From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Evolutionism as Cultural Imperialism
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:12:47 GMT

In article <1ivqrv$fdq@agate.berkeley.edu> philjohn@garnet.berkeley.edu (Phillip Johnson) writes:
>  A professor of science and philosophy -- who shall here remain
>nameless -- sent me the following report on his visit to New
>Zealand:  

	[Claims that NZ academia is excessively pro-Maori and kowtows
to Maoris trying to give themselves some old-time religion...]

	[To me, this whole article is reminiscient of certain
PC-bashers' claims, which makes me a bit suspicious.]

	There was mention of some Maoris' belief that man is spirit
and cannot be descended from the apes. It is clear that there are
Maori fundamentalists also :-)

	"Multiculturalism" may be a fine slogan, but I think that
there are inevitable limits to that. What about cultures which feature
bigotry about other cultures? And what about factual questions, like
evolution?

	[On how large numbers of Americans supposedly reject
evolution...]

	What would be interesting would be to find out how many know
what evolution is supposed to be, and what the various proposed
mechanisms are (natural selection, Lamarckism, Exogenous Genetic
Engineers, etc.). Or how many really understood the question at all. A
lot of people seem to think that human evolution is the most important
question, but despite its obvious interest, the large majority of
evolutionary research is done on species other than ours.

	Philip Johnson, if you seriously believe in deciding truth by
majority vote, then why don't you consult your friendly neighborhood
astrologer? A large number of people profess belief in astrology, and
there are probably many more firm believers than firm skeptics, so
according to your argument, we ought to take astrology seriously.

>Conversely, most of the intelligentsia apparently despise their
>countrymen.    

	Not at all. People who are educated and who have learned a lot
have a tendency to look down on those who fall for seemingly silly
beliefs. Philip Johnson, what do you think about flat-earthers?
Believers in astrology? Velikovsky's theories?

>   "As Ronald L. Numbers remarks in "The Creationists,"
>"Academics who would have no trouble empathetically studying
>15th-century astrology, 17th-century alchemy or 19th-century
>phrenology seem to lose their nerve when they approach 20th-
>century creationism and its fundamentalist proponents. The
>prevailing attitude . . . is that 'we've got to stop the
>bastards.' "

	Because too many creationists seem like obnoxious,
self-righteous pests. I don't think I've seen too many obnoxious pests
among astrology advocates. If only they were a lot more civilized,
then they would be easier to deal with. After all, nobody has ever
tried to outlaw the teaching of standard astronomy on the grounds that
astrology is the *TRUTH*. Or else demand equal time in all publicly
funded education for teaching astrology.

	Sure, some scientists may seem indignant, but the fact that
some scientists were very indignant over the publication of
Velikovsky's _Worlds in Collision_ does not mean that Velikovsky was
right or that his books were anything more than a laugh (Hydrocarbons
== carbohydrates? Did he put gasoline into his coffee??). I may note
that Velikovsky's book was hailed in some circles as containing great
new discoveries that seemed to demonstrate that the bible contains a
_lot_ of literal truth, and do you believe in Velikovsky's theories?

	[Some feeling sorry for some creationists omitted...]

	They're not worth wasting any sympathy on as long as they
behave the way they do.

	Astrologers don't bother other people, and personally I find
Sun Signs almost too silly to take seriously.

>     * * * "It does not follow that creationists are wrong, or
>that they deserve the label "pseudoscientist" merely because
>their theories are not ones that those outside their churches
>would find plausible.

	Just because some religion says so doesn't make it right.
Philip Johnson, I'm sure that you don't accept the claims of religions
other than yours. Do you believe that Jesus Christ's father was a
Roman soldier? The Talmud says so. Do you believe that Jesus Christ
never died for anybody's sins and was lifted up into Heaven? The Koran
says so. And do you believe that the miracles of the Bible and the
creation story in Genesis to be purely allegorical, as some do?

... Someone who believes that Genesis is, in
>effect, an eyewitness account is bound to seek other explanations
>of biological and geological data than other theorists do.

	And someone who believes that astrology has good predictive
power will come to believe that there are some otherwise unknown
influences from the heavenly bodies (Gravity is just too damn weak).

	Does that mean that astrology is worth investigating?

	Same for Velikovskyism.

>Outsiders like myself may prefer to doubt the premise, but that
>too is not a scientific decision. It is not unscientific even to
>maintain one's trust in the eyewitness when we cannot resolve the
>apparent contradictions between that testimony and the rocks'.
>Plenty of now-fashionable theories were maintained in the teeth
>of evidence and unresolved paradox because the theorists had
>faith.

	Oh, those orthodox oxen!

	There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox!

	Try something better next time.

	And will astrology become someday fashionable?

... In earlier centuries the common origin of humankind was
>chiefly maintained by scientists loyal to the Hebrew Scriptures.

	And I may add that those who believed in the multiple origin
of humanity often believed that Adam and Eve were only the ancestors
of all the white people. How do you like that?

>Similar loyalists may yet prove all others wrong, even if we
>could not have guessed, without the help of Scripture, that they
>were."  [end of quote]

	Which "Scripture"? Why not ask our good friend Kalki Dasa
about what Hindu Scripture teaches?

>     Comment: Scientific naturalists who ascribe all dissent from
>their views to ignorance or prejudice should practice seeing
>themselves as others see them.

	Same to you. If you think that advocates of evolution should
be more polite, then say so directly.

... Important voices in the academic
>now see this scientific triumphalism as cultural imperialism, and
>historians of the next century may compare our aggressive science
>educators to the most dogmatic missionaries of the 19th century. 

	What "important voices"? One might criticize the scientific
community for seeming snotty, but what does that have to do with
truth?

>The missionaries had their infallible source of knowledge (the
>Bible), and the science educators have their own counterpart --
>the scientific way of thinking, which incorporates naturalism as
>an assumption not to be questioned.  Both groups tended to be
>blind to the subjective or culturally conditioned elements in
>their own thinking, and both shared a tendency to get very angry
>when faced with recalcitrant unbelievers.  Finally, I think that
>both would be equally offended at an outsider's suggestion that
>they have more in common with each other than they think.

	You criticize those who wave the Bible around as infallible.
Does that mean that you consider the Bible fallible in some way?

	Philip Johnson, will you please enlighten us all about the
parts of the Bible you consider flawed or erroneous or whatever.

>     Further comment: If one wants to persuade people, as opposed
>to merely browbeating them, one has to start by achieving a
>sympathetic understanding of their point of view.

-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov