Tuesday, 30 November 2004

어제 (11/30/2004) CNN에서 창조-진화 DEBATE를 했더군요.

이번 미대통령 선거에서 복음주의자들의 역할이 두드러지게 드러나면서 (복음주의자들은 다른 어떤 이슈들보다도 동성결혼, 부분출산낙태 등의 윤리적인 문제들을 중요시 했다는 보도) 최근 조사한 POLL에서 창조-진화의 가능성을 동시에 가르쳐야한다는 제안이 미국 전체 국민의 65%의 찬성을 얻자 CNN이 급조해서 만든 프로그램이었습니다.

여기 진화론자들의 주장을 한 번 보십시요.
학교에서 과학시간에 진화론의 문제점을 절대로 언급해서는 안된다는 censorship에 주목하십시요. 실제로 진화론의 문제점들을 언급하다가 사임을 강요당한 교사들이 많이 있습니다. 만일 진화론이 진정한 과학적 사실이라면 그러한 censorship이 필요할까요?

지금 과학자들의 헌법 제 1조1항이 무엇인지 아십니까?
그것은 과학에서 초월적인것(supernatural)은 예외없이 배제되어야 한다는 것입니다.

자! 남은 옵션이 무엇일까요?
그것은 모든것이 자연과정(natural process)으로 설명되어야 된다는 거지요.
그래서 진화론이 아니면 안된다는 겁니다.
창조나 지적설계를 언급하면 과학논문에서 리뷰조차 받지 못합니다.

자! 현 과학계의 문제점이 무엇인가를 직시 하시기 바랍니다.
참고로 창조와 진화와 같은 기원문제는 참과학이 아닌 유사과학입니다.
실험실에서 증명되거나 자연계에서 관찰되지 못하기 때문이죠.
화석기록등의 데이터로 추론만이 가능할 뿐입니다.
화석이 진화론의 증거가 아닌 가장 큰 골치거리며 장애라는 것은 제 이전 글에서 이미 서술한 바 있습니다.

그러므로 창조나 지적설계의 배경신념이 절대로 참과학과 충돌하지 않습니다.
대학에서 실제로 하고있는 거의 대부분의 과학이 실제로는 창조/진화의 기원문제와는별 관계가 없는 참 과학입니다.
다만 지금은 진화론적 안경으로 해석하는 것이 허용될 뿐이므로 그렇게 하는 것입니다.
해결방안?
창조를 믿는 훌륭한 과학자들이 더 많이 나와 그 패러다임안에서 더 탁월한 과학논문들을 내는 것입니다.
그러면 진화론의 어두운 그림자는 조금씩 조금씩 그 자취를 감출 것입니다.

[CNN DEBATE 중]

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): More than half of Americans questioned in a recent CBS News/”New York Times” poll said human beings were created by God, created just as they are today. So those Americans think biblical creation should be taught right alongside evolution.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There’s a good possibility that both science and — and the faith can coexist and in fact they’re both right.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I do think that it’s — I think everything should be taught about both. But, being the age I am, I still lean toward creation more.

FOREMAN: Within the past year, 24 states have gone through public debate about teaching evolution. In Georgia, some textbooks now carry stickers saying evolution is just a theory. In Pennsylvania, some teachers are teaching an alternative to evolution.

WALT BROWN, FORMER EVOLUTIONIST: I am saying it is a terribly flawed theory.

FOREMAN: And Walt Brown, who was once an evolutionist himself, is pleased. For years, he and others have argued that fossil records, the Earth’s geology, even astrological events, simply provide too much evidence that something else is at work.

BROWN: Creationists wanted to see all the scientific evidence taught at the appropriate grade levels. There’s a ton of evidence that opposes evolution and supports creation. And it’s just being censored.

FOREMAN: Two words have come up a lot these days, are “intelligent design.” Supporters of this idea do not talk about God, or the Bible, but instead, say some things are so complex, nature alone cannot explain them.

(on camera) The scientific community often dismisses such attacks on evolution as the result of runaway ignorance or religious zeal masquerading as scientific skepticism. Evolution, they say, is a theory but a very sound one.

(voice-over) Still, some who study religion, evolution and science, suggest the fundamental problem is that faith can never prove the existence of God, and science can never prove God’s absence.

JIM MILLER, ASSOCIATION FOR ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE: Creation is a term that’s appropriate community of use is the religious community. It’s a term that refers to convictions that are held within the religious community that may or may not have any bearing on science.

