Creationism
I'm not a creationist.
On the other hand, I long ago lost my paranoid fear of creationists. First and foremost, by doing my best to be a good liberal--which requires open-mindedness, rejection of prejudice whenever possible, and tolerance for dissent.
So I inhesitantly acknowledge that the biggest thing creationists have on their side is the fat gaping hole in macro-evolutionary theory: we still have no hard evidence of one species evolving directly into another. It's the biggest challenge to evolutionary theory, and a notoriously difficult one to address. Which is why I found Dave Sim's article on creationism so funny.
Why are people so afraid of this issue that they can't simply acknowledge the problems in current scientific understanding?
Actually I think the holes in the theory are fairly well acknowledged. I have personally never read anything that says the evolution is a definitive understanding on the origin of species. I think the criticism of creationism is that it spends a lot of its focus debunking evolution. I have yet to read an account of the idea behind creationism that does not really discuss evolution. Evolution might well be wrong as some evidence does not seem to support it. Although there is almost no hard evidence to support creationism. That the fossil record does not support evolution (if in fact that is true, I'm not a biologist) does not automatically mean that the only other answer is creationism.
For me to accept creationism as a science I would need to see the data and experimentation that has been done to support creationism. Right now it seems like creationism is a hypothesis that needs to go through the rigor of the scientific method. I mean there are a lot of theories that have huge holes in them but are accepted as more or less fact until the time when a better theory comes along to replace it.
"I have personally never read anything that says the evolution is a definitive understanding on the origin of species."
I have, Rick. Lots of times. I have had people tell me that even though science itself refers to evolution as a theory, it is fact.
I've come to the conclusion long since that for some (obviously not all), evolution is neither theory nor fact, but a religion. And that, Dean, answers your question, wouldn't you say?
Being the good little Christian boy that I am, I do believe that God created the universe, the world, and all the creatures that inhabit it. That said, I also believe in evolution--in the guided, purposeful evolution that is no less miraculous to me than God's really busy work week as related in the bible.
I think the creationists generally are insecure about the concept that evolution might somehow explain away the possibility of God. My experience with those who preach evolution is that they accept no argument or questioning whatsoever; their way is the word and the word is evolution.
The same applies to a certain class of environmentalist--the ones that alarm us with tales of woe and destruction with the latest scare involving food additives, global warming, or whatnot without ever waiting for responsible scientists to verify or refute evidence.
Dissenters are labled trolls and ogres who in situation (a) want God in the classroom (I don't), and in situation (b) corporate hustlers who would destroy the environment for a buck (I wouldn't). The funny thing is that this is the antithesis of liberal thought--the willingness to consider alternatives.
Evolution theory and creationism both lend themselves to dogmatic, rigid thinking, I suppose.
Evolution is an example of one of those parts of science that has attained religious qualities.
As a scientific theory, evolution isn't all that bad. It has explanatory power, and so far it hasn't been totally falsified yet (though it's had to make lots of pretty major changes in order to fit the evidence at hand). Science hasn't yet found a better theory.
Unfortunately, evolution also happens to fit into one of those religious categories: where do I come from? Thus, it's been elevated to the status of a religious tenet, as irrationally held by some nontheists as creationism is by some theists.
I think this is because we don't feel comfortable saying we don't know the answer to a question, especially if some group we don't agree with is trumpeting their knowledge. From a logical standpoint, macroevolution is little more supported than creation, but creation forces belief in God, so we get a "anything but that" gut reaction.
As a Christian, I don't begrudge the scientist his/her theories. For all I know, they could be right. The Bible predates science, and is God's Word mediated through humans who, often, were forced to describe the indescribable; it's no wonder that some of their attempts don't handle the rigors of scientific analysis. But, just as I don't necessarily adhere to a "naive creationism", neither do I "concede defeat" to a science that hypes the truth value of its theories far beyond what is warranted for ideological purposes.
I have had people tell me that even though science itself refers to evolution as a theory, it is fact.
You have to remember that some of the oldest and most-tested scientific ideas are referred to as theories. You still see the word bandied about when discussing Newton's discoveries about mechanics and gravity. The word "theory" in science simply doesn't mean what it means to a layman.
It's funny, but I've never seen a creationist attacking relativity, which is after all "just a theory" too.
You have to remember that some of the oldest and most-tested scientific ideas are referred to as theories.
So are some of the newest and most ill-supported ideas, like string theory. Even discredited ideas, such as phlogiston, are still called "theories".
Furthermore, theories change. Strict Newtonian mechanics is a discredited theory today; modern expressions place limits on its applicability that Newton did not.
From a scientific point of view, this isn't a problem, but it makes scientific theory a bad hanger to hang your metaphysics. That's just another way of saying "science is as bad at religion as religion is at science", which seems reasonable to me.
