More Discussion in TAG

In 2001, there were two references to creationists in The Australian Geologist (TAG). The first was in a letter to the editor by John Laurie, and the other was a short news item.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No 119, June 30, 2001

The letter was on page 6.

"WALKING WITH DINOSAURS" — THAT’S EDUTAINMENT!!

Dear Editor,

Thanks should be given to E. Heinisch (letters, TAG 118, p.9) for clearly and concisely pointing out the shortcomings of the timescale in "Walking with Dinosaurs" magazine. I thoroughly enjoyed the television series, but was unaware of the presence of a magazine. However, I think the important thing to realise is that at least they have some sort of representation of deep time.

[John's letter discussed some geological aspects of "Walking with Dinosaurs", which I have omitted.]

I try to look on the bright side. At least they asked scientists for advice and apparently took it. Imagine what it would be like if Walking with Dinosaurs adhered to the creationist’s wacky 6000 year timeframe! That would really be a worry.

John Laurie, Weston, ACT

The news item was on page 21.

SCIENCE FIGHTS BACK AGAINST CREATIONISM

It seems that scientists have been fighting back against the embarrassing Kansas Board of Education, which last year removed the requirement in Kansas to teach evolution and the geological origin of the Earth. In Republican primaries held prior to Board elections proper in November 2000, three of the four creationist members were ousted in favour of pro-evolution candidates, thanks largely to campaigning by scientists who had previously chosen merely to ignore creationists. This is sufficient to ensure that the new Board elected in November will, with however many Democrats, have a pro-evolution majority. The long-term fight against creationism must continue, however, with active input from scientists.

As reported by Rex Dalton, Nature, 406, p.552, 2000

From Geology Today, 16(6), November-December, 2000, p.207

I decided to send off a note to the editor and it was encouraging that she published it.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No 120, Sept 30, 2001

CREATIONISM IS STILL WITH US

It’s always good when TAG arrives. On this occasion (No 119, June 30, 2001), I was interested to find two references to creationism. On page 6, John Laurie in a letter to the editor referred to ‘the creationist’s wacky 6000 year timeframe!’ and on page 21 a news snippet reported that ‘science fights back against creationism’. Unfortunately, both items display ignorance of the issue. Creationists have made fundamental contributions to geology in the past. For example, the creationist, Nicholas Steno, derived his basic principles of stratigraphy from the Bible. Many scientists today are six-day creationists (See Ashton, J.F. (ed.), In Six Days: Why 50 [PhD] Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, New Holland Publishers, Sydney, 1999) and I suspect we have our share among the members of our society. I regularly correspond with creationist geologists in Russia, Romania, UK, USA, Australia and New Zealand. Personally, I think the Earth sciences would benefit greatly if more geologists understood the concepts being discussed in the creationist scientific literature (eg, TJ, CRSQ, Origins, ICC).

Dr Tas Walker

Research Scientist, Answers in Genesis, Brisbane.

It was just a short letter. Still, perhaps it would generate some useful discussion. When the next issue of TAG arrived I found that three fellow members of the Geological Society had responded.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No 121, Dec 20 2001

A KNOCKOUT BLOW — NIELS STENSEN WAS NO CREATIONIST!

Dear Editor,

To read Dr Tas Walker’s letter to the editor (TAG 120, Sept 30, 2001, p.6) one could be forgiven for thinking that there are thousands of fundamentalist protestant geologists all across the world who believe that the earth is only six thousand years old. This is not the case. Certainly there are many people with higher degrees who follow the fundamentalist dogma, but most of those with whom I have come into contact do not have degrees in geology but in other disciplines (e.g. Medicine, Dietetics, Electrical Engineering, or in Dr Walker’s case Mechanical Engineering). As a consequence, I am unlikely to take their opinions on geology as seriously as if they had come from someone with a modicum of knowledge in that discipline.

Dr Walker also asserts that my letter to the editor displayed an "ignorance of the issue". Given that the phrase he quotes from my letter is the only reference to creationism in a half page extolling the value of such popular television programs as ‘Walking with Dinosaurs’, his assertion that I am ignorant of the issues is disingenuous at best. Undoubtedly, my understanding of the issues will not coincide with his, but that is because I do not have a dogma to push. Dr Walker may find this impossible to believe, because I suspect he judges people like me through the lens of his own world view. I suspect he considers that I simply ‘believe’ that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that I simply ‘believe’ in evolution by natural selection in the same way he believes in his Christian god. This is where he is mistaken. I do not have a visceral attachment to the billions of years of earth history nor to the natural selection mechanism. They are only the best theories science has devised which explain the myriad observations made by physicists, geologists, palaeontologists and biologists over the last couple of hundred years or more. If someone comes up with a better theory, then the old one gets the boot; it’s just that this hasn’t happened yet.

Dr Walker enlists the eminent Danish anatomist and geologist Niels Stensen (latinised as Nicholas Steno) to demonstrate that creationists have made "fundamental contributions to geology in the past" And so they have! But it must be remembered that Stensen lived from 1638-1686 and that NOT being a creationist in those days could book you an appointment with the vertical barbecue. It is ironic that Dr Walker drew Stenson into his argument, as the fundamental concepts introduced or affirmed by Setnsen; i.e. that fossils are the remains of once living organisms; the principle of original horizontality; and the law of superposition, were some of the most important in the initial understanding of the great age of the earth and the evolution of its biota.