FOREMAN: But increasingly, it seems, creation is a term that may have a bearing on how science is taught.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

ZAHN: Joining me now to debate this Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education. She joins us from San Francisco tonight. And from Cincinnati, Jason Lisle. He has a Ph.D. in astrophysics and works with a pro-creationism group called Answers in Genesis.

Welcome, both of you.

Jason, let’s start with you tonight. If you were to teach creationism in a classroom, what would you teach?

JASON LISLE, ANSWERS IN GENESIS: Well, I would show that the scientific evidence, when you understand it, is consistent with what the Bible has to say about creation.

If I had the — if I had the legal right to talk about the Bible, I would use that. If I didn’t, I would at least show that the evidence is consistent with there being a creator with design.

For example, we see created kinds — we see different kinds of organisms in the world and we see them reproducing after their kinds. We don’t see one kind of organism turning into other kind of organism. That’s not something that we actually observe in nature. And that’s something that evolution — evolutionists say is required.

ZAHN: So Eugenie, how would you explain that?

EUGENIE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENCE EDUCATION: Well, hearing a creationist define evolution is a little bit like having Madeline Murray O’Hare define Christianity. You’re not really going to get the — the straight story there.

The way evolution is taught at the university level is the way it should be taught at the high school level. And that’s really what we’re talking about here. It’s not between evolution and science.

ZAHN: What do you mean by that?

SCOTT: At the university level, which is where I used to teach, we teach evolution, biological evolution, as the inference that living things had common ancestors. And we teach it neutrally. We don’t teach it that God did it or God had nothing to do with it. We just present the science.

And that’s what should be done at the high school level.

ZAHN: Jason, I want to share with you a result from the latest CBS/”New York Times” poll, which show that 65 percent of those people polled were in favor of teaching both creation and evolution in public school classrooms. Do you appreciate these numbers?

LISLE: I do. I think that a lot of people realize that it would be very smart to teach both creation and evolution if that were possible. Because…

ZAHN: So you don’t have a problem with both being taught side by side?

LISLE: Not at all. In fact I encourage people to actually teach evolution. But teach it warts and all. Show the problems with it, as well, and then show what the creationist interpretation of the evidence is. Because we feel that the creationist interpretation of the evidence makes a lot more sense when you understand it. ZAHN: What about the argument Eugenie made that you can teach it in a more neutral way, and I’ll let you expand on that in a moment, Eugenie?

SCOTT: Thank you.

LISLE: Well, there’s no neutral ground, is there? I mean, you’re ultimately either for what God has said as word or against it. And that’s what the real issue is here.

ZAHN: Eugenie?

SCOTT: No, we’re treating this as if there are two alternatives, evolution, and the institute, or the answers in Genesis’ version of creation.

But you know, his version of creation, which is everything was created all at one time in six days, 10,000 years ago, is not what Catholics believe. It’s not what Episcopalians believe, and it’s certainly not what Hopi believe or what Navajo believes. So you can’t say teach both, because there’s more than two alternatives.

Now my view, the view that the National Center for Science Education takes, is that we should know more about a lot of creationisms, plural. But it has no place in science class. I think comparative religion is a wonderful study, and we should be more theologically literate than we are. But keep it out of science class, because it is not scientifically demonstrable.

ZAHN: So Jason, would you support the idea of moving that into a religion class?

LISLE: I have no problem with creation, evolution being taught in a religion class, as well. But it would be nice if the scientific aspects of the creation models, just the idea that there is an intelligent creator, would be brought up in a science classroom.

There’s scientific evidence supporting that position. I mean, is the evolution model so weak that its adherents feel the need to suppress any alternatives?

SCOTT: I don’t think it’s a matter of…

ZAHN: Eugenie, there’s a lot of, you know, strong words that are used when it comes to this debate that creationism is actually being censored out of the curriculum.

SCOTT: Of course. It’s being censored out of the science curriculum, because, contrary to the claims that have just been made, there are no scientific data supporting it.

Look, the fact of the matter is that science is not a fair process. I mean, it’s not a democratic system. The creationists have the same right that I have to make their position to the scientific community and convince them that there is evidence supporting the idea that everything was created all at one time. The problem is, there are no data. They haven’t made the case. But what they want to do is make an end-run around the scientific community and go directly to the school district, as opposed to the normal process of having these ideas filter down from the scientific community.

You know, the thing is, scientists and teachers aren’t trying to get creationism into this — into the curriculum. It’s the politicians. And what this has done is politicize science education in a very negative fashion.

ZAHN: Well, Jason’s a scientist. He’s trying to get it into the curriculum.

LISLE: Yes, and you know, real science, real science thrives on competing models.

Posted in 김무현