Australian geologists still oppose creationism (Creationism Response)

From the website http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/12/australian-geologists-still-oppose-creationism-003448

The Geological Society of Australia recently updated its policy statement (PDF) on science education and creationism. A previous version of the statement (reprinted in the third edition of NCSE's Voices for Evolution) from 1995 read, in part, "The Geological Society of Australia considers that notions such as Fundamental Creationism, including so called 'Flood Geology', which disregard scientific evidence such as that based on repeatable observations in the natural world and the geological record, are not science and cannot be taught as science ... The Society states unequivocally that the dogmatic teaching of notions such as Creationism within a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of objective public education. ... the Society dissociates itself from Creationist statements made by any member."

In my last two posts I mentioned the need to include creationism as a topic of teaching in public schools. I mentioned that it is a topic that people talk of in society, but much more it is a topic intrinsically involved in the history of Western Society. I suggested that there should be academic freedom for teachers to compare and contrasts ideas related to life issues including creationism and evolution.

I would elaborate upon my post in regards to geological science. Should teachers feel threatened to totally avoid hundreds of years of scientific inquiry into flood geology based upon the Bible? It is understood that modern science is defined by the principal of natural methodology. This view contrast Francis Bacon's popularity with the empirical method of science. What better way to define natural science by contrasting it with what is assumed to be supernatural flood geology.

When Charles Lyell promoted uniformitarianism in the nineteenth century, catastrophism was the predominant view in scholarly writings for nearly two centuries. Even today’s geologists must admit that fossils are the product of floods. Tertullian, in the second century CE, wrote that the traces of marine fossils in the mountains were proof of a worldwide flood. While biased by biblical texts, the view of fossils being the remnant of former living things counteracted the view that fossils were mere naturally designed rocks.

Lyell's disdain for flood geology catastrophism was noted in his biased conclusions. These conclusions were affected by his Christian doctrine belief in deism. Deism teaches that God has no direct interference in the affairs of humans. Everything was created and the creator sits back and does not get involved. The biblical miracles are stripped away from its pages and interpreted in allegory. Michael Ruse in his book Evolutionary Wars called Lyell's geology as 'deism in the stones.' This bias has been recognized as detrimentally effecting geological science as observed by evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.

In fact the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to record catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped away...to circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination on the evidence...the catastrophists were the hard-nosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists. { Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History (New York:W.W. Norton, 1977), 150.}

Teachers Should Have Academic Freedom
In conclusion, flood geology has been treated like science in the past by the majority of scholars. While this is dismissed in modern academia the tenants of catastrophism should be discussed in comparison and contrasts with uniformitarianism. If the late Stephen Jay Gould would acknowledge Charles Lyell’s religious bias, biases in modern science should be discussed today. No one comes to the table of science teaching without bias.

Teachers are not mere robots but people like their students who have to deal with life. Education is all around us not only on an objective level but also a subjective level. Subjective personal biases should be expressed in order for objective learning to take place. Teachers should have the freedom to express creationism and flood geology from a historical reference but also from personal bias.

This posting was written by John Martin. www.creationmoment.blogspot.com.
Stephen Jay Gould Photo Credit Kathy Chapman