This is the second post about the Creation Museum. The first post is here.
It seems hard to believe, evidently, a large percentage of Americans — 40% – 50% — agree with the Creation Museum’s point of view — that the world is 6000 years old, etc. (It’s hard to believe that the percentages are so great, but, see this poll and this poll.) The stunning realization that such a big percentage of Americans are in such absolute denial of reality prompts some big questions.
Here in 2009, only a person who has been indoctrinated, brainwashed in a sense, could believe the world is only 6000 years old. Such a belief cannot come from any independent thinking. Its existence in any person’s reality structure indicates relentless indoctrination — often from a early age.
Wow. To realize that a huge chunk of the American citizenry have been successfully indoctrinated to accept a completely crazy, irrational idea about humanity’s origin raises the question about what other crazy ideas Americans have been indoctrinated to believe. This widespread indoctrination raises the question of whether the problem is that American education system regularly produces graduates that are easily indoctrinated. There is a lot of evidence, in fact, that indoctrination is a big part of the American education system, and, that the mission, purpose, and daily function of most American schools is to indoctrinate students. A successful school, certainly, is seen as one where students are made to be pliable and agreeable to manipulation by those in control.
In education and in life in general, a big question that needs to be answered is: What constitutes authority? Indoctrination is empowered by the idea that the individual has no independent authority in him or herself, but instead, must acquiesce to a powerful authority that is outside of himself or herself. The whole point of the Creation Museum is that the authority that should guide everyone’s thinking is the literal words of the Bible. The museum teaches that the words of the Bible have authority because they are the literal words of God, and mere mortals should not question God’s words.
The museum has a number of displays that disparages rational thinking. The displays say that when human rationality is the starting point, the result is error and eventual disaster (including the disaster of eternal punishment), but when the words of the Bible are the starting point, then the result is truth (and personal salvation).
Education often operates from the same definition of authority — a definition that sees the student as an empty vessel to be filled, one that sees the point of education as indoctrination, one that agrees with the museum’s notion of original sin, and sees the student as full of sin and error and in need of correction and direction. Students are rewarded for right answers, for following directions, for acquiescing to their teacher and school. Often the authority demonstrated in school is simply positional power — the power to reward or punish. It is easy to see that graduates from our system of education are prepared for a life time of indoctrination by the media and by power figures in their society. It is not surprising that many of these graduates, acclimated to the notion that they have no authority within their own thinking, readily accept the authority of quacks and extremists.
The Creation Museum, by its advocating the most radical of antievolution stands, the “Young Earth” stand, I think, may do a great favor, because it makes the question of what constitutes authority such a stark, compelling question. The focus of this whole $35 million museum is to ask: How can we know truth? What is our authority for knowing truth?
The great popularity of the Creation Museum forces us to acknowledge that indoctrination is very much in force in our whole society and that, if we could see the total landscape of what Americans believe — about our history, about our own society, about the world, about how to achieve peace — we’d be astounded to see beliefs equally as goofy and unfounded as a belief that the world is only 6000 years old. The popularity of the museum, and its emphasis on indoctrination, should force us to examine who or what we accept as authority and should shock us into once again realizing that the human race is doomed unless somehow there is a transformation in humanity’s thinking — toward a new respect for truth and for the authority of reason.
“What constitutes authority?” The Biblical worldview offers an all powerful, all knowing, ever present God as the ultimate authority. What does the evolutionary worldview offer as authority? Human reasoning? Which human’s reasoning? Is one human’s reasoning more authoritative than another’s? What value could there be in any human’s reasoning? Is human reasoning nothing more than the result of random chance electrochemical impulses in the human brain? Is the human brain nothing more than the result millions and millions random chance changes that have occured since the first living cell formed?
An interesting story in today’s headlines about evolution:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090727/sc_livescience/oldestanimalfossilsfoundinlakesnotoceans
Just goes to show you that even ‘conventional wisdom’. (i.e. ‘accepted scientific POV’) are constantly ‘evolving’ ;-)
Another issue here is that human institutional knowledge has outstripped what we can relate to by experience. Evolution happens over time periods that we can not relate to. We are familiar with the decades of our lifetime and may have experienced a grandparent or conceivably a great grandparent, so we can maybe relate to that person’s youth. Some may have family stories going back a little farther and, since most Americans are descended from immigrants or slaves, there is a rupture from the “old country”, wherever it may be. So we don’t have much personal experience to relate to.
This gap is filled by stories from the culture, and for us a primary one are the story of English colonies in America, which goes back to maybe 1600 or so, or to Columbus in 1492. Our other main cultural story is the Bible, which related a period of history estimated to go from 1800 BC or so for the patriarchal era to about 100 AD. The pre-patriarchal stories in Genesis are impossible to tie to any known history and resemble the mythologies that in other cultures attempted to explain major existential questions of life. If you add all the ages of biblical figures from genealogies you get about 4000 years, and with the 2000 years since we get a 6000 year old earth.
Science, using things like carbon dating and red shifts, tells us the universe is 14 billion years old, the earth is 4 1/2 billion years old, humanlike creatures existed 6 million years ago, humans existed 150,000 years ago, and farming cultures developed in the general Biblical area 10,000 years ago.
However none of us relate to or experience such time periods, any more than we relate to the millions and billions of dollars in government budgets. 6000 years, 10,000 years, 150,000 years, a million years, are pretty much equally incomprehensible. And not much seems to be at stake. We know the science we rely on in our lives works whatever we tell the pollsters. And we know our view of important things in life is influenced by Bible stories and we believe in that. Depending on our personal tolerance for being conscious of uncertainty, many of us are likely to (in Biblical terms) split the baby, feel ok with both in some way and avoid being threatened or forced to choose, in part because it’s unlikely to make any difference. We can go to the Creation Museum like we watch Lord of the Rings.
The reality is that everyone hears a lot of things about reality and is told to believe them, but we don’t experience them personally or emotionally. In the media age many of these experiences happen through television, and the media plays the role that used to be played by others similar to ourselves in a village square. How many countries have we seen? How many political leaders or celebrities? Who understands a cell phone, or how the economy works? Education, formal and informal, helps fill the void, and we may learn to pass tests, high stakes or low, but how much faith do we have? As a result we have a society filled with anxiety, which comes out in political and social conflicts. The evolution v. creationism conflict is archetypical, much of it being about perceived social disrespect as much as science or theology. Other emotionally engaging questions are about certainty and authority. As we heard in an earlier post, skeptics can say “prove it in a laboratory”, which may be impossible to do, given the scope and time needed to make such an experiment happen. We also have power of denial. There are lots of “missing links” and DNA evidence out there, but we can always ask for more.
Indoctrination is one social solution to problems of uncertainty, in both present and future. It provides authority and certainty, or at least the appearance of certainty. Few of us have the emotional security to do live by the rules of science that today’s theory is what works best today but tomorrow something else may work better. Particularly when social economic and cultural changes make it seem that society is going to hell religious authority makes many peoples’ lives and psyches easier than science does. However if religion gets political power to enforce its views on others, we get into trouble. We appreciate this fact more when we are talking about Iran rather than here but the same principal applies. We need to achieve an emotional state where we can accept science where it takes us and struggle with things like life’s meaning in our religious traditions and searches.
I have found that those who believe in evolution, or simply don’t believe there is a God, do so to avoid having to be accountable to anyone. If you believe in evolution, there are no morals except for your own, you can do whatever you wish, and your only fear is being caught by the police. I have seen member of the church I attend change their views from believing in God to being atheist so that no one can hold them accountable. They can do drugs, get drunk, sleep around, and no one can tell them it’s wrong because, without a belief in God, who decides what is right and wrong? It’s left up to everyone to decide on their own, thereby escaping any sort of moral standard, eliminating guilt. But, belief in God requires you to be accountable to a higher authority, and requires humans to lower their ego and admit there is a being out there that is greater than the human race.
This is a clash of worldviews; the evolutionist worldview, which excludes God, verses the creationist worldview, which includes God. Compromise is difficult if not impossible.
In the evolutionist worldview, why does any of this matter? What difference could it possibly make what we indoctrinate our children with. They are nothing more than rearranged pond scum just like us adults and every other living creature on Earth. Mother salmon does not care what happens to her children, why should we since we are nothing more than the product of a few more beneficial mutations?
Each worldview comes to the table with presuppositions, and facts are interpreted through the lens of those presuppositions. Science does not “tell” us the universe is 14 billion years and the Earth is 4-1/2 billion years. Science can tell us how much of a certain radioactive particle is in an object, but it is a scientist, who through the lens of presuppositions, interprets the data and tells us the Earth is 4-1/2 billion years old.
Carbon dating is only useful for dating organic objects less than about 60,000 years old. Beyond 60,000 years the amount of C-14 is too small to make useful measurements. C-14 cannot be used to date inorganic objects, like rocks.
When a diamond or a lump of coal is found containing measurable C-14, that data is interpreted based on presuppositions. The creationist concludes the item is less than 60,000 years old. The evolutionist cannot reach the same conclusion because of his presupposition that it must be much older. When dinosaur remains are found containing soft tissue the creationist concludes the remains can be no more than a few thousand years old. The evolutionist’s presuppositions will not allow him to reach that conclusion so he seeks an answer consistent with his worldview.
Dan, I can’t agree with what you write: “If you believe in evolution, there are no morals except for your own.”
There are a lot of devoted Christians who accept the consensus of science about evolution, a lot of devoted Christians, in fact, who are scientists with an in-depth understanding of the science involved, and who agree with the conclusion that all life evolved from the same source. There are devoted Christians who believe that the Bible is divinely inspired who also adhere to a mainstream scientific view of the origins and development of humans. So, a lot of Christians, who seek to order their lives according to their commitment to Christian ideals, reject the “all or nothing” viewpoint of the Creation Museum and instead find a way to reconcile their faith with a contemporary mainstream understanding of science.
Duane, I also disagree with you when you write, “The evolutionist worldview excludes God.” You are stating the implied message of the Creation Museum, but I think this message is flat wrong.
I believe you can believe in God and believe that God inspired the Bible and also be a good scientist. The issue with the Creation Museum is that, from the standpoint of mainstream science, the insistence on using the literal words of Genesis as the authority for science, means returning science to where it was 300 years ago. From the standpoint of mainstream science, the notion that the world came into existence 6000 years ago is absurd. To believe that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaries, that all 6.5 billion humans now alive are direct descendants from humans saved in Noah’s Ark 4350 years ago, that the grand canyon was made in a few years, in 2009, is to flatly reject modern science. The point of view of the Creation Museum is very very out of date.
The objections we are hearing to evolution are basically about theology and not science. Dan and Duane assert that if people do not believe in God (impliedly extended to a literalist view of the God of the Bible? Not actually required for this viewpoint, but it tends to be there in practice) then there are no restraints, people do whatever they want, behave like whatever life form they want to imitate, and we get sex, drugs, anarchy, evil and moral chaos. Throw in some postmodern relativism, of sorts, that evolutionists make their presuppositions (actually based on theories justified by evidence, although perhaps difficult to view or understand intuitively without complex equipment and high levels of specialized education. So things like radiation dating and red shifts are not just made up but explain the evidence better than any alternative) and creationists make their presuppositions (assuming the Bible is literally true. However when you assume your conclusion you can not also prove it, even if things are consistent with your assumption) and you can’t say for sure that creationism is incorrect..
There are of course problems with this. One is that Biblical authors did not know modern science, did not have the knowledge or the equipment, and so could not intend to be in conflict with it, as we know these conflicts today. In addition we have the fact that believers in religion do their share of evil, while people who do not adhere to it do their share of good, and do not necessarily behave as Duane and Dan describe. Furthermore there are many religious people who do not find conflicts between science and religion to be either necessary or desirable. Science is about how things happen, while religion is more about why. Science has its limitations of what it can explain. However God is not necessarily the explanation for everything we do not presently understand. Furthermore the conflict may really be between bad science (a mechanistic view that is no longer considered accurate) and bad religion (taking things literally that were not written to be taken literally; paying less than proper attention to what seems to be the religion’s most significant points, like loving ones neighbor, reconciling conflicts, and avoiding the problems of a life centered on possessions, and seeing religion as preserving the worst features of ancient cultures). In any case, a better view is to interpret the Bible with understanding of its time, the literature and world view that existed at the time of its compilation, as well as the various translations and interpretations that have happened since. People will still struggle over its interpretation and more significantly, what we are to do about conflicts between it and things we value highly, such as money, power and earthly status.
