Psi and Creationism

Charles Darwin is going to be everywhere in 2009, it being the 200th anniversary of his birth, and the 150th of the publication of The Origin of Species. So I thought I'd get my contribution in early.

The reason is, I've been thinking about that extraordinary poll published just before Christmas about state school science teachers' views on creationism. Apparently no fewer than 29% would like to see it taught in science lessons, alongside the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution. That's taught, not discussed, as if it had equal scientific standing. The milder view, that is should at least be discussed - and for merely suggesting which Professor Michael Reiss lost his job last summer as director of education at the Royal Society - was supported by a whopping 73%.

Even Richard Dawkins thinks it's defensible to mention it in a historical context, as a discredited theory. But teaching creationism as a rival theory to evolution, Dawkins adds, would be like teaching the stork theory alongside sexual procreation as an explanation of where babies come from.

That seems to me exactly right, if we're talking about the Genesis myth.  My belief in psi puts me at odds with most scientists, but I've never had any argument with them about that: the idea that the Genesis myth might be factually true, in the face of all the evidence from geology and biology - and for that matter in preference to all the other equally colourful creation myths that human cultures have produced at different times - always seemed to me to be utterly bizarre.

But there are two big problems with this survey. One is that it doesn't distinguish the old-school kind of creationism with the more recent Intelligent Design, which at least talks in biological terms, however little seriously they are taken by most biologists.  I guess most of the teachers who responded must have assumed that the latter was what was meant. That would make the poll result a bit less alarming: most people would see a difference between an idea which is scientifically dubious and one which is flat out nonsense. 

But the poll also mentions creationism in the context of the origins of matter, which is something else again. The anthropic principle, the idea that the incredible fine tuning required to create a stable universe, with the conditions for sentient life, implies the existence of a Designer, may not be what most scientists think, but it's hardly controversial in the way that biblical creationism is. For teachers to want to discuss that in classes seems absolutely natural - in fact it would be surprising if they didn't.

So the poll is deeply misleading. With three different ideas bundled as one, we don't really know how many teachers think what, or the kind of danger they pose to impressionable young minds.  All we have are a lot of scary headlines that reinforce the impression of creeping irrationalism and an imminent return to the dark ages. To me, that's what happens when scientists and science journalists, with all their natural prejudices, are allowed to determine the basis of the debate. It's a very obvious mistake, but in the original reports no one seemed to pick it up, because there's never any discussion about it - the distinctions aren't understood.

All this is relevant to psi, because parapsychology is viewed by scientists in exactly the same terms as creationism - as a dangerous and irrational pseudo-science, pursued by mavericks who scratch around for evidence to vindicate their religious preferences. Intelligent Design is the bigger target, benefiting as it does from the funding and evangelism that parapsychology conspicuously lacks. It's true, parapsychology might start getting unwelcome attention if moves to spread the teaching of it in British universities accelerate, but I think that's still some way off. In any case I can't see anyone going to court over it, as has happened with Intelligent Design.

There's a credibility issue here for psi advocates. Can they afford to let themselves be linked in the mind of the academic community with a knowledge movement which is transparently not scientific but religious? Or should they be actively striving to disassociate themselves from it?

I suppose that depends partly on what we actually think about Intelligent Design. Does it have any merit at all? 

I was taken to task by psi skeptics recently for calling creationists skeptics of evolution - I suppose the Randi crowd were provoked by the idea that they could have the smallest thing in common with religious fanatics. But if you think about it, even if they are at opposite ends of the belief spectrum, they have similar tactics.   My impression of Intelligent Design is that it tries to identify organisms that are too complex to have formed by natural selection. The classic one is the eye, but I've always found the Darwinist comeback convincing, as for instance in Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker. Evolution skeptics do just what psi skeptics do: search for weaknesses in the evidence that stop them from having to take the central claim seriously.

Following this line of thought, I actually think that parapsychologists have more in common with Darwinists than with creationists. Parapsychologists and Darwinists have each gathered a vast body of data, have classified and analysed its characteristics, and are more or less unanimous about its significance. Both are opposed by a small group of critics - debunking conjurors and psychologists in one case, scientists with fundamentalist convictions in the other - who think they have a better idea, and are applauded by a large community of believers - scientists and atheists in one case, traditional Christians in the other - who don't bother with the detailed arguments, but assume that the battle is being won on their behalf.