Evolution has held up very well and has not had to make a lot of "major changes". What we understand now that was a complete mystery at the time of Darwin was the mechanisms by which genetic material expresses genetic coding as proteins that control an organisms development.
However, it is not true that evolution is a theory about the origin of life. The Theory of Evolution itself says nothing of the origin of life, only how we now have the diversity of life we observe.
Creationism is not a science. It abandons the scientific method entirely. Many of its proponents are deliberately deceptive and misrepresent the "science" in question.
By the way, one of the reasons that creationists get some traction in their criticism of evolution is because of the dishonest job Stephen J. Gould did of defending it. Gould was erroneously seen by the public as the "face" of evolution.
Hmm. I was under the impression that the details of macroevolution have been through a few revisions, with "catastrophism" replacing more steady changes as one example.
Then again, I'm not aware of a really good history of the theory that doesn't read either like "Evolution Triumphant" or "How Evolution Has Corrupted The Youth Throughout History".
Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Jeff, you present a good example. Gould pretended as though "catastrophism" was a mainstream view of evolutionists. Its not.
While there may be "holes" in the general theory of evolution, it does do a good job of explaining the observable data. I think one of the obstacles in discussing things like this is that most folks have a skewed notion of what a theory is, in terms of scientific inquiry.
All scientific theories (hereafter called just theories) are just models. They are attempts to explain behavior of observable phenomena, and in at least once sense do not necessarily have to reflect the "truth", as long as you can use the model to explain the known data, and accurately predict future outcomes.
A good example is the collection of successive theories about planetary motion. I'm sure everyone here is at least somewhat familiar with the series, but just to recap: The main series is 1)earth-centric, 2)heliocentric with the sun circling the earth, 3)full heliocentric but with circular orbits, 4)full heliocentric with elliptical orbits. I'm skipping the cycles & epicycles posited some extensions of #3.
The problem was that each successive model did not fully explain the observable data, even though each iteration reflected a more accurate model of planetary motion. It wasn't until Kepler based the planetary movements on ellipses that the basic theory became adequate. Does this mean that the previous theories weren't "true" or of any worth? Of course not. They were useful stepping stones to the final Keplerian theory. Actually using words like "true", I feel, tends to muddy the waters. It would be more precise to say "accurate", or "inaccurate" (or "less accurate") than "true" and "not true".
An even better example is Newton's Theory of Gravity. For several centuries it did a very good job of both explaining the observable phenomena, and predicting new observations. It wasn't until the 20th century that it seemed necessary to revise the theory.
Do the revisions make Newton's theory no longer "true"? No. It merely indicates that the model, while normally very accurate, needed revision when an object is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Newton still works very well for (say) describing the motion of bodies in a car crash.
The general theory of evolution is in a similar situation. While some of the details need to be worked out (say for example the gradualist school vs. the catastrophic school) the main thesis seems to hold.
Kevin: I must strongly take issue with your statement that "evolution is a fact." This turns out not to be the case. By definition a fact is:
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
2c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
other definitions include:
Reality; actuality; truth;
an event known to have happened or something known to have existed;
a concept whose truth can be proved;
None of these definitions satisfy your claim: we do not have knowledge of real occurrences of evolution; only evidence. We have not demonstrated that evolution exists, nor that it is a reality. We also haven't proved the concept.
Actually, on re-reading your comment, you seem to be quoting someone else that claims the theory as fact. My bad. The above still holds. :)
Jerry: I think the difference lies in that Newton's theory is much more testable than Darwin's. It has come as close to proven as humanly possible, but I would resist calling it proven. This moves the theory from knowledge to dogma.
Robin: wasn't Gould one of the early proponents of the "catastrophic school" mechanism? That used to be ridiculed, if I recall.
The motivations of the creationist school? Some are perfectly human: the desire to hold a defined place in the scheme of things; the need to "know" something about why we are here, or why anything at all.
I think that S. E. Morison (one of my favorite historians) has some cogent comments on this:
He quotes Disraeli* as saying "Is man an ape or an angel? I, my Lord, am on the side of the angels." :) More to the point is this:
"But there is no doubt that it weakened the hold of religion on the average American. He stopped reading the Bible when it no longer could be considered divine truth; and in do doing his character suffered. For, as Romain Roland's Jean Christophe says, 'The Bible is the marrow of lions. Strong hearts have they who feed on it... The Bible is the backbone for people who have the will to live.' Darwin may have killed Adam as an historical figure, but the old Adam in man survives; and if his intellect fails to control the fell forces he has wrested from nature, the few, if any, who survive the holocaust will tardily bear witness to the realism of the Biblical portrait of mankind."
The motivations of the "evolution as fact" school? An atavistic reaction to the Scopes trial. What the hard-core "rationalists" don't seem to realize is that by trying to shove their ideas down their opponent's throat, they instigate even more resistance.
