument by General Consent. If there are people that accept the theory of evolution without understanding it, it is no reflection upon the 'Theory' or the 'Science' that supports it. Anymore than if some people think Doug Henning performs actual magic.

You are 'Equivocating' the meaning of the word 'faith' based upon the misconception or misunderstanding of some person's understanding of evolution. Which is why I said it was the inverse of Asimov's argument.

The assertion that "accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science" is no reflection upon the theory itself and the idea that it 'resembles faith' is just an opinion. And one which, seen strictly from a scientific point of view, is wrong.

I will say that I think the 'scientific' approach to Creationism is more of an attempt to bypass the current extremely anti-religious interpretations of the Constitution than it is real science, since the best that Creationist science could hope to achieve is to disprove evolution.

Since neither creation nor evolution can be duplicated, and given that there is no other scientific model (they are not theories because they cannot be actually tested), disproving the opposing postition is really the only option for conclusively establishing your own view. Based on the evidence, the creation/intelligent design side has done a much better job than the evolution side. There is no evidence which disproves creation, but there are plenty of questions about evolution for which there are no good answers. Behe's Darwin's Black Box is just example, and Behe has not claimed to be a creationist. He simply points out scientific evidence which would preclude macro-evolution. If macro-evolution is not possible, that leaves creation as the only current reasonable explanation.

Therefore, most fervent supporters of evolution, lacking any real understanding of what current evolutionary theory is, are accepting the theory on a basis that resembles faith rather than a true understanding of science. Why, then, are they so disdainful of those who accept creationism based on faith?

Probably because they're at least listening to scientists on a scientific subject.