In scientific terms, of course, psi is utterly toxic to Darwinism: a brain that can somehow communicate with a particular brain some distance away - or in some cases the other side of the world - is not something that could have come about purely by natural selection. Something else is involved: Rupert Sheldrake's ideas about morphic resonance are a fascinating alternative, even if they leave a lot unexplained.  But I don't sense that parapsychologists are keen to pick a fight with Darwinists about this, in fact rather the opposite: they tend to talk about a sixth sense having 'evolved' - as a warning mechanism, for instance.

But still, psi is a scientific claim, and has nothing to do with religion. Whatever their critics like to say, parapsychologists don't share the religious basis of creationism. They aren't 'mystagogues in search of a soul', in James Alcock's striking and fatuous phrase.  Charles Tart has an interest in spirituality, but I don't think that's typical. I'm not aware of any obvious religious yearnings in psi experimenters like Charles Honorton, John Beloff, Dean Radin, Adrian Parker; or in field investigators like Ian Stevenson, Alan Gauld, Guy Lyon Playfair, William Roll, etc. It's just not something they talk about or seem particularly interested in. It's trying to get to grips with a natural phenomenon that motivates them. 

Of course it complicates matters that psi is connected with spirituality and religious experience, and especially with the idea of survival of death. But it's difficult for hostile scientists to make the necessary distinctions here. I believe that most of them barely understand that psi is seen by many parapsychologists not to point to survival, but to provide an alternative explanation of psi phenomena.

Against that, it's hard to deny that however little parapsychologists are motivated by religion, psi does have potentially powerful religious implications. If it were ever acknowledged to be genuine by the scientific establishment we would be in an utterly changed intellectual environment. I don't mean that lots of thinking people would stop being agnostic or atheists, but it would hard for them to base these convictions on scientific certainties about the universe having a purely mechanist basis.

So, coming full circle, scientists are right to see parapsychology as a threat to the mechanist worldview that informs their thinking, and atheists are right to see it undermining secularity.  But there is one more thing. The kind of religion that psi seems to encourage, for want of a better word, is not the creationist religion. Creationist beliefs and psi-type beliefs are the focus of two quite different strands of religious thinking. It's the difference between Bible thumping Christianity and New Age spirituality. Telepathy, spirit survival, and near-death experiences are all anathema to the evangelicals who tend to be gung-ho creationists, and their intolerance doesn't win them any friends in the opposite camp either.

There's a lot of stuff going on here, and I admit that much of it is just thinking out loud. So let's try to nail it down a bit.

First, it's becoming clear that the term 'creationism', as used by scientists and journalists, covers a spectrum of different ideas and beliefs. Until this is better understood there's going to be confusion about who thinks what, and how much it matters.

Second, parapsychology can suffer by association with creationism, and those of us who believe that psi is real need to decide where we stand. Does psi mesh with the idea that the universe was designed by an Intelligence? Should we be sympathetic to rival attempts to undermine the mechanist worldview? Or should we reject them as poorly evidenced and unconvincing?

Following on from this, are these two types of alternative 'knowledge' compatible with each other? If one is convinced by the intellectual arguments for ID, can one also accept the arguments for psi? Or would its very different religious implications rule that out? If psi ever becomes intellectually respectable, it's likely that ID will be too. In that case the knowledge community, presently united round a core idea, will be divided into hostile religious camps, each claiming to be backed by scientific evidence, and each promoting very different worldviews. An interesting, but rather disturbing thought.

Comments

[Kris]

Very well said. I think the question of parapsychology ultimately comes down to what is the nature of consciousness. If human consciousness is separable from the human brain and can survive and function without a brain then we have entered a brave new world. The changes such a discovery would create are almost infinite.

[Tony M]

Here’s a question: Quantum Physics seems to point to observer created reality. Is that closer to evolution or Intelligent Design?

There are other questions here, of course, about terms. Darwin’s “theory” was not evolution; it was natural selection. Natural selection can be seen as a mechanism or trigger that drives evolution. It replaced, for example, the idea of acquired characteristics. But are natural selection and acquired characteristics mutually exclusive? And what about punctuated equilibrium? There truth might be a subtle mix: individual with a species make choices, which may be successful in a given circumstance, which then aids survival. Success, however, changes the circumstances and drives new evolution.