Mr. Bock,
You tell me, if you believe in evolution, what moral code do you adhere to? It would have to be a moral code created by a man. So which man’s code do we follow? If we all evolved from the same single cell, what makes one man’s morals and better than someone else’s? Some people don’t believe it’s wrong to molest little children, what makes their view any less acceptable than someone who thinks it is wrong? They both came from the same single cell, so who is right?
Mr. Bock, I also believe you can believe in God and believe God inspired the Bible and be a good scientist. Louis Pasteur believed in the God of the Bible. His belief in creation and opposition to evolution did not prevent him from doing good science.
The Creation Museum guys believe there is a difference between “operational science” and “origins science”. Do a little investigating. See if there is a difference.
Absolutely, the evolutionist “worldview” excludes God. It is an attempt to explain the diversity of life without including a creator.
Moses believed God did his creative work in six days and rested on the seventh. Jesus believed God created humans, males and females, in the beginning, not through millions of years of evolutionary changes from lower life forms. If you believe in God and believe God inspired the Bible how can you reject the words of His inspired prophets and accept the words of fallible men?
If we appealed to “mainstream science” and “modern science” and asked, ‘2000 years ago would it have possible for someone to born of a virgin?’, what answer would we get? If we asked, ‘Is it possible to walk on water?’, what would the answer be? If we asked, ‘Is it possible for a person who has been dead for a few days, to be brought back to life?’, what answer would “modern science” give us? If we asked “mainstream science”, ‘Is it possible for a bunch of chemicals to randomly come together and produce a living cell?’, what would the answer be? If we then asked for demonstrable proof, what would happen?
I’ve been to the Grand Canyon. It is probably the most awe inspiring site I have ever seen. No picture does it justice. In places I could see the Colorado River in the bottom of the Canyon. I guess, given enough time a river could cut a canyon that deep but how could the Colorado River cut a canyon that wide? There is not enough water. It is also interesting to note that the elevation of the rim where the river enters the canyon is lower than the elevation of the rim in the middle of the canyon. We all know rivers don’t normally flow uphill.
How were humans able to draw pictures of dinosaurs and fashion sculptures of dinosaurs before the fossil remains were ever dug out of the ground?
You state we must reject “modern science” to believe living humans descended from Noah and his family. If we embrace ”modern science” we believe we are not only the descendents of the original human pair but also descendents of the original single celled life form. Do the math. Start with 8 people or even just 2 people. Apply a reasonable rate of population growth and see how many people you would have in 4300 years.
Mr. Hirtle,
If one believes the Bible to be inspired of God it would not matter what the inspired writers knew of “modern science”. In the creationist’s worldview science operates perfectly fine because we live in universe made and sustained by an all powerful creator. A creator that not only knows true science but is the author of its laws.
In the evolutionist’s worldview, which excludes God, we live in a universe that is the product of random chance occurrences and time. How can we know that what we believe to be true today will be true tomorrow? How can we know gravity will behave tomorrow like it does today? When we confidently assert gravity or anything else will behave a certain way we are borrowing that confidence from the creationist’s worldview. That confidence cannot exist in the evolutionist’s ”roll of the dice” worldview.
You state, “In addition we have the fact that believers in religion do their share of evil, while people who do not adhere to it do their share of good,”. An honest Biblical creationist would whole heartedly agree with your statement. One who believes the Bible to be the inspired word of God would have a basis to determine what is “evil” and what is “good”. What standard do you use? In the evolutionist worldview no standard exists. In a materialistic worldview good and evil cannot exist because good and evil are not material. In order to know evil and good you must borrow from the creationist’s worldview.
“If one believes the Bible to be inspired of God it would not matter what the inspired writers knew of “modern science”. In the creationist’s worldview science operates perfectly fine because we live in universe made and sustained by an all powerful creator. A creator that not only knows true science but is the author of its laws.”
However inspired Biblical writers may be in their understanding of issues of human existence, they didn’t get their science right. The initial creation story describes a chaos of waters, and God creates a “firmament” that separates the waters above the earth from the waters below the earth. When Noah’s flood happens, not only do the heavens open with rain but the “fountains of the deep” open up and water rushes up, and together these waters flood the earth. This is a great poetic imagining from ancient peoples, but it certainly isn’t what science tells us the universe is like. Instead the earth is a planet, circling the sun, and there is no ocean of water above nor any significant sea of water below the surface.
Do we care about this difference? The rest of your paragraph suggests that as long as there is a creator we don’t care if these Genesis passages are literally true or not. That is probably the position of the great mass of Christians who are not literalists. Similarly, the rest of your post essentially argues with a nihilistic position or position of extreme randomness, that I doubt any evolutionist adheres to. If they did, it is again a theological question, not a scientific one.
You mention the Grand Canyon, which is considered by many to be a museum of evolution because of the way fossils are deposited in layers, with the most recent on the top. Geologists consider the Grand Canyon to be relatively young in geological time, that is 12 million years. Of course humans do not comprehend geologic time, which is also considered to be the time over which life developed into its present form. Geologists say that the earth’s landforms are constantly changing, with tectonic plates colliding, mountains being raised and at the same time eroded, so what is higher elevation now was not necessarily higher earlier. Of course there are questions about what can be proven? Do fossils show a undeniable mechanism of evolution? Can we prove God did not snatch up old life forms and scatter new ones? Or maybe just make the Grand Canyon the day before the first people saw it? These are faith statements. Are some better than others, say the ones that fit reality best?
People drew pictures of many things, imagining mixes of the dangers of the natural world and the terrors within. Some became pagan Gods that were later rejected as religion developed. Reptiles are fascinating and often scary so it is no surprise that people made them into works of art. There is no reason, scientific or biblical, to think people shared the world with dinosaurs.
