My Friends Are Artists & Creationists
Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 13th, 2006
St. Christopher the Doghead
Sometimes comments are worthy of being pulled up to the blog level for some reaction time and thoughts.
Chad Arment is the moderator of an invitation-only cryptozoology list, the author of some thoughtful cryptozoology books, and the editor of the Bio-Fortean Review. I congratulate him on his contributions to the field. Nevertheless, cryptozoologists don’t always have to agree on everything.
Chad takes issue with my “Catholic Left Attacks Cryptozoology” blog, calling it "absurd" in his opening to an emailed comment he wishes published at Cryptomundo. Apparently he feels strongly about some other things concerning the entire foundation for the exhibition, which underlies the comments of the blog.
Chad writes: "If you didn’t want to see cryptozoology being misrepresented to the public, you shouldn’t have partnered with artists who obviously are not communicating that definition with any accuracy. (And, yes, I’m well aware that artistic expression moves beyond preconceptions and boundaries; that’s not the point.)"
Okay, to me this sounds like blaming the victim. In the seamless society we live in today, popular cultural representations of cryptozoology appear everywhere.
Why should I have not been open-minded when one of the leading private liberal arts colleges in the country approached me to create an exhibition focussed on cryptozoology?
Are we to hold Adrian Shine to the fire if the Toyota commercial he is in doesn’t turn out exactly as he might have envisioned? Should we become upset with Rene Dahinden because the beer company he worked with now has evolved into creating ads with nearly naked ladies? Should a real life cryptozoologist, like Scott Marlowe, who is now appearing as a comic book character - complete with a cape - be taken to task because he is surrounded by questionable cryptids and fictional facts?
Yes, my ideas, my factual A to Z book on the subject, and my home-grown museum inspired the cryptozoology and art exhibition now touring the nation. But I hardly feel misrepresented by the artists, because, well, it is art. I see this as a case of an eye-of-the-beholder response in which my involvement, unliked by some, is criticized. So be it.
Chad also notes: "The only bigotry I see here is the implication that having a religious belief is antithetical to scientific capability within science (or art, for that matter). But then, I’m a creationist, so I guess I’m just too busy attacking cryptozoology from the ‘Right’ to understand…"
Of course, religious individuals can be great scientists, Charles Darwin comes immediately to mind, who studied in theology and was on his way to becoming a clergyman. To state I am saying something otherwise is to misrepresent me.
Regarding the "Right" that I was reflecting upon and alluding, I was pointing to a minority of creationists "misunderstanding" cryptozoology. I have earlier here even said some have misused cryptozoology to "support" their dinos-in-Africa theories. I clarified this within a link and a comment in the "Catholic Left" blog to what I see as an extremist creationist who was evading his taxes and a coven of extremists who must be held at some length from cryptozoology. I need not apologize for having this view. I do not include Chad and a whole collection of other creationists who are my friends in this group of creationists who seem to misuse cryptozoology for their own ends. I’ve never felt calumniated by a creationist.
Until now, perhaps. But I have a feeling Chad and I are closer to each other than he may think or feel.
But then, at the Bates cryptozoology and art symposium that kicked off the exhibition, I was challenged and criticized by artists for not being open to including the "paranormal" and "aliens" in cryptozoology and by one anthropologist for being too open about considering what might be behind the stories of "merbeings."
It is a complex world.
+++
Chad Arment’s response is here. As he says, we shall “agree to disagree.” It is time to move on.
Random Posts
- Similar Phenomena:
I don’t quite get why Mr. Arment is disagreeing with the truth. I myself am a Creationist, and yet I find those who are attacking cryptozoology to be just looking for something to attack.
“There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dream’t of in your philosophy”.
I’m going to have to agree with Chad on this one Loren. But I still think you rock.
I’ve said it before. Chad’s right on this part:
“Chad writes: “If you didn’t want to see cryptozoology being misrepresented to the public, you shouldn’t have partnered with artists who obviously are not communicating that definition with any accuracy. (And, yes, I’m well aware that artistic expression moves beyond preconceptions and boundaries; that’s not the point.)”
But on reflection, this is the risk one takes with art. And for many cryptids, every day is a Slow News Day, scientifically speaking. One feels the urge to fill the gaps with something; and I can’t say there isn’t some fun in seeing a yeti toting a stringer of skins.
I just can’t help but wonder whether there isn’t a way to focus on the science, and make that entertaining (maybe compelling is the better word). As I once heard it put: if your numbers are boring, you’ve got the wrong numbers.