As with several other posters there, I see no necessary conflict between God & evolution. Even the Pope is with it these days: if you didn't hear, a year or two ago the Pope announced that there is no doctrinal problem with the theory of evolution, as long as you posit a "divine spark" during the journey from beast to man.
*(now there's a pop quiz question waiting to happen)
"Why are people so afraid of this issue that they can't simply acknowledge the problems in current scientific understanding?
Those people who really are deathly afraid of admitting the weaknesses are those who are the most insecure in their beliefs regarding evolution and who also would suffer the most catastrophic damage to their existing world view were it to be proven wrong. You have to understand that some people have built their entire personal philosophy around evolution as a reason for the wholesale rejection of religion. Some people view it as their primary proof text for choosing atheism or determinism and do not have any philosophical grounds on which to hold those beliefs should evolutionary theory collapse or become regarded as dubious.
In short: it's human nature to vehemently reject those things which pose the greatest threat to our existing world view.
Actually Gould borrowed catastrophism from Mayr and gave it a snazzier name "punctuated equilibrium".
Robert Wright gives us two essays attacking Gould, here and here. A famous quote by the british biologist John Maynard Smith about Gould is: "Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by nonbiologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists."
Aack. There's a lot to be said for punctuated equilbibrium. This is where the argument goes from modeling to dogma (or, to Hell, heh). Some scientists have grasped science as a new type of belief. The problem is when someone challenges that belief.
Evolution is for people who need an excuse to screw total strangers. I'm a Republican, so I've got no problem with that.
Robin and Casey, thanks for your insights. I will have to read those articles on Gould. And I absolutely love the Morison and Disraeli quotes.
Oh, and as to the pop quiz: I'll be glad to hold stone-still if Dean will only give me a pass like he did Ara.
Does that prove I know the answer?
Well, I check in on this thread (away on vacation this week, Internet access but no e-mail) and I see zombyboy and Jeff Licquia have already said pretty much what I would've said. I believe in God. And I've also always taken evolution for granted. Neither creationism nor scientism ever found a foothold in my thinking, and I must confess that when I read through "creation vs. evolution" debates, it seems to me that both sides are really speaking the same language, from opposite sides of the table; and the language they're both speaking is very different from the language I speak.
Plus, why are both sides of the debate often so angry and so rigid? And (I think even more telling) so self-unaware of their own rigidity and anger?
One side note. I think back to a teacher I had many years ago-- he was one of the most wonderful teachers I ever had, and he made a profound impact on me, not only as a teacher but also as a human being. I remember that he was an atheist. And he also did not believe in evolution. He remarked to me once that he suspected human beings and other species had originated by some natural process we simply hadn't hit upon yet-- some process more subtle, more complicated, and less obvious than evolution. This struck me, as a Christian who took evolution for granted, as a rather quizzical statement. But there you have it.
Oh, and Casey: good summary on the notions of fact, theory, and model.
Kevin,
Well yeah your right but there are people who believe we never landed on the moon. I guess I should qualify my statement for the nit pickers. But even if it were true it still dosen't address the fact that evolutions incorrectness would not be evidance of creationisums correctness. That needs to be addressed on it's own merit.
Casey, good summary of the gray area issues with science and theories. I agree that evolution is in a period of increasing refinement as genetics is advancing. It tends to explain most of the evidence (fossils and such), whereas hardcore 7-day creationists are stuck with very silly explainations for that, and they can keep their "God's day is of a different length" hand waving to themselves.
And of course now that we have sequenced more and more organisms genomes, we are going to be refining evolution more and more. Which of course doesn't show it to be wrong, just makes ever-changing current theory more right.
In the face of all of which, creationists can only fall back to longer-day-for-God, and divine-spark-esque Intelligent Design.
Which is why I haven't been in a creationism/evolution debate in a quite a while.
Exception made for Dean's World, as it's civil enough here to discuss it. :-)
Rick, your point about evolution vs. creationism is well made but really wasn't under dispute from this quarter.
I myself have noticed the, er, evolution of the scientific explanations of how the universe came to be, to more closely resemble the sequence of events in relevant portions of the first creation tale in Genesis. Beyond that observation, I keep an open mind.
First of all the theory of evolution is NOT a religion, as some on this board have claimed. Those who think so are WOEFULLY undereducated in the principles of SCIENCE and the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
What I find objectionable about Creationism is that it does NOT use the scientific method of determining the age and progress of natural developements. Rather, they would use articles of faith, ie the Bible, a virtue that is NEVER debateable or refutable by the scientific method or by any defineable concrete evidence, to argue the age and developement of the natural universe. Even more so, Creationism refuses to concede the concessions made by scientists that an intelligence may be at work that is not defineable by science. I would put more credence in the faith of THOSE scientists as genuine Christians, than I would the Creationists who insist on LITERAL interpretation of Jewish and Christian text.