Part of this discussion seems to involve the complexety of religion. Assuming that the universe was created by some actor which was not itself created by some other actor, this does not require this creator to resemble the God of the Bible, with God’s mix of Judge and Redeemer of humanity. Or a God who favors flawed characters like Jacob, David and Paul, or the people of Israel as a whole. Or as you suggest, is the source of the difference between good and evil.Or Jesus’ “Abba” which meant Daddy. Asking whether people believe in God may be less significant than asking what this God is like. A statement attributed to a number of seminary professors or presidents who had a student say he didn’t believe in God is “Tell me what God you don’t believe in. Maybe I don’t believe in that God either.”
Believing in a creator, or even the literal God of the Bible, does not necessarily solve problems of good and evil. In the Bible God sometimes tells God’s people to kill their enemies, and some times does it for them, and sometimes punishes them severely when they don’t. Other times God says to love your enemies, values outsiders and the powerless, scatters the proud in the thoughts of their hearts, sends the rich away empty and tells people to give away their possessions. God tells Abraham to kill his son, then tells him not to, but praises his willingness to do it. We obviously have problems with these passages.
It may also be that any God worth believing in can not be understood the way we attempt to understand science. If the underlying message is that God wants people to love each other or, as Micah says, do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with God, then what we need really is not a creation museum telling us the world is 6000 years old, but communities where people struggle honestly to do the above.
Why are we showing such deference to Duane and Dan, who are insulting us as immoral heathens, rejecting proven knowledge, and oversimplifying humanity into “us” and “the evil ones”?
Authoritarian Christianity ruled Europe through the midieval millenium. It failed abjectly. If we want poverty, disease, oppression, warfare, ignorance, decline and confusion in abundance, Dan and Duane and their Creation “Museum” ilk stand ready to drag us back there.
Only when European scholars began to reject the authority of the Church and the scriptures did we begin to comprehend the actual workings of the natural world–and future study of the human mind and psychology promises to give us more effective ethical codes than those stone-age shalt-nots.
Of course we all have the choice–we can continue in our scientific and technological progress, or we can emulate those foolish parents who are in jail now for praying over their daughter instead of getting competent (and non-Biblical) medical care for her diabetes.
Dr. Ruddick, I would like to think that this site is one where visitors make a commitment to attempt to reason together — so, when you ask, “Why are we showing such deference to Duane and Dan?”, I take your question as a compliment, of sorts, to the level and tone of this conversation so far.
“Reasoning together” requires making an honest effort to see and understand the other’s point of view. I’m trying to understand the basis for Duane and Dan’s conviction that it is very important that the words of Genesis be accepted as literally true. I’m trying to understand their point of view. Duane and Dan, however, in their last comments ignored my point of view, stated above — “There are a lot of devoted Christians who accept the consensus of science about evolution, a lot of devoted Christians, in fact, who are scientists with an in-depth understanding of the science involved, and who agree with the conclusion that all life evolved from the same source”
Mr. Bock,
It is hypocritical to believe in evolution and be a “devoted Christian”. The Bible tells us how the Earth was created, and you either believe that or you don’t. Would you not find it hypocritical for a scientist to totally reject the “theory” of evolution and believe that the earth was created by God in 7 24hour days, and the earth is around 10,000 years old? Tell me if someone with a literal view of the Bible can be considered a sound scientist. The documentary “expelled” shows someone cannot be considered a sound scientist AND have a literal biblical view of how the earth was created, just like someone cannot be a devoted Christian and believe in evolution.
I attempted to show the inconsistency of someone who claimed to be a devouted Christian but rejected the words of Moses and Jesus regarding “origins”. It is not just the literal words of Genesis 1 we have to deal with. It is the literal words of Moses in Exodus 20 and the literal words of Jesus in Matthew 19.
What do these devouted Christian scientists believe about the virgin birth of Jesus or the bodily ressurection of Jesus? Maybe one will tell us. Why is it harder to believe in a recent creation than it is to believe in a virgin birth or a bodily ressurection? “Modern-Mainstream Science” tells us all these things are not possible.
Dan and Duane, as I wrote above, “I’m trying to understand the basis for Duane and Dan’s conviction that it is very important that the words of Genesis be accepted as literally true.”
Your answer indicates that believing Genesis to be literal is an important aspect of your overall belief system. But the Nicene Creed statement about Genesis is one that even the most liberal Christian theology could, even today, agree with. The Creed simply says, “I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible” Early Christians evidently didn’t make a big deal out of correcting the notion that “day” could mean “eons” — wasn’t that a philosophy handed down from the Greeks? — or the Council of Nicea would have insisted on including mention of the 24/7 belief in this important and defining statement of creed. So, it seems to me that the literal “day” view you are stressing, as being an important belief, evidently was not important to early Christians, or it would have been hammered out in the creed. Obviously, however, belief in the resurrection was of central importance to them.
Not all beliefs are of equal value. One person, I heard, said that he’d believe the literal words of the Bible even if it said “Jhonna swallowed the whale,” rather than “The whale swallowed Jhonna.” The willingness of ordinary humans to bow to outside authority, rather than to think for themselves, as I write above, in part can be blamed on our government run schools. It’s an attitude, “I’ll believe whatever I’m told to believe,” that students every day are rewarded for. Schools teach that the right answer is something that is found by listening to experts and those in authority. What I am reflecting on in this post above, “Only The Authority Of Reason Can Save Us,” is the fact that humanity as a whole needs to find answers to some awesome problems. Otherwise, we seem headed for a calamity beyond imagination. It seems to me, the only hope for humanity is that the authority of reason becomes the authority that guides humanity — not the authority of raw power, not the authority of sacred texts as interpreted by those in power — yet the authority of reason is given such little respect. The thrust of the Creation Museum is to undermine the authority of human reasoning.
I think it is consistent to label the story of Jonah as a fable, yet believe the story of Peter’s denial as literally true. An “all or nothing” view of scripture is too easy. Humans don’t get a free pass — we are responsible to use our reasoning, and we shuffle that responsibility off at our own peril. We’re not entitled to our mere opinions.
This notion that the authority of reason could actually begin to guide humanity, ties in with the bigger theme I continually return to — the importance of vitalizing our democracy. I’m reading that now over one billion people in the world are malnourished and chronically suffer from hunger. Christians need to focus on such practical problems. I don’t think our democracy is paying attention to a lot of problems. As I wrote above, I think our educational system discourages rational thought.
