Dissenting Voices

I disagree with everything Philip Kitcher has written in the Philosophy of Science textbook titled Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Because I am in this outlandish philosophy class I have to attempt to read your material about the theories of how the world was created, the meaning of life, and if there is a God which confuses me for days at a time. This is the true reason why I disagree with your writing; why even attempt to answer the big questions of what the differences between religion and science are concerning the creation of the world if each person holds their own beliefs? Therefore, I disagree with your overall topic. This is not to say that I don’t enjoy a meaningful or deep conversation every now and then but this material is so deep and personal that it should remain in private conversation, not the classroom.

It’s not that the material you discuss is poorly written because your arguments concerning Evolution versus Creationism are actually very eloquently stated, albeit sometimes hard to follow.  Using the phrase “quietness is wholeness in the center of stillness” (Kitcher, p.45, 2010) will not make your ideas become any clearer to the reader even though it is well written. Also titling a chapter “The History of Life” (Kitcher, p. 27, 2010) or “The Meaning of Life” (Kitcher, pg. 56, 2010) may scare your readers off.

It’s not that your material is offensive because in order to offend people they have to understand the argument giving offense, and your book is not something easy to read on a summer day with a glass of lemonade. My point is that people will not be offended unless they understand what your conclusions are about the two theories of how life began which, as most people are not Creationists scientists or Evolutionary scientists, they cannot. Your writing would only give offense if someone is truly a Creationist and believe that a higher being created the universe because every line in your book proves your obvious inclination toward the belief of Evolution and pragmatic scientific theories presented by Darwin (it’s the one thing we both agree on).Therefore, because I agree about your theories of Evolution I am not offended at all by your writing just what you write about.

It’s not that your arguments are incorrect because everyone has their own beliefs on how the world began and if someone chooses a religious idea over a scientific one than that is a matter of opinion which cannot be proven wrong. I simply disagree with the idea of writing an entire textbook on this subject to begin with. I know philosophy is often defined, by perplexed college students, as the “art of confusing people” but throwing in the religion versus science complex into the mix gives the word “confusion” a whole new level. My only outside sources would be the other students in my class who also attempt to understand your ideas and they would all agree that reading this book does the opposite of summarize the origin of the universe and mainly confuses.