What we are seeing is NOT the advance of a scientific study that utilizes the scientific method as a means of explaining our origins, but the utter and despicable failure of educators in general to master the principles of science. Every science teacher is not a good teacher, nor is every science teacher out to eliminate Christianity. What I do see is the dumbing down of the educators themselves to reducing scientific principles and the fundamentalists reacting to it.
Both are a disservice to the scientific method, and to Faith in God.
Read Thomas Merton.
Actually, the evolution of new species has been observed on many occasions, both in the laboratory and in nature:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
The creationist response to this is typically to say that this doesn't count as macroevolution, that while the categories involved were species according to somebody's definition, they weren't the biblical "kinds" that are actually immutable. They're hard to pin down on what the "kinds" actually are, though.
To be fair, I do understand the real objection here, that we can't possibly see happening in real time the kind of gross transformation involved in, say, getting humans from apelike creatures or lizards from fish. Paleontology is a historical science and the fossil record is fragmentary; any actual scientist who works on it will tell you that.
But the fact that evolutionary speciation does happen today, and that all the necessary genetic mechanisms exist, combined with the evidence for an old earth populated with life for billions of years and complex organisms for hundreds of millions, makes it hard to see how large transformations could fail to have happened! The question is just whether the ones we see in the fossil record are all explainable that way. On this point it's hard to argue with creationists because they don't have a scientifically testable counter-hypothesis; miracles aren't really subject to such analysis. When they do attempt to put forward counter-hypotheses (the "creation science" people) they are flimsy and incoherent.
I think it's important to be precise about these things; we can say that evolution is a fact in the sense that just about anything is, because it's been directly observed happening, but when it comes to our history it's more correct to say that the fossil sequence, radioactive dating evidence, etc. are the facts, and the rest is an *extremely* well-supported theory.
People who go beyond that are, I think, overreacting to the use of "theory" as a pejorative by "creation scientists" and other cranks. It shouldn't be considered one. Maxwell electrodynamics is a theory-- an *incorrect* one, even, since its domain of application is not unlimited-- but I can and do bet my life on it, and so do you.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
This site explains the falacy that Macroevolution is some sort of gaping hole in evolution theory. The author here is much better than I am so I'll leave it at that.
Brilliantly put Matt. And as every microchip on Earth demonstrates by it's existence, Quantum Physics is real, and "God" does indeed play with dice.
And hence predestination and Mechanistic Rationalism of all flavors can now be swept into the dustbin.
You'll note that the oft invoked Marxist Workers Paradise falls under the latter flavor of madness.
By the way, that talkorigins.org site began as the Frequently Asked Questions list for a flame-happy Usenet group, talk.origins. It subsequently evolved (through Intelligent Design, though...) into something more akin to an encyclopedia (and, yes, there are links to creationist sites there, though the site itself is obviously mostly written from a mainstream scientific perspective).
I've often thought it to be among the most amazing and useful examples of what collective effort on the Internet can do.
I think that believers are more afraid of the possibility that God doesn't exist than atheists are that he/she does. That is why many of your hardcore fundamentalist cling to the theory of creation and defend it like an iron fortress from what they perceive as an enemy invasion from the secular outside. While clinging to our religious superstitions may be pragmatic and helpful to some people, in the end, it's only an exercise in delusion on the grandest scale.
Before I get flamed into hades, let me just say that I don't condone religious bigotry or intolerance. In fact, I am only intolerant about intolerance....on either side.
Tim
Rick: That the fossil record does not support evolution...does not automatically mean that the only other answer is creationism.
I suppose it depends on your terms, but what other options are possible? Either life was purposely designed, or it just purposelessly happened. Everything else is a variation on one theme or the other.
Jerry: It's funny, but I've never seen a creationist attacking relativity, which is after all "just a theory" too.
Most creationists think that the evidence supports relativity, but that it does not support evolution. The "just a theory" phrase is a non-issue.
Robin: Creationism is not a science. It abandons the scientific method entirely.
That's a rather severe accusation, considering that there are scientists with terminal degrees from respected universities who do creationist research. What qualifies you to dismiss their work out of hand? Your definition of science?
Actually Gould borrowed catastrophism from Mayr and gave it a snazzier name "punctuated equilibrium".
Or more properly "punctuated equilibria," since it is believed that there were many "punk eek" episodes. You could also credit Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" idea for influencing Gould.
a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.
Plenty of integrity in that pure science, isn't there?
Tim:
To speak up for the other side a bit, you have to realize that a lot of people like to bludgeon theists with evolution, and often distort its impact in the process. Things like geologic time are similarly used. It's no surprise, then, that there are lots of defensive "fundamentalists" out there.
It's your place to judge whether the "religious superstitions" I cling to have any worth to you. I would humbly proffer my experience, though, as an alternative: that those who disagree with you are the most likely to teach you something, if you let them.