John Laurie

Weston, ACT

(Editors note: The above reply from John Laurie to Tas Walker demonstrates the Hon Editor’s point that that occasional ‘creationist view’ letter needs to be published to illustrate the intelligence of the readership of TAG)

I sent the following response to the editor.

Dear Editor,

I would appreciate an opportunity to respond to John Laurie’ criticism of the creationist position (TAG 121, 20 December 2001). He tries to dismiss the creation issue by implying that creationists don’t even have a ‘modicum of knowledge’ about geology. (Of course, this is not true. Just read some creationist scientific literature.) He tries to dismiss me by implying that I only have degrees in Mechanical Engineering. Again, this is not true. I could list my qualifications in geology but this is not the point. Geologic issues should not be decided on who has the most qualifications.

John further tries to dismiss the issue by implying that he is scientifically objective but that I ‘have a dogma to push’. Yet, John’s beliefs determine how he prefers to interpret geological data. Again, we need to focus on the geologic issues and not on personalities.

John refers to the age of the earth but this is based on assumptions about the past and interpretations of isotopic data. Creationists have different interpretations of the same data. In fact, the abundant evidence of catastrophe in the stratigraphic record is consistent with a creationist interpretation.

John mentioned natural selection, but this is no problem for creation. Rather, it is a major problem for evolution. Natural selection selects only from existing genetic information but molecules-to-man evolution requires a continual new source of new genetic information.

John implies that Steno only acknowledged creation because of coercion by the church but this is not correct. From Steno’s writings it is evident that he explained the fossils and strata using a biblical framework because he believed it was an accurate history of the earth. He assumed the non-fossiliferous strata were deposited during the primeval creation of the earth and the fossiliferous strata were deposited during Noah‘s global cataclysm. Modern creationist geologists use the same framework but interpret much of the Precambrian as Early Flood rocks.

And finally, John claims Steno’s principles of horizontality and superposition led to the understanding of the great age of the earth. Again, this not correct. Geologists (including creationists) use these principles to understand the relative timing of geologic events. The idea of great age comes, not from Steno, but from Hutton’s assumption of uniformitarianism.

I encourage fellow geologists to check the other side before making judgement.

Tas Walker

Unfortunately, this response was not published. Perhaps the editor had copped some flack and was not prepared to endure more of it.

Apart from the above letter by John Lawrie, two other letters appeared in the same issue of TAG.

TAG SHOULD NOT GIVE COLUMN SPACE TO ‘CREATIONISTS’

Dear Editor,

It is with continued disappointment that I open each newly arrived issue of TAG to read the seemingly never ending and certainly never interesting letters regarding creationism. The disproportionate column length devoted to this topic is at odds with the GSA claim to be a ‘learned’ society and the professional opinions of the vast majority of GSA members. TAG ought to provide a forum for the exchange of sound and informative professional comment. To allow the hijacking of this column by disreputable creationist misinformation discredits both TAG and the GSA.

David C, Berman

Melbourne

(Editor’s note: TAG provides a forum for the views of ALL members. Dr Tasman Walker is a Member of the GSA. The Hon Editor agrees that ‘creationism’ keeps ‘rearing its ugly head’, although it is a couple of years since any correspondence on this topic was published in TAG. However, the fact that this keeps happening is seen by the Hon Editor as a warning that the Society needs to be ever vigilant in its published stand against creationism. Censoring all of such correspondence in TAG, is not felt by the Hon Editor to be necessary or indeed wise.)

CREATIONISM — THE LAST WORD??

Dear Editor,

Creationism mdash; Holy S–t!!

Peter James,

Brisbane, Queensland

I like the Hon Editor’s comment about the ‘intelligence of the readership of TAG’. Alfred Wegner was similarly treated when he proposed continental drift. Same thing happened to Harlan Bretz when he proposed catastrophic flooding for the erosion of the Channelled Scablands. In 2004 we witnessed seven US geological societies trying to ban a book about Grand Canyon that discussed alternate geological ideas. Why do geologists react this way? As it turned out, it was not the last word on creationism. The next issue had this ‘intelligent’ contribution.

The Australian Geologist, Newsletter No. 122, March 31, 2002

CREATIONISM — THE LAST WORD!!

Dear Editor,

My old friend, Gwylym Richard has been at the Red Ned again. He saw Tas Walker’s letter (TAG 120), and the replies (TAG 121), and mumbled indistinctly in my ear (the mumbles accompanies by a mysterious bouquet that nearly rendered me unconscious) the following ‘rhyme’.

"Enough of these Creative shenanigans!
The case for a big bang isonagain;
We love the Big Thump,
It raises a lump;
Against the Creationist Taliban."

Madam Editor, I remain your most obedient servant.

Bill Morgan, WA

This is not the first time that creationists have been compared with the Taliban, but I suppose we should not be surprised at that. After all, we creationists have total control over Western universities these days. We maintain our power by banning books, censoring free speech and dictating to the geological societies what they can and cannot do. We creationists control the curriculum and expel any geologists who disagree with our ideas. I suppose it is understandable after all. ... Just kidding!