The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Misc creationism a ul Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

From: Keith M Ellis <kmellis@io.com>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: The Evolution of AFU (Was Re: USA Weekend gives air time to bonehead Creationists!)
Date: 21 Apr 1997 22:57:00 GMT

Helge Moulding <hsm@slc.unisys.com> spake thusly:

> Fb. Some scientists who do serious work don't "believe" in evolution.

> Heck, now that I look at it, it invites a horrible flame war of "I'm
> a scientist who does serious work, and I don't believe in evolution!"

> So strike that. You all can see how this subject is troublesome in the
> extreme. Maybe someone else can rescue AFU material here, but this is
> the best I can do.

Is gl**s fl*w* on-charter for afu? I think it is (marginally). I think you were heading in the right direction when you tried to find some afu content in the topic of creationism.

What is interesting from a folklore perspective is under what conditions and why such ideas are spread. In the case of GF, it is spread by people who think they are qualified to assert the voracity of GF'ing, but, most often, are not. They are usually fairly intelligent people, with some general scientific literacy, and sometimes possess high competence in a variety of fields that are not materials science. This is similar to the false sense of credibility one has when one hears something from a source once removed: "It happened to my brother's *best friend*." Since one places high trust in one's brother, for example, and one places high trust in one's best friend, for example, well, then, it's almost like it happened to oneself -- *if* one is motivated to believe the tale in the forst place. That is, if it validates some hidden belief or desire.

In the case of GF, the false security of the FOAF is, in some sense, created by the same kind of transference of trust from one's own competency at science in general, or a particular field, to the field of materials science. One falsely believes one is competent to judge the voracity of the claim that glass flows. Also analagous is the "payoff" of believing the UL. in the case of GF, the payof is being privy to a secret wonderment of nature: that glass is very slowly flowing out of windowpanes.

Now, I believe this is similar to creationism. First of all, your proposal of a Fb to the statement that "Some scientists who do serious work disbelieve in evolution." This is incorrect. An unfortunate number of scientists who do serious work actually *do* believe in creationism. However, none [1] of them are anthropologists, geologists, or cosmologists. In other words, none of them are scientists in fields which are based upon principles that directly contradict creationism. Some of them in are in fields which heavily depend upon science that contradicts creationism, but they are, in these cases, usually in a subfield that allows them to be insulated from this discrepency. But all of them are scientists. Most of them (unfortunately) believe themselves competent to judge the voracity of evolutionary biology, although they are particle physicists, for example. Some of them write books on creationism, whose adherents tout as an authoritative source: "Dr. So-and-so, a *scientist*, says that evolution is a fraud." In all these cases, like in a classic UL, the payoff for suspending the FOAF-similar skepticism is validation for a belief that one has some emotional investment in.

Many people object to what they perceive as afu's obsession with assigning a truth value to a UL. Sometimes we respond that, in fact, the truth value is not that terribly important. This is because there is an essential similarity among what we call urban legends in how they are told, how they are propogated, what emotional and intellectual purposes they serve. On the other hand, the truth value of a UL *is* relevant because, at its core, *the UL itself raises the issue of its truthfulness*. When we hear a UL, we are always asked to make a decision about whether we believe it to be true or not. In this context, it is only natural that afu would attempt to get at that truth value in the most rigorous manner.

What is common to both true UL's and other things often discussed here, including GF and perhaps creationism, is the fact that the belief in the UL is sedictive enough, and the seeming credibility of the source sufficient, to short-circuit what should normally be a healthy skepticism. There are always people who are extremely credulous - but UL's have truck among people that one might otherwise think of at least marginally disciminatory in their beliefs.

Finally, for the record since I can't resist, EVOLUTION IS A FACT, NOT A THEORY. [2] Sorry for shouting, I was hoping my voice would carry across the USENET and across the world. Sigh.

-Keith Ellis

[1] Okay, "none" is a very strong word. How about "pretty darn close to none"?

[2] The *details* of the *process* of evolution is theorized about. Natural Selection is a *theory* (and an increasingly contested one at that). But biological evolution is an empirical fact, as solid as many other observed, accepted phenomenae.

--
The afu archive is available again - text only for now, but still well worth reading. To find out more about afu and urban legends old and new, go to ftp://ftp.best.com/pub.d/debunk/tafkac/