Arment sounds like he got his toes stepped on. He himself is a “solitary blogger”, and does not speak for the Catholic Church. As for the Artists, what do they communicate? Arment states “the artists themselves have no real interest in communicating what cryptozoology actually concerns…”. What do they intend to communicate? Arment is offended by the what he perceives as a “politically incorrect” statement by Coleman. “Can someone with a religious perspective effectively practice or understand science?” (Arment). Not when the religious perspective gives a bias to support a preconceived hypothesis. Darwin was not out to destroy a religion, but yet creationists are out to discredit his theory, because it does not conform to their preconcieved assumptions(based on faith, not science or logic).
If assumptions and beliefs are based on deductive or inductive reasoning, it is called science, but assumptions and beliefs based on Faith are not. Arment has avoided the “Faith” word, which is the basis for his beliefs and assumptions. “…a false screen of subjective opinions masquerading as facts” is what Arment is, in essence, doing himself.
There are far worse factual and logical errors in Chad Arment’s work than anything having to do with creationism. It is interesting to see, however, how his views (which are dogmatic by definition) influence his pursuit of cryptids.
I think the way so many take such strong offense to “creationists”, like myself, may reveal something about their own issues.
Sounds like “shunning” to me. Wasn’t that a major criticism of the Puritans?
Wayne
I am going to have to point out something Ray in post #5 mentioned, and that is “not when a religious perspective gives a bias to support a preconceived hypothesis”. From a creationist perspective, evolution theory is being taught as fact in our schools and most, if not all, creationists feel that there is an overwhelming bias for evolution even to the point of making the data fit the theory even to the point of ignoring data that questions the theory.
Please understand, I am not arguing here but many seem to think that creationists are a bunch of religious nuts who close their ears to anything that doesn’t fit their faith. And that is simply not true. Many are highly educated research scientists who have seriously considered evolution and studied its evidence and found it to be lacking in feasible explanations for why things exist as they do. They are often censured in the universities and scientific publications even though their research is as sound as the scientist who advocates evolution.
This is what distresses creationists: that they are considered unscientific simply because they have reached a different conclusion than evolutionists.
Concerning Rillo777’s point, thanks; all hypothesis’ are preconceived. An idea is put into a testable question, so therefore some kind of preconcieved idea of where the question will lead, is made. Now then, can a testable hypothesis be developed to determine support for either view point? How do historians determine validity of historical analysis?
I’m sorry, but I’ve yet to encounter a creationist that had any real understanding of evolution, nor for the most part even basic biology or geology. Perhaps I’ve just not encountered the right ones. However, I am both well-versed in evolutionary theory and have also taken the time to read several articles, books, and treatises on creationism. I find it very telling that none of the authors I’m aware of has any “hard science” degrees, they mostly received their degrees in theology (No big surprise), history, or literature.
This shouldn’t be particularly surprising. Both evolution-”ism” and creationism in their modern forms began at the same time. However, Evolutionary biologists have 150 years of solid, replicable studies and reams of supportive anatomical, morphological, and genetic data, whereas creationists must begin by refuting virtually every fact of biology and geology learned in that same time. It is no wonder their understanding is so limited, for they’ve effectively thrown the baby out with the bathwater, then triumphantly declared that there’s nothing crying, so there must never have been a baby in the first place.
The thing that strikes me about creationism is that it tries to replace a solid, scientifically verifiable fact, backed up by hard data, with a theory based on ancient stories and faith. A lot of the theories I’ve read from creationists latch onto percieved holes in evolution and use those to fit into their creationist view of the universe. Holes in the fossil record? It must be evidence of creationism, some would rationalize. If that is the case, why even have fossils to begin with? Are we to refute everything we have studied and learned about the natural world in favor of an unverified, faith based theory? It’s easy to refute things with the ultimate card, “God works in mysterious ways”, or it is that way because of God’s will. You can take this convenient explanation and try to refute evolution, but scientists have to come up with a little thing called hard, replicable evidence and this is distinctly lacking in creationism. Finding holes in evolutionism is not evidence. There is a way to learn about the world we live in, and it is called science, and the overwhelming facts discovered by science points to evolution. It is not a conspiracy, or a pet theory, or an attack on creationism. It is a solid, verifiable, grounded basis for how life developed on this world.
“but scientists have to come up with a little thing called hard, replicable evidence and this is distinctly lacking in creationism.”