There are several ways in which "creation science" can be demonstrated not to be science. However, the logical fallacy of appealing to authority - in referencing the supposed degrees of 'creation scientists' - isn't a rebuttal of my claim at all. Of course, one might hope you are refering to people like Dembski rather than people like Kent Hovind who have degrees found in boxes of Cracker Jack.
However, to focus on the scientific method itself. "Creation Science" isn't a science because it abandons the scientific method. Creation science makes no testable hypotheses of its own. Criticism isn't science. Instead, it attempts the grandest logical fallacy of all, that if it somehow succeeds in attacking evolution that it has then "proven" creation.
If one wishes to be skeptical of the theory of evolution, that's rational. If one wishes to claim that there is such as thing as "creation science" and that it is anything other than religious catechism, that's irrational.
Oh, and by the way, Randy, there are creationists attacking relativity. You'll find them among the "young earth" types.
Robin, if you get tired of fighting the good fight, you can always ask creationist to explain why their creation myth is better than any of the others.
I don't have a paranoid fear of creationist. I have a very real fear of them - at least the creationists in my family. ;)
My studies over a lifetime have taught me that the civilizations have alternated between ages of reason and ages of faith.
In the ages of reason, the great commonwealths of Greece, Rome, and modern western civilization matured, expanded and brought universal well-being the civil liberties to the greatest number of citizens. These have been the ages in which constitutions were written, and under them the august bodies of the great legislatures wrote laws to promote the social welfare by liberating mankind from the grip of the ignorant priests.
A phenomenon such as the Roman Catholic Church, with its hooded inquisitors, burnings of disenters and their books, and a corrupt hierarchy dominated all too frequently by sexual perverts, could never have come to life in an age of reason.
In the ages of faith, reason and secular law were cast aside in favor of unsubstantiable miracles, sacerdotal mumbo-jumbo, blind prejudice, and a pervasive form of slavery made all the more vile by the fact that the slaves became willing cooperators with the priests who held their minds in bondage.
A phenomenon such as the United States of America, with its established legislatures, its hierarchy of courts, its balance of powers among the several states and the several branches of government, could never have come into being in an age of faith.
Aside from this observation, I never deign to argue about science vs creationism, any more than the great Marcus Aurelius would have bothered to argue life and death with some crazed and ignorant early believer in Christianity, Judaism or Islam, or Voltaire, Jefferson or Madison would have bothered to do the same with some papist superpriest of the 18th century.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Hooded inquisitors?! Dammit, Arnold, my Sunday robe doesn't have any hood on it! I gotta get myself a hood for my robe! How can I be a proper inquisitor, if my robe ain't got a hood on it?! :)
'Course, I'd also have to lose my lifelong acceptance of evolution, my lifelong aversion to burning books, and my lifelong mellow insistence that people should think for themselves, even if that means they end up radically disagreeing with me... but what the hey!
Do you suppose inquisitors' hoods can be ordered over the Internet?
Bwahahahahaha! Nobody ever expects the Liberal Protestant Inquisition!!!
Good gravey Dean, trotting out the age old argument from ignorance attack against evolution.
How truly pathetic.
Oh yeah...Dean, don't let your mind be so open your brain falls out.
Oh, get a life, Steve. Holes in a theory don't frighten me. If there were no remaining issues or uncertainties, it wouldn't be called a theory anymore.
Furthermore, I'm not going to get my panties in a bunch if someone believes that there's some kind of creative force involved somewhere in the origins of life.
Paul,
I think a liberal Protestant grand inquisitor would be a great change of pace for modern religion. Anybody except James Earl Carter.
So why don't you folks design some really great costumes. (Not purple or red. The big franchise in Rome took that some time ago).
Sherper's is a really great military surplus store over in Milwaukee. All kinds of stuff with hoods. Keeps you warm in these damned north central winters, too.
Also, I'm not sure if it was Luther, Guttenberg, or the German prince who protected Luther from the inquisition, who had more to do with the making of the Protestant reformation. But it surely wasn't the typical bland yourchurch of modern, comfortable suburban America.
So if you guys want to be REAL Protestants, like 16th century versions of the Civil War re-enactors, don't cop out. Learn to read Scriptures from Echt Deutsch. (Don't worry; there won't be a 30 Years War to follow, and if you can learn English, you can learn German, my Croatian wife tells me.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
I don't care if people don't find the theory of evolution convincing. ( Other than pointing out that the origin of life itself and evolution are two different areas ). And I don't care if people believe in creation. I respect honestly held faith. But dressing it up as "science" is fraudulent.
Arnold,
James Earl Carter? Naw, I'll let him stick with Habitat for Humanity and his, uh, Nobel Peace Prize... Ah, but imagine James Earl Jones as the voice of a Liberal Protestant grand inquisitor: "The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."
The making of the Protestant Reformation? I'd say a McLuhanesque toss-up between Gutenberg and Luther. By the way, I believe Marshall McLuhan was a Roman Catholic-- don't know whether he favored red robes or purple, though.
