At 05:40 PM 8/29/2005, Del Thomas Ph. D. wrote:
Hi,
I'm getting double and triple mail that seems to defy what we know about time.
Gerry Grzyb wrote:
At 10:51 AM 8/29/2005, Del Thomas Ph. D. wrote:
A recent report found that 90+ Americans believed that the universe was
created by a supreme being. I have no more information, and it could be spin.
However, there have been a series of "findings" indicating that close to
half the population has been born again and or rejects Darwin.
Students and sociologists will be included
in these findings. That leads me to the following questions.
1. Can you be a sociologist and believe that the universe was created
by a supreme being?
Sure. Sociology has nothing to say about the origin of the universe--it
isn't even an object of scientific inquiry for sociology.
If the universe was created by a supreme being Darwin would not be correct.
Define "created." I see no conflict whatever between the idea of a
creator (or creators) setting the evolutionary process in motion, and Darwin.
With out Darwin there is no science of sociology.
How so?
As such, sociology can neither confirm or deny such a belief. More
generally, any scientist could hold such a belief since there is no way
for such a belief to be subjected to a scientific evaluation of evidence.
There are ample ways to test this question. The use of Hubble has bee able
to see back 10 billion + years. Durkheim distinguished between the
created, mechanical and the evolving, organic. Things that are created or
made behave differently from things that happen.
That assertion (and that's all it is) is based on a very narrow definition
of creation, and I doubt it will hold up to scrutiny. For example, people
create organizations all the time, and then they often proceed to
"happen"--sometimes quite contrary to the intentions of their
creators. The social world is full of such examples, where "create" and
"happen" become hard to distinguish.
Science is usually based on observation of happenings.
As opposed to things created? Again, I don't think that is a defensible
point.
The problems arise when believers convince themselves (and try to
convince others) that their beliefs ARE based upon scientific
research. As such, a big part of my job is just to get students to see
the difference between scientifically-established fact and belief.
I personally believe in a jolly, roly-poly, red-coated guy with a beard
who brings an end to every fall semester just before I go nuts.
Oddly part of my comments were a result of Brock Chisolm's paper on world
mental health. He cites Santa as the first of many lies in the adopting
process, handing down information
to the next generation that is not to be tested or adapted. He says it
much much better.
Santa? What Santa? I was talking about the guy who closes up the
residence halls and forces students to return home for clean clothing
between semesters (we've got a 6-7 week break).
Gerry Grzyb
