Hi On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, David L Gent wrote: > I have been interested in Creationism and Creation Science > for some time now and interestly this last week or so - for > the first time ever that I can recall - it has become an > educational issue in the British media. There is a school > teaching creationism alongside evolution. In fact because > it's been in the media I have become aware that there are > several such schools including Muslim schools teaching from > the Koranic rather than Biblical perspective.
I believe that overall levels of religiousness tend to be lower in Europe than in North America, which perhaps has explained the failure of this issue to arise so strongly there. It would not be surprising if it was an issue for more religiously-oriented groups in those countries, such as those mentioned. > One thing people who lecture on creation-science will tell > you is that they meet, from time to time, science > professionals and students who say that they have questions > about the scientific orthodoxy and perhaps even could be > convinced by the creation science arguments - but they will > never say so in public because they want to finish their > course, keep their job, get promotion and avoid the general > opprobrium that would follow. It would not be surprising for people who endorse creationism in education to say such things. (1) They appear willing to say many things that simply are not true (e.g., claims about inadequacies of evolution to explain certain things). (2) Many of them would lack the scientific training that would permit them to know when such claims were supportable or not (i.e., they would be susceptible to anecdotal evidence). > Naturally and inevitably this is anecdotal and of course > there are no references to support it. Naturally too it > doesn't happen that often I don't suppose but it is a clear > illustration of conformity at work. And probably other psychological processes with respect to those making the claim. > On the same lines - and again without references - there are > those who claim that after winning a Nobel Prize noted and > successful scientists often seem to come out with what are > seen as 'wacky' theories. Could it be that the objective and > observable success acts as a buffer allowing non-conformist > statements to be made with less risk. Surveys have consistently shown that exceptional scientists are even less religious than conventional scientists, who are in turn less religious than the general population. So it would be surprising if the "wacky" theories were of a religious sort (e.g., creationism), although there are undoubtedly exceptions. When (if?) "wacky" theories do come from previously-sound minds, other explanations (i.e., other than conformity) might include: (1) grandiosity (i.e., their previous successes have blinded them to the fundamental flaws that often affect human judgment), (2) boredom (i.e., they have "grasped" the fundamentals and are looking for another great challenge ... I wondered this about a notable psychologist who bizarrely support psychic ideas later in his career), and (3) comfort needs (i.e., they have a natural desire that there be something after death). Beside the alternative explanations, I would be cautious about using this as an example of conformity in lectures because it might give students erroneous ideas, such as: (1) that science inhibits the expression of religious or other "unorthodox" ideas, and (2) that those suppressed ideas are secretly believed to be correct by large numbers of scientists. Best wishes Jim ============================================================================ James M. Clark (204) 786-9757 Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax University of Winnipeg 4L05D Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED] CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark ============================================================================ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