As for First Gladhand Church of Suburbia USA ("please park your creeds at the door"), it seems to me that Peter Berger wrote a sociology-of-religion book on that slice of the American Protestant pie. What was its title?! In my mind's eye I see a paperback with a white cover, and I know which bookcase to find it in (bottom shelf) in my study. Dang, that's what I get for being away on vacation this week!
We now return you to our regularly scheduled cat-and-dog fight on creation and evolution...
Paul:
Thank goodness you and Arnold dropped by, I was about to write this thread off; it had degenerated into a mud-slinging contest. Oh, and thanks for the thumbs-up. ;) Now if I could just get some of the posters to read what I wrote and stop saying silly things like "evolution is a fact"... Heh.
What are the two rules of the Protestant Inquisition?
Casey,
The chief weapon of the Liberal Protestant Inquisition is surprise... surprise and fear... fear and surprise... Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency... Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency... and an almost fanatical devotion to the World Council of Churches... Our four... no... Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry... are such elements as fear, surprise...
Paul,
About that sociology book on American Protestantism. I think it was called "Brave New World", and Peter Berger was calling himself "Aldous Huxley" in those years.
(Just pulling your leg, ole buddy.)
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The chief (and only) weapon of the Liberal Protestant Inquisition is the maurading hordes of fancy-talking-pseudo-intellectual-khaki-wearing-suv-driving-C.S.Lewis-reading Episcopalians who are really too chickenSHIT to admit that there really is no God so they might as well cloak this grand delusion in the midst of an upper-class neighborhood and prey upon the weaker minds of their children so they will perpetuate the deception.
Of course, I might be a little off-base, but I doubt it...I'll take the philisophical teachings of Jesus and trash the rest of the "good" book....folks, that's just the way I see it.
Tim
And here comes the mud again... Sigh...
Arnold:
I see your point. Or was Peter Berger, in his book on Liberal Protestantism, writing as Nietzsche, under the title of Thus Spake Zarathustra?
Casey:
I hear you. But the old saying that occurs to me is, he who slings mud loses ground. :)
Robin: the logical fallacy of appealing to authority - in referencing the supposed degrees of 'creation scientists' - isn't a rebuttal of my claim at all
That didn't answer my question. I don't respect Cracker Jack degrees like Kent Hovind has--in fact, I've verbally opposed by irrational folks after warning people in my church about Hovind, but that's another story. We're not talking supposed degrees here, we're talking about real science degrees from moderately well-known schools. I personally know creationists with biology and paleontology doctorates from Harvard--yet according to you, they're not allowed to be called scientists because they don't worship at the altar of Darwin.
And I'm not committing logical fallacies, either. You need to brush up on your logic. Appeals to authority are flawed if the person is not really an authority, not actually speaking to the topic at hand, joking, etc. If every citation was a logically fallacious appeal to authority by definition, footnotes would be unnecessary. When you make sweeping claims such as creation science "abandons the scientific method entirely," you need more than assertions to defend your absolutist position. It's perfectly legitimate for me to cite a creationist with an accepted degree who claims to be doing creationist research. If he didn't have a respected degree, you'd mock him for that.
creation science makes no testable hypotheses of its own
So if I gave you a testable hypothesis you'd retract your blanket accusations?
Arnold: What's caused all that bitterness towards faith? Surely you can disagree without getting that vituperative.
crazed and ignorant early believer in Christianity
Like James Madison, for instance? Quote: "belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential to the moral order of the World and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources."
Randy,
Through my 69 years, and especially in the past 30 years or so, I have witnessed faith slowly close in around and begin choking off reason in the affairs of the our great republic, as if it were a sort of poison gas.
Because these two main guiding principles of life never seem to co-exist in equal measure for long. Otherwise, there never would have been even an extended debate -- mostly by men -- about whether women should have the right to control and have the last word over the reproductive processes of their own bodies.
I have done a great deal of reading in history, covering many periods and many civilizations. And sometimes, like Edward Gibbon of the 18th century, reviewing at length the decline and fall of the Roman empire, I look with great sadness at any process in which faith begins overtaking and destroying reason. Because this process inevitably leads to a new dark age of greater or lesser degree, and I believe it has done so in cycles throughout history.
Yes, nearly all the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in a God of some sort, and it is with some degree of accuracy that many of them have been described as 'deists'.
But if you carefully re-examine your quote from James Madison, you will see that in his view, belief in God was an intellectual activity necessary to maintain appropriate public order in a well-organized state. Necessity and faith are two different concepts. More importantly, Madison and his fellow authors of the United States Constitution were careful that the only reference to religion in their finished work, as quickly amended, was that the United States should honor the establishment of no religious faith or religious body at all.
In short, these men of the Age of Reason determined that, while faith in an all-powerful God was necessary to the maintenance of good public order, there was no way to determine which faith in particular was the correct one, and that, therefore, all religion should forever remain nothing more than a private matter in this greatest of all republics.
