RE: [asa] Creation Science Fiction

My apologies for offending any science fiction devotees with my use of the
term. I do recognize the difference between serious authors of science
fiction and those authors who (one would think) should know better than put
out pseudoscience as faith affirming fiction. However, I also recognize
that many authors or proponents of YEC positions fall short of what you call
"deliberately misleading". Many of us were once in this category, and I
believe most take that position because they have not researched the
subjects fully, and have chosen to interpret the data through the lens of
their system of faith, not because deep down they know the truth and are
simply lying in print.

I conceived of the term as more of an illustrative sound bite, a pithy
response to the YEC enthousiast who confronts me with a book or other
resource of "evidence". My explanation, with no disrespect intended to
sci-fi literature, draws on people's general knowledge of science fiction --
fundamentally it's fiction, sometimes with just enough scientific details to
make the story sound plausible. Once one understands both the genre and the
real science, one can immediately recognize the difference. Buck Rogers
flying through space with clouds streaming past his window was decent
science fiction about space travel at the time, but since we now know more
of the facts, modern science fiction wouldn't even rely on such outdated
knowledge. And it's no good to take fiction as if it were reality,
especially not to base our faith on it.

I'm also thinking of an analogy between the DaVinci Code and YEC literature.
Both present a compelling narrative based on a pervasive conspiracy theory,
and employ good writing (Dan Brown) or beautiful pictures and aggressive
apologetics for the faith (YEC literature and films) to make their case. At
the heart of the controversy surrounding both is the bold assertion that
"all scientific/historical statements presented in this book are actual
documented facts". After I got past being upset at Dan Brown for his
misrepresentations and recognized that his preface was PART OF THE FICTION,
I enjoyed the book as an exciting piece of historical fiction. (Okay, I did
do a little research in order to get the true answers to his
misrepresentations, but I didn't let it bother me too much.) In the case of
YEC literature, they make similarly bold statements that they are giving
actual facts about real science. The claims often can't stand up to
scrutiny any more than those in the DaVinci Code, no matter how aggressively
or compellingly presented.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of dickfischer@verizon.net
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:40 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Science Fiction

Too confusing. How would you distinguish between legitimate science fiction
and typical dishonest, deliberately misleading "creation science fiction"?
I think your new term would slander hard working authors of genuine science
fiction.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Apr 18 18:54:15 2007