Jonah being swallowed by a great fish, living inside it for three days, and being spat back up on land is a miracle. If God had chosen to perform a miracle where Jonah swallowed a whale, he could have done that also. God created the universe, he can do anything he wants. Just like God can raise people from the dead, cause a virgin woman to give birth to a child, part the Red Sea, or allow folks to walk on the water. Our reasoning was instilled in us by an all knowing, all powerful creator, not the product of evolution.
The literal words of Jesus in Matthew 19 (at 24) include “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” I am not sure how seriously American Christians, even Biblical literalists, take this particular passage. If we did, we would probably handle our lives and economy differently than we do. However I would think that if we were going to take the Bible seriously, it would be these kinds of passages where Jesus is telling us how to live our lives, as opposed to looking for literalism in creation stories, folk tales and other devices that are used to illustrate or point to deeper meanings. Jesus used this method himself on numerous occasions in parables. Do Biblical literalists believe that the stories of say the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son actually took place historically? Would the Bible be “a lie” if they hadn’t? I suspect even Biblical literalists acknowledge that these stories do not to be historical to impart meaning. The Biblical authors who knew much less about astronomy and cosmology than we do, did the same.
At least it is clear from these comments that the Creation Museum is about Biblical literalism, and not just about whether God rather than randomness is in charge of the universe.
Here’s the problem Stan,
If you start saying the Bible is not to be taken literally, and some of the stories contained in it never happened, how do you know know what parts are true and what parts are made up stories? If you believe that the flood never happened, or that the creation never happened, what stops you from believing that the story of Jesus was made up, and there never was a man named Jesus who died on a cross for our sins and was risen from the dead? How do you know that when the Bible says to love your enemies, it means that literally, maybe that is just a “made up” story also and we can really hate our enemies?
If you don’t believe the entire Bible is to be taken literally, how do you know which parts are real and which parts are fake?
It would be similar to saying all of the state laws are not to be taken literally. When the Ohio Revised Code says its wrong to steal money from your employer, it doesn’t mean that literally, so its okay to take a $20 from the cash drawer every now and then. Why do people find it necessary to think the entire Ohio Revised Code has to be taken literally?
Good question. The answer may be that you can’t, at least that there is a clear unambiguous answer to every question. Maybe belief is living with uncertainty. Again the terms “real” and “fake” may be misleading. It may be the difference between a poem and a car repair manual. The poem is not fake, in fact it may communicate truth in a way that the car repair manual can’t.
The retort is how can you take the entire Bible literally. The answer is that you can’t. It’s too big and too over the place. I think the idea of taking the Bible literally is reassuring to some, so people who do that have come up with interpretations to get over the problems, often saying that the “Bible as a whole” says such and such. However these are interpretations also.
I think the most significant issues with the Bible is not whether Genesis with its waters and firmaments accurately describes the universe, but what we do with the hard sayings of Jesus and similar things. Loving our enemies. Turning the other cheek rather than responding with violence. Giving up possessions. Forgiving lots of times. Giving up divorce is a hard one even for many conservatives. What gets in the way? To some extent we think he didn’t really mean it like it sounds. Love bin Ladin? Give things away rather than keep them or trade them for other things, so that there is nothing in it for us and on the contrary, we have less? Forgive the mugger who hits us in the head and steals our wallet? Put down the gun so we or others don’t have to die from the gun? Reconcile with our political enemies, all those liberals or all those conservatives screaming on talk shows or town meetings? Welcome undocumented immigrants or homosexuals or homeless people into our homes? Going outside our comfort zone on any of that? What gets in the way? It’s probably not that the Bible has to be taken literally, or else none of it is meaningful. Some of it can be ambiguous. Say people having “dominion” over the earth. Does that mean we can tear everything up as we see fit? Does it mean we are responsible like the ancient “stewards” for passing it on intact?
The biggest issue is probably that we just don’t believe those things. We believe other things instead. How does the Bible compete with them, even overcome them?
The Revised Code is not a useful analogy. We elect people and they pass laws. To some extent courts do decide whether some laws can be enforced by some people (much of this was devised by Conservative Supreme court justices in the civil area.) But usually a legislature can pass a criminal law that will be taken literally. That what it is there for. But even laws have to get interpreted by courts. And some times we get challenges. We know what theft is in the situation you describe, but don’t always know what it should mean on say the internet where some content is free and some isn’t. Or with the financial products that have caused the economic crisis.
Anyway the Bible is not legislation, we don’t elect people to write it, and America wisely decided not to imitate the religious wars of Europe by prohibiting establishing a religion or prohibiting its free exercise. Plus the Bible is not written like legislation should be, and parts that are, say Leviticus, are mostly ignored today. To the extent that it looks to what goes on in peoples’ hearts and minds it doesn’t work as legislation.
Mr Bock,
I don’t believe the Nicene folks had any concept of eons of evolution. It was not an issue to address. Evolution is a theory that does not recognize “…one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible” .
Our public schools are not permitted to teach creation yet you state 40-50% of Americans accept the Creation Museum’s point of view. Why can’t this be result of evaluating worldviews and picking the one that is most consistent with the world we live in. Why blame it on faulty reasoning when it could be because of good reasoning? It is the rejection of, “I’ll believe whatever I’m told to believe,” by the “experts” in the public school systems.
You state,
“I think it is consistent to label the story of Jonah as a fable, yet believe the story of Peter’s denial as literally true. An “all or nothing” view of scripture is too easy. Humans don’t get a free pass — we are responsible to use our reasoning, and we shuffle that responsibility off at our own peril. We’re not entitled to our mere opinions.”
Do you realize your statement is nothing more than your mere opinion?
Do you realize responsbility and reasoning and consistency only exist in the creationist’s worldview. In the “molecules to man” evolutionary worldview, belief in such things is without reason.
Our democracy’s lack of concern for the billion undernourished could be result of the prevalent evolutionary thinking. “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” should demand they make their own way in this world. The Bible teaches us to be concerned for our fellow man, physically and spiritually.
The folks at the Creation Museum are concerned that a rejection of the Genesis account of creation leads to a rejection of the Bible as authoritative in other matters. As a society, we are reaping what we are sowing.