The essential question is really this: is there only matter and internal drivers to change, or does something external drive change? A strict Darwinist says no. Intelligent design may be an unsophisticated way of approaching the idea that something external to matter, such as consciousness, shapes our universe. That may not be an “unscientific” idea.

Of course, to keep the discussion from consciousness, it is necessary to crassly characterize all dissenting view points as “creationism”.

My thoughts here are not particularly worked out...just speculating out loud.

[realpc]

Atheists like Dawkins try to fool the public into thinking Intelligent Design is the same as biblical creationism, and anti-science. Dawkins equates science with materialist ideology and does not understand that until recently most scientists believed in God. Dawkins and the "skeptic" organizations have made great progress in promoting atheism and materialism.

They are well-meaning and sincere (although completely wrong, in my opinion). They honestly think religious faith is a major cause of violent fanaticism -- well it does look that way in the post-9/11 world. But they are very wrong -- violent fanaticism can be inspired by any ideology, whether religious or not. And besides, we should not choose our beliefs based on their effects, but on their scientific validity.

Atheistic materialism is wrong, but for some reason no one has been able to prove that convincingly. To me, Intelligent Design is obviously true, but to materialists neo-Darwinism is just as obviously true.

[Filip Van Droogenbroeck]

One always has to be carefull with polls. It is a disproportional stratified poll like they say:
"Respondents are representative of all primary and secondary school teachers in England and Wales by sex, age, phase of teaching and Government Office Region. Data were weighted at the analysis stage by sex, age and phase to the known profile of primary and secondary school teachers in England and Wales."
But we have no information how many respondents took part in the survey, how many missings there where or how much respondents we had of the different age groups or how many were female to see the weighing effect. It would also have been interesting to control for religion. And as Robert clearly pointed out there are some big problems with the operationalisation, are they measuring what they intend to measure,... Creationism should be better defined.

A lot of polls have little scientific value.

[gail]

To me being an atheist means that the believer doesn't actually exist! As we are all part of the greater whole! So if a person say's they do not believe in God for example, then they can't actually exist, since everything is God!! I think atheist get caught up with definitions and conceptions... I feel sorry for them, as how can they reconcile their exitence with non-existence, whcih they are doing as far as I'm concerend!

[Mel Steffor]

God sees everything, doesn't he?

This is one small piece of proof that God talked to me:

Like I said earlier, the Holy Spirit talked to me, besides his message about First is Last and Last is First, he had something to say about “Who Killed JFK”. Christ tells me that the man who shot JFK is a policeman. He also tells me the name of the shooter, but it is in a jumbled word. The word is “Fritters”. I see the name F. Ritter right off so I think that is the name of the killer. Now God has lots of other messages for me to figure out, so I put “who Killed JFK” on the back burner for over a year. A year or more later , just recently, I have more time to look for F. Ritter. I can’t find a policeman with that name who lived in Dallas, Texas in 1963. So I am searching for information about who killed JFK and there is a picture of a policeman by the name of J D Tippit. Now Tippit kind of looks like Ritter. Now I unjumble the letters of Ritter to get TIRRET. Now TIRRET looks more like TIPPIT. Now I make the R’s stand at attention, I get TIPPET. One problem is that the I and the E are not the same. So I do some research on the family name TIPPIT. Turns out that in the late 1800’s JD Tippit’s grandfather changed their name from Tippett to Tippit. So the next step I change the E to I. So Tippet is now Tippit.
Now I have FS Tippit and JD Tippit. The first two initials are not the same. Next I go to Wikipedia, there I find; "Some thought that J D stood for "Jefferson Davis" however JD does not stand for anything". That means his name is just J D. So the initials F S , do not stand for anything. I just have two initials that do not stand for anything. Are you following me?

Next what does "FRITTERS" mean. If your following my thinking here, God is going to tell you what happened to JD Tippit after he was shot. Fritters are a dough that is deep fried. Bread also means body, like in the last super Christ takes the bread and says this is my body. Look in the dictionary, PIT means HELL. TIP means money paid, gratuity. There are other meanings to. These meanings tell a story.

