What articles and TV shows? I haven’t seen any (outside of “creation science” literature), and I’ve seen quite a few articles and TV shows on the subject.
I suspect that this particular claim is on a par with the rest of your claims …
[/quote]
one in particular said that since the launch of the hubble telescope, they haven’t been able to find evidence farther out in the universe that proves it’s any more than 10,000 years old.
[/quote]
Well, it was clearly labeled as an opinion column, so why shouldn’t it be skewed? I didn’t claim it as evidence of anything. However, I think it raises some interesting pioints that are worthy of consideration.
I don’t agree that the article boils down to “creationists are stupid and ignorant”. The article contained very little discussion of “creation scientists” and a lot of discussion of “creation science” and its claims and practices. Perhaps it could be boiled down to “creation science is stupid, because it’s not science”.
Some stupid people are practicing so-called “creation science”, and some intelligent people are practicing it. There is evidence that the vast majority of them are ignorant of scientitic facts and how to practice science.
Note that I (and most people) see a gigantic difference between “creationists” who believe in Divine Creation as a religion and “creation scientists” who claim that Divine Creation is a scientifically testable hypothesis and claim to have tested that hypothesis. I have no argument with the former.
Hmm… if the universe were actually less than 10,000 years old, then the Hubble would not have been needed at all. If there were any other galaxies, then we would absolutely NOT see them for several magnitude more millenia.
The light from the nearest galaxy took way longer than 10k years to get here. So I think that’s rather definitive proof that the Hubble has demonstrably, empirically and unequivocally shown as manifest proof of a universe older than 10k years.
Of course, you could say that the physics of the universe worked differently, but that would be “shaping rules” to fit a theory, a heresy in scientific methodology.
That is the problem with Creationism. It’s saying “I think the universe was made this way” lets find proof to support it, or make a new reality to fit the proof to our theory. Like the “7 days” creation period. Sure, 7 days is “impossible” but we redefine days to fit our new diorama. What else are we allowed to change? Could it be possible that the book of Genesis was SO allegorical, that God is an analogue representing the chaotic behaviour of randomness and fate and that it was not an intelligent being, but rather an anthropomorphization (is that a real word) of this phenomena?
Scientists are always willing to discard theories when new facts or experiments (even gedunken) come to light which contradict the theory. Scientists are willing to toss Carbon-14… but there is no current reason to do so. It’s been one of the most reliable dating methods. Scientists are even willing to scrap the Big Bang – but there are no other viable theories on the table.
I once read a paper by a real Ph.D., (not one of the phony ones who set up a university in their basement and then award themselves), on how the carbon dating was totally skewed and the world was only 10,000 years old. It was an elegant solution that defied most other scientists.
Looking at the paper more carefully, though, in checking the references I found a critical figure taken from a paper by a Mr. Brown of Arizona. It turns out that Mr. Brown is a retired U.S. Army Sergeant who wrote a paper for the Creation Research Institute that said the world flood was 6000 years ago, and offered no physical facts for support.
Why would a clearly intelligent young Ph.D. jeopardize his academic career by writing such a paper? Why was this unfounded reference just barely noted but relied on so heavily? Perhaps he was trying to make points with the Creation Research Institute who published his paper. Or perhaps he wanted to believe in Creationism so much he was willing to fudge.
Why is it there are no Buddist, Hindu, Taoists or even Moslem scientist who believe in Creationism? They all accept Macroevolution. Why is it primarily the fundamentalist Christians who want to deny evolution?
Well, AFAIK Buddhists don’t even have a creation myth, so there’s nothing to defend. Is this also true of Taoists?
As for other religions which do have creation myths; I hear stories about fundamentalist religious violence involving Hindus and Moslems and I don’t necessarily get a vibe that they are somehow more open-minded than fundamentalist Christians. I doubt that they would give much credence to evolution if it threatened their beliefs. It may be a matter of education (do other cultures make as prominent a point of teaching evolution as we do here?). Perhaps they are not confronted with the theory as aggressively.
In any event, I doubt “they all accept Macroevolution”.
Somebody asked why only Christians care about Creationism.
Maybe it’s because it is the only straw upon which they can
grasp to support their belief in the ghost of a first century Jewish carpenter.
Ren clearly has some knowlege of biology, but is not so cognizant of anthropology. Almost all religions have a myth of creation, be it by Indra or Varna or Spider Woman or Yaweh. As I stated, Scientists of other religions accept macroevolution, and the Hindu and Moslem violence is not between the scientists. Only the fundamentalist Christian is so dead-set against macroevolution; and my illustration above of a scientist who fudged data to support creationism was an example of how strong some people are willing to go to support their vanity.
With that, however, I must admit that most of the international scientists with whom I have experience are physical scientists, so perhaps my view is skewed.
Conteacher suggests creationists are hanging on to the ghost of Jesus. While a lot of people are doing just that, I don’t think the problem with creationism depends on Jesus.