And perhaps it is better that way especially for the greater or lesser organized or independent religious bodies that reside among the American people. What would befall to them if we had state recognized "official" religions here co-existing with our constitutional liberties? Look at the examples of the countries in Europe in which a particular church -- Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, whatever -- in law or in fact is the sanctioned church. Many of these are enlightened societies in which worship is all but ignored except by the priests and old women, and the churches are as empty and silent as tombs. (Our family is Croatian enough for my wife to tell you in detail how this works in real life.)
Or look at places in the world where one religion or another has state power and exercizes it with a heavy hand. Is this not precisely the problem we face today in attempting to introduce western style democracy in Islamic states wherein sharia -- rule under religious law -- alternates with one form or another of baathist/nationalist state control? Is interference in everyday life not one facet of life most resented by a broad swath of the public in admittedly democratic Israel?
Then there were countries in which national socialism or communism began assuming the social and philosophical roles of state religions. I read somewhere that in the heyday of these perversions, houses in Germany and Russia had their respective Hitler and Lenin corners, with Mein Kampf or Das Kapital or somesuch frothy work prominently displayed, and that marriages, the birth of children or funerals were carried out with nazi or communist regalia and pomposity.
Whereas here in the United States, the evangelical Protestant houses of worship -- each totally independent of one another -- are alive with thousands of young people each Sunday and play an obvious, major and constructive role in their lives. Would Jesus Christ be as meaningful to all these people if their churches were merely another official arm of an all-intrusive government?
Among the very religious people in this country whom I admire are those of the Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ, or LDS as they call themselves. One of my close associates in business is a Utah Mormon, and I have carefully read their history, an interesting one, in that the LDS church is the only major religion born and bred totally on American soil, independent of the European strains of Christianity or any other faith. I read the Book of Mormon from time to time, just as I read Tora, the complete Bible and much else. No, I can't say I believe in the vision of the angel Moroni. But I see them as a culture in which stability of family is practiced at a higher and purer level than in almost any other subset of American life. In other words, I hold them in high esteem without being one of them.
As a reader and admirer of Ayn Rand and her objectivist philosophy, one would suppose me to be an atheist. But I am not. Agnosticism would be a better approximation of my particular form of nonbelief. I do not know for certain any more than the rest of you if there is or is not in fact a supreme being that brought order to the universe or -- perhaps more importantly -- helps maintain that order. I do not know enough about astrophysics, and I do not think there is yet sufficient evidence of what may be the ultimate fate of this universe, which I understand, may possibly be merely one of an endless succession of universes, at which the early Hindu prophecies tantalizingly hint. But individual immortal souls and all that? No, I think not.
But like James Madison, I hold that a well-ordered society in which liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the right to have and hold private property reign in permanent triumph, is the highest order of development among mankind. Therefore, I make it my business to coexist peacefully and to trade goods, services and opinions with every other citizen and -- hopefully, taxpayer -- who, like me, may have beliefs that are totally unlike those of any other person in the world in which they live out their lives.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Randy says: "I personally know creationists with biology and paleontology doctorates from Harvard--yet according to you, they're not allowed to be called scientists because they don't worship at the altar of Darwin."
Completely false, Randy, I say that they can't be called scientists because they are not practicing science. A point you have failed to address at all.
Look at any survey of voter attitudes, and you will find that men are more pro-choice than women are.
Look at any survey of voting patterns: pro-life female voters outnumber pro-life male voters.
Furthermore, the notion that only faith can influence the abortion debate is a canard, Arnold. There are hard-core libertarians and atheists who are pro-life, and there are religious people who are pro-choice.
I find that one of the most appalling notions in the abortion debate is that this is a simple question of faith vs. reason, or men vs. women. It has never been that simple, and never will be, for most people.
Standing on this fine grey line, I look at the world with both eyes open. (metaphorically speaking)
I consider myself an open-minded, free-thinker.
Why must they verse each other? Perhaps they are one in the same, difference being in timelines.
Here is my theory on the creationism vrs. evolution.
Taking a tidbit from the bible, that one of God's days,is equal to a thousand human years (in the time the Book was translated the number thousand could very easily have equaled million, it was a word used to explain to the reader, a great deal of time passing). It took God six day to "create" the World as described in Genesis.
Now, if you apply simple mathmatics, those six days in God's timeline would equal roughly six thousand years in our timeline.
Isn't this more than enough time for humans to "evolve"?
And with this method, doesn't these two theories support each other?
In my humble opinion, I think this argument throughout history has been about semantics.
Once again, in my humble opinion, this argument is as useless as an argument (or debate) over which side of the brain is needed more,the right or the left, a body can not function to it's maximum capacity without both working in tandem.
The nature of the Universe, and the humans who reside within, need order as well as chaos, to create the perfect balance.
What is light without dark?
