Details: Did the scientist/anthropologist, Toumey,do "science" or something else in this study? If you answer no, saying it is a field report in the tradition of Margaret Meade and Ruth Benedict, then it should be understood as such. Certainly, the author is sympathetic to his subjects/subject matter.
The burden of such empathy may be greater on the outcome and conclusions than say, joining into religious ritual or eating from the natives communal pot. For example, he speaks of "...conservative Christians understanding of reality..." without a hint of the scientist's interest in "testing" of that "reality." Of course, if something cannot be tested, it is by definition not a matter for hard science. We need to know if the author accepts this dictum, as few using the scientific method have the slightest problem with it. This study maybe , of course, more a matter of 'faith' and descriptive theology, as in the author's seeming conclusion:
'But the premise that science ought not be an immoral
institution is good common sense for a twentieth century
society.'
This is Toumey's statement as well as the teaching, not of science, but of the Roman Catholic Church. This is apparently, not a shot from the hip, but from his 'Reflections'near the end of this work. Overall, this book is valuable and especially interestingfor the painstaking coverage of the Creationist controversy in general and the North Carolina situation specifically. No detail is spared in repeating the vile and vituperative invective used to characterize secularism and humanism. It is certainly colorful even if mis-stated. Is it not interesting how those who are taught '...to love your enemies' are so willing to damn others with such tender certainty? Surely, as a graphic representation of such, many of deep and abiding religious faith, see the tree chart on the book cover and its originator as having a highly vivid imagination while being borderline in other categories. But back to what science should be...in this or any century. Science by definition can not be moral or immoral even as it must conform to society's regulations. Do those that would presuppose a 'moral science' as the church has mandated so often in the past,willingly wish to submit every study and every experiment to the local bishop for approval? In this manner morality could be assured. But would it be science? Not likely. The complicated and complex ideas advanced in chapter two are interesting if true. Readers may be confused by the tripartite notions and implicit definitions of science. A most painful omission appears to be is that the informed layman, both creationist and non-creationist will not read a really clear and succinct definition of 'science' itself. It is not a body of knowledge , theories or advocates of those theories however well integrated. Clearly, the author failed to note what exactly science is. Science is any number of disciplines in which a method using observation and experiment to test hypotheses, that can be repeated by others, is relied upon.. One can conclude that this is not a study of science by a scientist, but a field study of a religious social movement by a field worker who was empathic enough to lead his subjects in prayer.
The real accomplishment here is that the author may have organized and articulated the many aspects of Creationism in a much more sophisticated manner than the various advocates do themselves. And those vile humanists get nailed rather badly
and may even feel the flames licking at their feet. 1-17-2004 psb |
|
Details: Christopher P. Toumey brings a social anthropologist's perspective to the topic of "scientific creationism." He explins the origin and nature of the national creation science movement, and explores how the movement influences conservative Christians at the local level. If you've ever wondered what the differences are between the Creation Research Society, the Creation-Science Research Center, and the Institude for Creation Research, you'll find these and other national creationist organizations sorted out here. The most interesting part of the book, though, is the section that describes how the creation/evolution controversy played out in North Carolina in the early 1980s, in the context of local politics, both secular and Baptist. Also fascinating is the glimpse given of a local creation-science study group, whose members come across as considerably less dogmatic and more sympathetic than one might have expected. Toumey covers some of the same ground as the more exhaustive and scholarly "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers, but in a more readable and entertaining style. With controversy over the teaching of evolution in the public schools once again generating headlines, Toumey's book is must reading for anyone interested in this issue. |
out of 2 Reviews