Duane, statements that cannot be justified are called “mere opinion.” I don’t think I am making statements that cannot be justified. I think there are a lot of ways, for example, to justify my statement — “Humans don’t get a free pass — we are responsible to use our reasoning, and we shuffle that responsibility off at our own peril” — the name “Jim Jones” comes to mind, and, “Adolph Hitler.” There have been many examples of disaster flowing from the handing over of individual sanity to an absolute authority. So I think my statement — that we shuffle off our responsibility for independent thought at our peril — can be justified and it is not “mere opinion.”
On the other hand, it seems to me, there is no way to justify the statements advanced by the Creation Museum. Its conclusions are based on the controlling premise that the authority that should guide human thinking and behavior should not the authority of human reasoning, the authority of modern science, but rather, the authority of ancient scripture. The museum makes this controlling premise very clear. It seems to glory in the fact that the decision to accept the authority of ancient scripture is a non rational, faith based decision.
The insistence that a controlling premise be the basis for all thought, I believe, is fair to label as “indoctrination.” As I wrote, above, “Indoctrination is empowered by the idea that the individual has no independent authority in him or herself, but instead, must acquiesce to a powerful authority that is outside of himself or herself.” Indoctrination demands a suspension of critical thinking. The fact that 40% of Americans agree with the museum’s point of view, to me, shows how pervasive the power of indoctrination is in our society.
Blind religious belief — the result oftentimes of relentless indoctrination — is leading humanity to disaster. The idea that the earth is only 6000 years old is not science, but rather, belief — religious belief that amounts to mere opinion, mere opinion because it cannot in any way be rationally or scientifically justified.
I think you have a point when you write, “The Bible teaches us to be concerned for our fellow man, physically and spiritually.”
Mr. Bock,
Is this statement of Moses in Exodus 20:11,
“For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”
mere opinion?
The Creation Museum folks believe this excerpt from “ancient scripture” to be true because it was inspired by an almighty creator.
Is this statement,
“Millions and millions of years ago random chemicals came together and gave rise the first living cell”
science or belief?
Is this statement,
“Over millions and millions of years, millions and millions of mindless mutations, have resulted in the complexity of life forms we observe today”
science or belief.
Do you expect me and the Creation Museum folks and 40-50% percent of Americans, who are the products of an almighty God, to reject the inspired words of that almighty God and accept the words of fallible men who are the products of millions and millions of mindless mutations?
Was Hitler an evolutionist? Did he believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest? In the evolutionary worldview what could possibly be wrong with what Hitler did?
You may have a misunderstanding of the Creation Museum folk’s, “decision to accept the authority of ancient scripture…“. They would agree that it is ultimately a faith-based decision but would disagree that it is non-rational. Their web-sites, and the museum itself, are all about giving reasons for why they believe what they believe. They take very seriously the words of Peter in First Peter 3:15,
“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear;
Duane, you write that I cannot expect you “to reject the inspired words of almighty God and accept the words of fallible men.”
But, you problem is, even if you believe all of the words of the Bible are literally true, the meaning of words still requires the interpretation of fallible men. And so, throughout history, there have been heated disagreements about the meaning of the Bible message by various groups and individuals — all who believed in the infallibility of the Bible.
Usually someone who is seeking authority for what they want to say can find something in the Bible to justify their claim. So now we have a whole “Left Behind” fantasy that is supposedly based on the infallibility of the Bible. And now we have the prosperity gospel, the “name it–claim it” gospel, a “Bible teaching” that raises tons of money for their operators by twisting scripture to ask people to “plant a seed” in their “ministry.” This teaching is supposedly Bible based — God wants you to be rich. We have groups — all supposedly Bible based — collecting and sending money to Israel in order to fund even more illegal west bank settlements and urging that Israel attack Iran, and urging Israel to not find accommodation with the Palestinians. A lot of nutty ideas are advanced under the cover of the notion of the infallibility of scripture as their authority. A lot of nutty ideas gain popular following because basically they pander to prejudice of listeners.
If you surrender the authority of your own reason to the notion that the words of the Bible in Genesis are literally true, from one standpoint, that seems a pretty innocuous thing to do. Live and let live. But, from another standpoint your viewpoint is disturbing. And, it is surprising and disturbing that so many Americans seem to agree with your point of view. I am alarmed that evidently over 100 million Americans can so easily abandon the authority of their own reason, in order to believe what they want to believe, even though they know in order to do so requires a radically anti science view. There is a self centered, anti science, anti rational point of view out there that seems to have a lot of influence. Unfortunately, this point of view is pretty much the opposite of the point of view — celebrating thoughtfulness and rational discourse — that our democracy needs.
Your belief about Genesis requires a suspension of critical thinking. That’s the whole point. It’s a faith statement. But the problem is, once one has made the decision to suspend one’s critical thinking concerning the absolute infallibility of the Bible, without the authority of your own reason, how do you defend yourself against the wolves who seek to take advantage of you? I’m talking about the wolves in sheep clothing. Many of these wolves, after all, can quote scripture quite well. Jim Jones thumped the Bible and had a big following of people who trusted his teaching. When you are willing to put the authority for your thinking outside of yourself, into a person or a scripture, you abandon the authority of your own reason. Freedom is difficult, but, if you are to be free, you must take responsibility for your own thinking. Everyone, it seems, wants to be rich, but the evidence is pretty clear that not everyone wants to be free.
I guess catering to the passions and interests of the population is always a good way to create income. So we see Christianity subverted into a “God wants you rich” religion, because this is a teaching that people want to believe, and people are willing to shell out money to support what they believe. We see Christianity subverted into an apocalyptic fantasy, because this is what people want to believe and what they will shell out money to support.
The phenomena of the Creation Museum is that some entrepreneurially gifted individuals have found a way to generate a huge revenue stream based on the fact that a great number of Americans really do want to believe that Genesis is literally true and are willing to shell out the bucks to validate their belief. The museum is a testimony of the payout possible via calculated pandering — providing a service that people are seeking — a validation for creationist’s beliefs. It’s disturbing that individuals involved in this, who have Ph.D’s and academic training, and who give the authority of their academic credentials to the notion that the earth is only 6000 year old, must know better, yet persist. It reminds me that at one time scientists with credentials also vouched for the claims of the tobacco companies.