What is order without chaos?
What is good without evil?
What is illogical without logic?
What is creation without evolution,what is evolution without creation?
This debate, in my opinon, is as non sensical as the debate between the two opposing sides of the same frosted mini wheat.
One can not exist without the other.
Dean,
Thanks for having a forum where one can have a friendly, open place to post their thoughts and opinions without apprehension.
You have very thought provoking topics. Refreashing.
MJM
Arnold,
Thanks for the mini-essay. We may agree on more than you think.
I don't see faith as monolithic--I can see some faiths as choking off reason, but I think true Biblical faith supports and encourages reason. We may well disagree, but we can be reasonable about it. I won't threaten you if you disagree with me. :-)
I don't want to discuss abortion here (a separate thread would be fine) but I don't think religion has to enter into the debate for a pro-life case to be made.
I think Madison's faith went beyond the pragmatic perspective you offer, but I agree with Madison that "religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence."
all religion should forever remain nothing more than a private matter in this greatest of all republics.
That's going a little farther than they went. After all, they paid for a chaplain to open their meetings in prayer, requesting God's guidance and blessing on their efforts.
I agree with you 100% about state religions, however.
I make it my business to coexist peacefully
Quite Biblical, actually: If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Romans 12:18
Robin,
Completely false, Randy, I say that they can't be called scientists because they are not practicing science. A point you have failed to address at all.
I have addressed it. You--by mere power of assertion--a priori rule out any research by qualified scientists as being "true science" simply because your presuppositions disagree with theirs.
You can't denigrate them for not "doing science" if your definition of science rules out anything they do related to creation. I assume you still recognize them as scientists when their work is neutral, such as when young earth creationist Ray Damadian invented the MRI scanner.
MJM,
Taking a tidbit from the bible, that one of God's days,is equal to a thousand human years
Context is vital. Back up a few verses in 2 Peter 3:
3 ...in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
As you can see, this passage can't be used to support a reconciliation between creation and evolution.
Isn't this more than enough time for humans to "evolve"?
And with this method, doesn't these two theories support each other?
Not at all. Evolutionists would laugh (or cry) at the thought of 6,000 years of evolution being enough.
One can not exist without the other.
Is that supposed to be some sort of yin-yang thing? I doubt you'll find much agreement.
Oh, get a life, Steve. Holes in a theory don't frighten me. If there were no remaining issues or uncertainties, it wouldn't be called a theory anymore.
Oh get some logic Dean. Noting that something supposedly can't be explained doesn't mean that that something is impossible or not real.
This kind of clap trap
So I inhesitantly acknowledge that the biggest thing creationists have on their side is the fat gaping hole in macro-evolutionary theory: we still have no hard evidence of one species evolving directly into another. It's the biggest challenge to evolutionary theory, and a notoriously difficult one to address. Which is why I found Dave Sim's article on creationism so funny.
Is basically an argument from ignorance, and it has been so debunked that the more sophisticated Creationists don't use it anymore. The only airheads using it are the likes of Kent Hovind and Jack Chick.
Several people have been kind enough to post links to talkorigins.org, I suggest you peruse that site and see exactly what evidence there is for macro-evolution.
Link explaining macro-evolution.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.
I see it's come to this. Sorry Dean, but I must direct your readers to the one true answer.
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i5/pliocene-pussy.html
Randy,
You might not think that your ideas on religion approach any degree of overlap when you ponder what I have to say about local property taxes on religious organizations, from which these bodies are almost universally exempt in all states at present.
This is a practice I would end immediately, and is the subject of a referendum underway in Colorado, I understand.
In my judgement, any church, mosque, synagog, temple or other real property belonging to any religious or nonprofit organization should nevertheless pay property taxes, exactly as I do on my home. No exceptions, regardless of the supposed goodness of their role in modern society.
I have nothing for or against any one religious creed that I do not have against all of them collectively. But I don't want to pay a dime in public taxes to cover money that should have come out of their collection boxes. You want a House of Faith? Fine. You pay for it.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
j.c.: thanks for that input. Now, I know the Truth about Cats & Dogs. Heh.
Dean: j.c.'s link led me to a site that makes Klein bottles.
They even make a Klein Beer Stein! Is that cool, or what?
Arnold, the only bit's of your long post above I'd disagree with is about the Mormons. I was raised in a very devout, old line Mormon family, and I can safely say that they are very skilled at only revealing the pretty facade that you saw.
Yes, there are good, healthy families in the Mormon church, but you'd perhaps (only perhaps) be shocked at the level and extent of mental, emotional and physical abuse that is systematically papered over and hidden in many Mormon families, in Utah or elsewhere.
Musn't have a 'scandal' now, let's all pretend that things are alright. And if you deviate from the faith, you are firmly ostracized from your family.
But I'll admit they talk a good, seductive line, it's just that the dark underbelly doesn't match up with the public propaganda.