Just out of curiosity, is there hard, replicable evidence for macro-evolution? As in laboratory controlled experiments in which new organ systems, appendages, or other biological systems have developed in ways that would be consistent with evolutionary theory, perhaps resulting in totally new species that “evolved” from pre-existing species? There is no question about experiments showing what would be considered micro-evolution (changes within a species resulting in new varieties), but being able to cite scientific proof for the evolution of complex biological systems based upon laboratory experiments would pretty much end the debate. Can you cite scientific literature in which carbon-based organic life has been created from inorganic chemicals? Since science is supposed to have all the answers, these should be pretty simple to provide.
I’d also like to point out the fact that much of science and mathematics are built upon unprovable assumptions. If you accept something as true that is unprovable, doesn’t that imply faith?
My training was in math and physics, and it always seemed to me that the inability to apply reductionism is a major problem in science. For instance, can anyone using current scientific knowledge logically and scientifically explain human consciousness as a logical and necessary consequence of the big bang? Seriously, can you start with the big bang, and logically, using current scientific knowledge, explain all of physical existence and human experience?
Can you prove uniformitarianism as applied to the universe, or the axioms and postulates of mathematics?
If you can, then I will be very impressed and will need to revise my Weltanschuung. I guess this is kind of my challenge to the skeptics out there.
Evidence for macro evolution? Fossils for one. Its hard to do this in a lab with higher life forms as it takes millions of years, so typically microorganisms are used so that many generations can be witnessed in a short time. So we study fossils. I would like to see the creationists prove all of the same as above with their own theories and methods as well. As I said, it is easy to point out all of the reasons that evolution can’t work, but can you point out why creationism can any better? What about the alien colonist theorists, I’m sure they can provide you with all the reasons why their theory is valid. Why not teach that in school? Can you give me any kind of evidence that even compares to what we have discovered concerning evolution and I do not mean how you think creationism works, but valid evidence. I do not believe science should be so readily dismissed. And who said anything about science being easy? It takes a lot of work to research and get to the bottom of how things work in a scientific way. The big bang? Well, that is something scientists are trying to figure out in a controlled, meaningful way and we might not have all the answers but at least it is being researched in a valid manner. And doesn’t replicable research mean that it is provable? Inorganic material to organic material? Isn’t saying that that is the result of an almighty deity making an assumption as well? Has any work been done to explain this on the part of creationists to prove why this must be the work of God?
I didn’t argue very much in favor of creationism, but you seemed to read that in because I pointed out a lot of things that science hasn’t been able to prove, and that to a certain extent it is faith-based. Logical and pretty consistent (is light a particle or a wave?) But can you prove that everything is provable scientifically? Can you really answer all of the why questions? Are we not supposed to ask the hard questions that science hasn’t been able to answer? If we are really interested in understanding the world we live in, then it can help to really reassess what our fundamental beliefs are. Understanding the fundamental aspects of human experience is important to a lot of people, and science hasn’t necessarily provided adequate answers.
Here’s an interesting question. Does creation exist?
Have you ever created anything? Does anything exist? Are you a solipsist? All kinds of philosophical questions!?
(Apply the above to the idea of having an idea.)
“I think, therefore I am.” If I create, doesn’t creation exist? Do you really think that science can explain human experience in terms of the fundamental principles of physics? Can human values be found within the structure of the atom?
If you think I am a Xian with a belief in biblical creation, then you probably don’t understand my name.
(I actually have worked with some really neat dino microfossils and enjoy science, I just tend to dislike scientific hubris.)
Human experience and feelings are a tough one alright. I know scientists who are religious, so I don’t think a belief in science rules out religion. It might seem from my posts that I am firmly against any idea of religion because my argument for evolution, so that could be read into my comment as well, I suppose. I am actually Buddhist and Charles Darwin himself was Christian. I enjoy pondering all of the things above, about human thought and experience, and love. There is something ethereal and unique about the human experience although I know some biochemists might not agree. I like creating things, writing, drawing. Don’t think my belief in the scientific process makes me a robot or something! I understand there are a lot of things that may never be explained away in this universe and there are other things that we just lack the ability to explain at this point with the tools we have. I just don’t think evolution is one of them.
Enough of this blather that anyone who doesnt believe in Darwinism just has air between their ears. I, for one, dont believe that a cow magically, over time, morphed into a blue whale; or that the ape skeleton, Lucy, is in any way shape or form, human; or, that the human brain, the human eye, or simply-human beings-with our stealth fighters, nuclear weapons, and endless creativity, magically morphed over magically long eons of time-from a bit of stone. Have fun calling me a fundie, flat earther, or whatever else comes to mind;in my opinion-and Karl Poppers-Darwinism is a metaphysical research program. Cheers.