I can’t believe this museum has generated this much fuss on this board. Live and let live.
I have one question for you, Mr. Bock. This single cell that started the evolutionarily chain of events, where did it come from?
Mr. Bock,
Use all your own reasoning, critical thinking, and whatever else you believe to be useful and interpret this for me,
For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
I’m going to use my reasoning and critical thinking and analyze the complex bio-chemical machine that we call a single living self-reproducing cell…I come to the conclusion, it is absurd to think this cell came to be by random chance and not from an intelligent source.
Why do you have such a hard time believing we creationists have not taken a long hard look at both creation and evolution and used our God-given ability to reason to choose the better explanation for the origin of life?
Why not interview Mark Looy or Ken Ham before you question their motives and challenge their integrity? Why not open an Evolution Museum and get the other 50-60% of Americans to support it.
Duane, you write, “Why do you have such a hard time believing we creationists have not taken a long hard look at both creation and evolution and used our God-given ability to reason to choose the better explanation for the origin of life?”
The explanation of the origin of life is given in the Nicean Creed: “I believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, And of all things visible and invisible.” Creationist adhere to the Nicean Creed. But, you can be a complete evolutionist, yet completely agree with the Nicean Creed’s explanation for the origin of life as well.
In these long discussions, it is easy to forget the starting point. This is what I wrote in the original article: “Here in 2009, only a person who has been indoctrinated, brainwashed in a sense, could believe the world is only 6000 years old. Such a belief cannot come from any independent thinking. Its existence in any person’s reality structure indicates relentless indoctrination — often from a early age.”
Many people who believe in “intelligent design” see it as a part of a very long process that lasted billions of years. I just don’t think it is possible to defend the foundational premise of the museum — the earth is 6000 year old premise — there is a mountain of science that refutes this premise. That is why I say anyone believing this premise has been indoctrinated — they are relying on outside authority to do their thinking for them — and why I say that this museum, by taking such a radical “New Earth” stand, really pushes the issue. There are other versions of creationism that are much more plausible, but the museum is intent on presenting the least plausible — a 6000 year old earth. When, as a society, we make decisions from the state of indoctrination, we are doomed. Yet, we are so easily indoctrinated to believe what we want to believe. As I wrote, The Creation Museum’s Shocking Indoctrination Effort Reminds — Only The Authority Of Reason Can Save Us
Maybe you are right that I’ve challenged the integrity of Mark Looy or Ken Ham. I did describe their work, in creating and operating the Creation Museum, as “calculated pandering,” which implies I think that — maybe — they are most of all simply exploiting a business opportunity. But, I’m willing to grant they may be completely sincere in what they are doing — everyone deserves to earn a living and Maybe Mr Looy and Mr Ham have simply found a way to make a living while pursuing their passion.
The museum is a testimony of the payout possible via calculated pandering…
While this is certainly true of our Governor’s education “reforms.” I’m not so sure it applies to the AiG Creation Museum–which is, after all, a Genesis Creation Museum. In our democracy, we accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs.
Just how does believing the Torah to be God’s inspired and inerrant laboratory notebook ithreaten the costly a sacrifice Americans have laid upon the altar of freedom?
Why, Mike, are you more concerned with the alleged calculated pandering of Biblical literalists than the actual calculated pandering of our Governor? Which will do more harm to children and democracy?
Eric, the question I think that is worth discussing is the question of authority — what is meant by authority? How is authority attained? The authority that needs a new attention and a new respect is the authority of reason. The Creation Museum prides itself on degrading the importance of human reason, compared to the importance of ancient scripture. I think it is correct to call the overall presentation of the museum a “Shocking Indoctrination Effort.”
You need to enlighten me about what you are talking about when you refer to “the actual calculated pandering of our Governor.” You should consider writing an article and posting it here at DaytonOS about your concerns and I’ll be glad to respond.
Mr. Bock,
No doubt,
“Many people who believe in “intelligent design” see it as a part of a very long process that lasted billions of years.”
but what they ‘see’ is not consistent with what Moses said in Exodus 20 and what Jesus said in Matthew 19. I choose, through careful reasoning, the words of the inspired prophets.
You state, “I just don’t think it is possible to defend the foundational premise of the museum — the earth is 6000 year old premise — there is a mountain of science that refutes this premise.”
They have attempted the impossible. Go look at their defense of their “foundational premise”. It is on their websites. They deal with your “mountain of science”. It is there for all to see. Don’t let science, so called, do all your thinking for you. Otherwise you might get indoctrinated.
I don’t get this “authority of reason” stuff. Back to my first post, why is one human’s reasoning more authoritative than another’s? Majority rule does not work because the majority can be and has been wrong.
I have wondered whether there is a way to do intelligent design as legitimate science, as opposed to just an assumption by people who want to believe in it. Can you define what is intelligently designed and what happened by natural processes over very long periods of time? I am not impressed by the find a watch argument. If you find a watch and expect someone made it it is because you know what a watch is or things like it are, and have seen them made. If we find something that is not like a watch, how do we know if it was made. You would need to be able to have some definitions and some qualities you assign to intelligence. Again it is no good to assume your conclusion. Politically intelligent design is used by people who want to believe in God as designer for reasons that Dan and Duane have articulated, namely people need to believe in this in order for people to behave in a moral way. That is not science. These are not to be theological arguments but scientific ones. I can imagine this science can exist, but I haven’t seen that it does. And I can also imagine that it does not work as science. Another problem would be if your defined intelligent design coincided with what we subjectively believe intelligence to be. Like a watch, we think we know it when we see it because we have experienced things like it. But that doesn’t prove anything. Neither do experiences of limitations on what we think can happen randomly.
So do Dan and Duane have any thoughts about this?
Stan, I’d like Dan and Duane’s thoughts as well, but you also deserve some answers. Briefly:
I have wondered whether there is a way to do intelligent design as legitimate science
Behe and others tried this. Things didn’t go well for them in the Kitzmiller v Dover Schools trial. Another example is Richard von Sternberg, who was badly treated by the Smithsonian Institution as chronicled in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled.