JD Tippits body (dough) is placed in the deep fryer (lake of fire). Now I think this clue (Fritters) was ingenius. After all God came up with it. I think he does have a sense of humor too. Kids now have a new game to play. They can play God. Pilsbury dough boy fry’s in the lake of fire. You get HELL! fry baby fry!

If you think this is just crazy. Remember I am just the messenger. Jesus is the one that had to talk about JFK. So he had a reason for doing that. Only God knows who the killer is. This is proof that Christ talked to me and that is the reason he told me "Who killed JFK". It is proof. I had forgotten about the case years ago. This is a cold case now, it been 45 years since the shooting.

I also read the part about giving false prophesy. God says false prophets go to Hell or something like that. I only repeat what God told me. Now what I wrote above is from God. He told me who killed JFK in 2006. The above is not a lie or a joke and I am going to HEAVEN without fear.

Before I forget. Gods messages usually have more than one meaning. F S could also stand for “Fence Shooter”.

Who are the co-conspirators? Turns out that there are two policemen named Tippit, and one Tippett working in the Dallas police Department that same year(1963). Back to the clue word Fritters. That is plural, you know about plural. We have two fritters. The co-conspirators name is Gayle M. Tippit.

Now the Dallas Police Departtment obviously covered up and framed Oswald. He was the Patsy. They did it cause it is very possible that one of the other police officers rushing to the scene saw Tippet fleeing the scene carrying a rifle. They covered it up because of the embarrassment of one of their own was the man that killed JFK? And the Warren commission must have also figured that out so they stuck with the Dallas Dept. story saying that it was Oswald. It could have been a National embarrassment. Now if you look at the evidence like I did. It is easy to see that the DAllas Police Dept tampered with the evidence over and over again. And they did a very bad job of it too.

Now this is my opinion, not Gods. I think God is behind the creation of the Internet. I could never have been able to figure out a lot of his messages without the use of the Internet. People on the Net have been a big help to me. God talks to other people too, they just don’t know it. God let me know it was him.

Now I just made solving the case of “Who shot JFK?”, look easy. I also gave you proof here. Did you see it? You ask where’s the proof. The proof is that it is impossible for anyone to repeat what I just did above. I mean try it. And I do that over and over again in all of God’s messages.
See if you can make up a word that is a fried food (like fritters). Unjumble the letters to reveal the name of the killer (Tippit). Then divide the word Tippit into words that describe what happened. Tip- means that JD Tippit was paid for the job and the presidency was over turned. Pit - means that he went to Hell for what he did. Pit means the worst Hell.

See if you can prove me wrong. Show me how easy it is to make up a name like “Fritters” that solves the crime. This clue is ingenious. God came up with the name “FRITTERS”. God is a genius, not me. I am only the messenger.

Then the two remaining letters F. S. stands for Fence Shooter. It's INGENIUS!

Then on top of that it just so happens that there are two Tippit’s working in the Dallas Police Department in 1963. Fritters (plural) means we have more than one Fritter going in the deep fryer . The other shooter is Gayle M. Tippit. He goes to Hell too. Now I did some research on Gayle M Tippit. There is very little information on him unlike JD Tippit. In my search I found two Gayle Tippit’s still in Dallas. One died in 1967 and the other is married and still lives in Texas. So the other conspirator could still be alive and has managed to avoid detection.

This is where it gets intesting. Does Gayle M. Tippit come forward and ask God to forgive him? I think he also has to ask the American people to forgive him for his part in the murder of the president or he gets the worst Hell just like JD did. God told me that waiting until the 11th hour is too late. God is forgiving, but you can’t wait until your on your death bed to ask to be forgiven.

Now if Gayle M. Tippit wants to save himself from the deep fryer. (This could be a long fry, not a quick dip.) He has to come forward and ask to be forgiven. He still gets death or Hell but it won’t be the worst Hell. Just like the worst death is being crucified.

Gods Messenger, Melanie

(Note: When God was here he said nothing about Darwin, Creation or Intelligent Design. This seems not to be and issue with him or he is just being closed mouth on this subject.)

[undrgrndgirl]

my question in all of this - is what happens to when "scientific adam" is found (genetically speaking) - won't that then 'confirm' biblical adam? that there IS in fact a first man as depicted in the bible (and other creation "myths")?