From: stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead)
Newsgroups: sci.geo.geology
Subject: Re: Planet Earth
Keywords: religion science myth
Date: 5 Jan 93 17:49:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.180256.10938@mailer.cc.fsu.edu>, cain@geomag.gly.fsu.edu (Joe Cain) writes:
> In article <51721@seismo.CSS.GOV> stead@skadi.CSS.GOV (Richard Stead) writes:
> >In article <1992Dec29.062126.3820@Princeton.EDU>,
> >frank@wanda.princeton.edu (Frank Bilotti) writes:
> 
> regarding Cesare Emiliani's "Planet Earth" Cambridge U. Press, 1992.
> 
> >> In article <1992Dec29.050047.14921@netcom.com> Andrew L. Alden,
> >> alden@netcom.com writes:
> >> >His book was written because, he points out, science now has a complete
> >> >explanation of the universe in all four dimensions that is authoritative
> >> >and should supersede every religious myth.

> 	I did not interpret the text as being so conclusive as having
> all the anwers.

I glad it's not.  That's properly scientific.

> >I have not yet seen this book, but it appears from these comments that the
> >author has levelled a blast against religion in general.  I do not think
> >that science should be in the business of doing this.  Science should only
> >respond when religion makes claims about science.  Good examples would be
> >the age of the earth and firewalking.  But attacking religion in general
> >in the name of science is wrong, and is one of the main reasons the general
> >public views science with such suspicion and paranoia.
> 
> 	You are guilty of making assumptions with few facts,

I made no assumptions.  I commented on other people's comments about the book
and the negative implications I feel such a book would have, given such
comments.  As it turned out, people were mixing their personal knowledge
of Emiliani with the contents of the book, and such were not well-separated
in the reviews of the book posted here.

> especially not having read even its first chapter. He merely points out
> that religion has been a sometimes creative substitute for
> understanding our physical universe before that understanding was
> possible.

I'm happy you used the word "sometimes" here.  It is important to note
the that the interface between religion and science differs between
religions and even within religions.

> 	Having a significant number of students who enter my planetary
> geology class from a creationist environment I understand that one
> does science no good and religion no harm by disputing religious
> myths. One tragedy of modern times is the increasing dissociation of

I agree 100% as long as such dispute is done correctly.  As I pointed out,
the age of the earth is an excellant example (and I should note, an
example where a scientist with only modest knowledge of religion can
dispute this on theological grounds as well, if a student is persistant).
If scientifically incorrect religious claims (I hesitate to use the
value-laden "myth") are properly disputed, it is my opinion that this
is actually healthy for religion.

> people between fantasy and the physical world. For Emiliani to give a
> very short summary of the way different religions have taken an interest
> in the workings of nature is an appropriate preface to his tome. More

I couldn't agree more.  Dott and Batten's "Evolution of the Earth" has been
used for years and deals with this problem in several chapters.  I think
they do a pretty good job.  It would be interesting to see a treatment
that dealt with more than just Genesis, but in teaching geology this
is the only conflict that counts:  the age of the earth was scientifically
developed in a culture in which practically the only religion was
Christianity.  So that was the conflict.  Discussion of conflict with
Hindu interpretations, or Islam, or what have you, might be interesting,
but are not germaine to the subject.

> writers of historical geology should follow his lead, though perhaps
> they would not be so enamored of Greek mythology.

Dott and Batten came first (1971), and even Press and Siever ("Earth")
spend a few paragraphs in discussion of this point.  You are correct - they
ignore classical mythology.  I think it is important that students of geology
understand how the genesis age of the earth was developed and why (and not
just wave it off as "primitive" or "myth"), and how modern knowledge of
the age of the earth was developed, how it supplanted the genesis age
and missteps made along the way.  It is important toward developing critical
geologic thinking.


--
Richard Stead
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA
stead@seismo.css.gov