It depends on how strongly some people are so focussed on
themselves they will deny overwhelming evidence they are not the ultimate creation of God. The major conflicts in the western world between science and religion has always been those which removed man further from the center of the universe. Creationists are desperately trying to hang on to their own image of themselves as a mirror image of God and so stroke their vanity. All primitive cultures pictured themselves as number one, (their own languages frequently called themselves “The First People”). Creationists need to grow up.
While they are certainly the most vocal, they are not the only ones.
There have been a few Orthodox Jews on this message board who have been creationists (at least one is still around). I know that some Muslims are creationists as well, as I have seen articles about problems with them in Turkey. I’m sure many other religions have similar problems.
Dear David B:
I have a well educated good friend from Turkey who is not aware of your reference. She also pointed out there are many Christians in Turkey. Could you elaborate?
I’ll claim the exception proves the rule on your example of a jew who is a creationist. The overpowering number of creationists are fundamentalist Christians. What is it about Christianity that would do that? Or perhaps it’s just a convenient vessel for some factor of western civilization?
I still claim creationists have succumbed to the sin of vanity. They want to remain the centerpost of God’s creation and such vanity fought Galileo’s observation that the earth was not the center of everything and they fight Darwin’s ideas that suggests humans are not the ultimate creation of God.
I can’t elaborate much on the Turkey thing. The guy who runs the Skeptic listserv is from Turkey and has had numerous run-ins with Muslim creationists there. But I’m not on that list any more (too damn many messages), so I can’t find out much more.
As far as there being a lot more Christian creationists, that’s certainly true. But then there are also a lot more Christians in this country than any other religion, so it’s not terribly surprising.
The other thing is that fundamentalist Christians are told to go preach to the masses. Orthodox Jews are not. Thus, even if you met a guy who was an Orthodox Jewish Creationist, you might never know it, while the Christian Creationist might do his best to convert you and to get it into school. Similarly, many Orthodox Jews go to private Jewish schools (they have many other things the kids need to do that often cannot be done in public school), while fundamentalist Christians may not – so, again, the creationsim comes up in that context.
Dear David B:
I doubt we are very far apart in our ideas, just a few details. My thoughts are that creationists are a reflection of one factor of western society, (combined with other particulars like family and environment), and Christianity is a convenient vehicle for their expanded vanity. Fundamentalists of other religions do not seem to be so concerned with retaining the number one spot spiritually, although the French take classes in how to be rude to tourists. One note is that eastern religions tend to focus inward toward an ideal whereas western religions focus outward.
Another note is that the 12 “commandments” of Mohammed include a warning not to be so vain, (the ‘strut about the land’ one). Otherwise about the same as the 10 of Moses.
Although retired from science, I still do street ministry. I’ve just about accepted Melville’s notion that either God created the world and then left it to run by itself, or else God is a monster for allowing so much suffering by innocent people. What do you think?
Thank you for the test results. Perhaps you could use a comprehension exam yourself, to wit:
Well, duh. Who argued against this? On the other hand, you explicitly mentioned Buddhists, to which I explicitly replied. If you happen to know of any Buddhist creation myths, please by all means point me to them. I have not come across them in any comparative religious studies, but perhaps I lack adequate sources.
About the Hindu/Moslem thing: Your post equated fundamentalist Christians with other religions in general. My post attempted to point out that fundamentalism is not the same as Christianity. I would guess that attacks against evolution have more to do with fundamentalism than with Christianity. After all, I know countless Christians who have no problem with evolution. Maybe this threw you because it was not directly on point, so, returning to the point:
Only is a mighty strong word. It’s your claim, can you support it? I am extemely skeptical.
Dear Ren:
You are right; I came on too strong. Several years ago I retired from Silicon Valley to a small town in Oklahoma that has a sociological problem with integrity. I find I’ve picked up some of the absolutism if only in defending myself from the spiritual midgets in this place known in federal buildings as the cesspool of the state.
The fundamentalists here are Protestant and primarily Baptist. (The greatest fear of Baptists is that somewhere, someone is having fun.) The state has just approved the teaching of creationism in public science classes and so joins Kansas to confirm that despite Darwin, there are places evolution has not occurred.
There, I did it again with a generalization. I’ve got to get out of this place.
From my experience, the majority of creationists I’ve met and discussed are fundamentalist Protestants and not other faiths. I did meet a few creationists in France, (I lived in Switzerland for awhile), but none I spoke with were as radical or absolute as the creationists here in the U.S., but they were also Protestants like here rather than the Catholic majority. Even the Catholic chuch has accepted macroevolution. What do you think it is about Protestantism that has such an effect?
In this town I’ve been told I’ll go to hell for explaining evolution. When I say that in addition to a scientist, I’m also an ordained minister, a frequest response is that I’m an agent of the devil or there’s an implication that I’m a liar; (I’ve had to show my registry card on occasion).
