What's new in exploration
Breathtaking inanity.
An infinite pyramid of turtles does not at all surprise me as an explanation of how the Earth “works.” The above story was made famous by Stephen Hawking. I heard a version of it many years ago, told to me as a religious belief of some Native American tribe. I suppose it depends on how you were raised. I’ve been reading a lot about the latest incarnation of the Creationist movement, called “Intelligent Design.” The American Geological Institute has been a consistent, outstanding voice for the G&G community, regularly reporting on the problem, the political progress in each state, and sometimes taking action, as has the Geological Society of America, SEPM and many other science organizations. A majority of US states have Creationist battles ongoing. Although there are pockets spread throughout Europe and the world, this battle with science is only a problem with the Abrahamic religions and, overwhelmingly, an American problem. Various polls in the US consistently show that the Creationists are winning. Evolution, the young Earth, and God knows what else, will likely, eventually be taught as science. I have to wonder what effect this might have on some future exploration geologist applying for a job some 20 years hence. I fear that the oily G&G community will probably lose this battle and all that comes with it, because we just don’t want to waste time on something that we think is ridiculous. The other side knows this. There was a good report last September by David Brown in AAPG’s Explorer. He pointed out that the “creationist movement is well funded, politically savvy and extremely well organized.” In contrast, scientific opposition is “ad hoc, with no budget.” The goal of the Creationist groups is to begin with the easiest thing to sell politically – that humans and apes did not have a common ancestor, and then move on from there to proffer other Genesis explanations of the natural world. Here are the tools that they use. First, create an argument, then find a few “scientists” who support their side, then portray it so that it appears to a layperson as having equal footing with science. Next, use the phrase “only a theory” as a synonym for a guess. (I once wrote that we need a new word, since the scientific definition of theory has nothing to do with the lay sense of the word.) And the latest marketing tool is the phrase “different views.” It sounds so reasonable to the lay: The Earth is thousands of years old; the Earth is billions of years old – different views. All life evolved from the simplest of organisms over billions of years; humans instantly appeared 10,000 years ago – different views. The Earth is round; the Earth is flat – different views. To be fair, there are no monoliths here. There are deeply religious people who believe that any timeframes given in the Old Testament are figurative, not literal. Others agree, but only for the first 10 pages. Some believe in evolution, but only up to the point of the common man-ape ancestor. And there are many hybrid beliefs. All ideas about the origins of the life, the universe, and everything, should be taught, just not as science. Many of you are aware that, given the vastness of space-time, some relatively small separation between two worlds, say, 300-million light years, means that it’s possible for one civilization to be 300-million years more advanced than another. If such a civilization mastered time and space sufficient to seed the Earth with DNA, would that not make them Intelligent? And our Designers? Ideas like this might also be taught in schools, but in creative writing classes, not as science. Science scored a victory a month ago, when US District Judge John Jones III barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching Intelligent Design as an alternative theory to evolution. Judge Jones, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote a critical 139-page opinion, calling the school district’s decision “breathtaking inanity.” He further wrote, “The overwhelming evidence is that Intelligent Design is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of Creationism and not a scientific theory.” Several years ago, I poked fun at one of the Creationist leaders, for saying that if “you seriously look at the problem, you can’t tell if the Earth goes around the Sun, or the other way around.” Apparently, that column made its way into some Creationist, Young Earth and Anti-Evolutionist circles; I was deluged with angry emails. There were even a couple of oilfield geoscientists. I asked one of them whether his beliefs affected his job. He said that he simply translated everything into his own lexicon: Jurassic means 5,000 years ago; Cambrian means 10,000 years ago; and so on. He had a similar system for fossils. Science is sometimes wrong, which troubles some folks. To me, the most fabulous geological wrong, so far, has been the run-up to Plate Tectonics. With hindsight, it’s obvious that geosynclines, associated rebounds, and many of the other explanations for mountain building were wrong. DuToit, Wegener and others should not have been ridiculed, and the evidence for Plate Tectonics was very compelling, long before it became universally accepted. But now we’ve got it right. Or at least, more right-er. The ability to be wrong is science’s greatest strength. Because it implies that later, someone will come along and, usually after fighting the dogs of dogma, leadership and all things status quo, prove, or at least improve, the wrongness of the past and, therefore, earn their place in history. And with a little luck, a million dollars and a Nobel Prize. To a large extent, the argument is cultural. I was trained not to accept Authority as an explanation for the natural world. However, in a sense, both the pious and the scientific were taught by Authority or, more precisely, an authority figure, whether professor or preacher. But it is clear that science, and its offspring, technology, have allowed far more people to “be fruitful and multiply,” with less pain and suffering, than any Aristotle or Zeus ever has. Keep the Earth old. And round. And keep evolution, indeed, science itself, evolving. Do something. Say something. Fight. And God bless Judge Jones.
|
||||||||