I admire Buddism, especially now that monks are encouraged to participate in the community. Without a fatherly figure, (or first cause), it would seem difficult for the west to accept it as a doctrine, even though many good people practice much of Buddism principles without realizing it.
What do you think?
LOL! Like the Valley doesn’t! (I’m a Webhead, I’ve had my share of Silicon Valley “experiences”)
If by “fundamentalist” we mean those who tend to A) take the Bible as literally as possible and B) insist that their beliefs are the One True Belief, then I’d have to say I’ve never met any Catholic fundamentalists. Odd, considering that I was raised Catholic (I no longer follow that faith).
On the other hand, I did know Catholics who were creationist. They just didn’t feel the need to proselytize and/or persuade others that evolution was wrong and they were right.
[warning]
I’m about to get long-winded. You can skip to the bottom if all you wanted was a short answer, but here’s some background that might help you understand my perspective:
[/warning]
One of my main interests for a long time has been comparative religious studies, both from a theological/philosophical perspective (reading Chardin, Aquinas, Gurdjieff, Kierkegaard, etc etc) and from a sociological/ anthropological perspective (Eliade et al). I am an “armchair philosopher” when it comes to this stuff, so while I have an opinion that is fairly well informed (IMHO) it’s sure not gospel (pun intended, sorry couldn’t resist).
OK, now that we’ve gotten past the disclaimer:
There is a growing backlash against the rise of Western-based, secular, science-based cultures, which threaten a lot of older cultures. The threat is felt not just as a threat to an ideological stance, but as a threat to one’s ability to survive. Changing economic models and new class systems are threatening people’s livelihoods and destroying the social fabric that gives them psychological support in times of stress. OK, you knew that.
I see creationism (or, to be more accurate, anti-evolutionism, of which creationism is one component) to be an expression of this larger backlash.
The theory of evolution embodies many ideas that are central to this secular way of thinking about the universe and our place in it. The sentiment behind attacks on evolution is not just “the bible says this, therefore evolution must be wrong” but also “the evolutionary model posits that life is an accident and I can’t handle the idea that I’m alone in the universe”. Note that it’s especially hard to accept something that undermines one’s religious beliefs precisely at the time when one needs to lean on those beliefs the hardest due to the social/economic rug being pulled out from under one.
In other words it’s a lightning rod for a lot of social dissatisfaction.
My experience has been that anti-evolution sentiment is strongest along the “fault lines” where cultures are colliding the hardest. Christian fundamentalism in America seems to be strongest in economically depressed areas, for instance.
I would bet that there is a corresponding correlation (is that redundant?) between the types of religions that are prominent at the “fault lines” (and the message that they preach) and the need for psychological support in those areas. The kind of Protestantism or Baptist message delivered in those areas says to people “yes, we ARE the center of the universe, and we DON’T need to be more educated to survive. We just need simple faith, no thought required.” It kinda dovetails nicely with the sentiment behind anti-evolutionism or just plain anti-science thinking.
Of course, I could be completely wrong, too…
As far as Buddhism is concerned, that’s where I have personally “landed” after I launched out of Catholicism (after a 15 year journey). I often wonder if Buddhism should really be considered a religion, since it is not theistic (it’s not necessarily atheistic either, it simply does not concern itself with the question “who created me?”). In many ways it is more of either a set of philosophical principles, or sort of a course of action motivated by a will to understand human nature, and not based in religious belief. As such, it is often integrated into the practices of other faiths. I know “Christian Buddhists” for instance, and I don’t think that that is necessarily a contradiction.
Anti-evolutionist sentiment is clearly antithetical to Buddhism, however, since a desire to understand the world as it really is, and a healthy skepticism for unchallenged beliefs, are central to the Buddhist way of thinking.
God’s laws include the rules of the physical world that have operated since God created the universe, and that includes the changing forms of animals. Does God’s laws include the rules for selling daughters into slavery as outlined in Exodus 21? Or is that an exception?
Some ignorant people who don’t know science will say evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It doesn’t.
Some ignorant people who don’t know science haven’t seen the micro evolution under a microscope. A recent 15 year experiment even observed it operating in larger animals, (lizards).
Some people have succumbed to the sin of vanity and want to be the number one thing in God’s plans. They have listened to the serpent.
Dear Ren:
Your idea that anti-evolution proponents occurs along cultural fault lines is very interesting. There is certainly no simple explanation such as lower socio-economic which is likely true of the majority of anti-evolutionists in my experience.
hmmm, yeah I suppose that’s too neat an explanation. I’ve just been thinking of some of the extremely wealthy people I’ve known who sound just like dpr.
got a bit carried away, I guess. Better stick to shorter posts.
(I’m a Webhead, I’ve had my share of Silicon Valley “experiences”)