If we find something that is not like a watch, how do we know if it was made. You would need to be able to have some definitions and some qualities you assign to intelligence.
Irreducible complexity purports to be such a quality. Ken Miller counters the example of an rreducibly complex mousetrap with his mousetrap-parts-as-tieclip argument.
Again it is no good to assume your conclusion.
But you get to assume your conclusion if you subscribe to the Torah as inerrant lab notebook thesis.
people need to believe in … order for people to behave in a moral way.
Bradley had a point: “We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the sermon on the mount.”
That is not science.
Let’s not tell children (especially in public schools) they need to abandon their family’s religious beliefs in order to do science, OK? It’s enough to understand the scientific method, and possibly mention the philosophy of ideas from sic et non to fides et ratio.
These are not to be theological arguments but scientific ones.
Don and Duane define science relative to their theology. Is this a great country, or what?
I can imagine this science can exist, but I haven’t seen that it does.
That’s fair-minded of you, Stan.
And I can also imagine that it does not work as science.
Now you crossed the line. Can’t we agree to disagree on what works as science? Although it is fair to note that young-earthers are unlikely to prevail in court if they challenge the legitimacy of, say, paleoclimatology. Yup. the preponderance of evidence is those are darned old ice cores from Greenland. But can’t we permit Don and Duane a reasonable doubt? Or should we use public schools to “educate” children of Biblical literalists on the abusive unreasonableness of their parents beliefs?
Bottom line: Have fun with science. (Note to Biblical literalists: things might not go so well for you in fields that start with the prefix paleo–unless you get up to speed on instrumentalism.)
Done. Now where do we resolve human rights violations in American public education? Mike?
Stan,
While most scientists do not acknowledge intelligent design or an almighty creator, they cannot do their science without making assumptions that can only exist in the creationist’s worldview. Only the creationist’s worldview can provide a reason to expect the natural laws, in force today, to behave the same tomorrow. The evolutionist has no reason to believe the future will be a reflection of the past. Scientists trust in the reliability of their senses in order to do their science. In an evolutionary worldview our senses are the product random occurrences and time. There is no reason to trust them.
The “find a watch” argument has impressed you more than you think. You find a watch; you know what is it and have seen them made and conclude it came from an intelligent source. So if a scientist was able to make a cell in a lab, and you could see it was a cell, you would conclude it came from an intelligent source? Until you see a cell made by intelligence you will hold onto the idea it came about by chance and time. Why does the fact that you’ve seen a watch made preclude the idea that a watch could happen through time and chance.
Eric,
Ken Miller’s mousetrap as a tie-clip analogy has some merit when applied to mousetraps. When we apply it to the evolutionist’s original self-reproducing living cell it is inadequate. To believe the multitude of complex bio-chemical machines, required for the cell, floated around in some primordial soup until just the right machines became enclosed in a nucleus and just the right other machines were enclosed in the cell membrane and this thing started to live and reproduce, is to believe in a miracle comparable with anything we read in the Bible. What happens when we apply Ken Miller’s analogy to the bio-chemical process of blood clotting? The intermediate organisms bleed to death while waiting for all the steps to evolve.
There are dozens of web articles, written by scientists with a creationist’s worldview, about various ice cores.
Duane,
I sketched out how we could accommodate your religious sensitivities in our public schools (the “inerrant lab notebook thesis”).
Your response suggests we ignore the lousy showing made in the Dover ID trials. Rather than stick with arguments that did not, could not, and will not stand up in court, why don’t we figure out a way for our kids to go to school and have their religious sensitivities dealt with respectfully?
I don’t believe your eagerness to argue your case and correct other people when they disagree (or when the courts disagree) is serving schoolchildren well.
Eric
Some of these posts are construed as if the writer is presenting a courtroom argument. Just an observation about whether this discussion is some sort of sport. Not that it matters. I pose this question to those who believe evolution is the absolute. If evolution is true then why hasn’t humankind transcended all the life threatening behaviors that could send our species into extinction?
“Q -If we find something that is not like a watch, how do we know if it was made. You would need to be able to have some definitions and some qualities you assign to intelligence.
A- Irreducible complexity purports to be such a quality.”
But how do we know what complexity is “irreducible” and how much could be natural when you put matter and energy together over periods of time that we can not fathom? Or are you relying on human experience and “common sense” and things that are very fallible?
If we find a watch, we know what a watch is and we know it is made by people and we pretty much define intelligence as a quality of people that alllows them to make things like watches. If we find the latest i-pod type of gadget, although we may not know its specific qualtiies or how to work it, we have seen enough of things like it to know it was made by people. Highly imaginative science fiction writers come up with stories about encounters with alien artifacts but they generally have to relate to human experience or there isn’t much of a story. We could in theory encounter something intelligently designed by advanced aliens and have no way to process it.
“To believe the multitude of complex bio-chemical machines, required for the cell, floated around in some primordial soup until just the right machines became enclosed in a nucleus and just the right other machines were enclosed in the cell membrane and this thing started to live and reproduce, is to believe in a miracle comparable with anything we read in the Bible. What happens when we apply Ken Miller’s analogy to the bio-chemical process of blood clotting? The intermediate organisms bleed to death while waiting for all the steps to evolve.”
As I understand it, life is believed by scientists who accept evolution to have existed and developed for very long periods, in a world very different chemically from our own, but that protein-like compounds that could have been building blocks for things like RNA and later DNA could come out of some primordial soup and mix of energy. Cells in this theory are thought to be very complex combination, perhaps different forms that learned to live together is symbiotic relationships, and then developed things that protected their environment and increased their chances of survival. We can see things like natural selection happening in short terms. Famous experiment where light and dark bugs were put in a sooty environment where the light bugs stood out and the dark ones were camoflagued. Soon all the light bugs got eaten and dark ones survived. That may not be evolution happening, but shows what could happen. Over many millions of years, it could take a long time for small advances to take place. Similarly fossils show that small mammals coexisted with dinosuaurs for long periods and when dinosaurs disappeared, mammals got large and diversified. Evolution is now seen as happening in fits and starts.
Could a God or intelligent designer be responsible for such a thing happening? Sure . But how would you ever prove it?
In fact supposing you were present in the past and Moses was crossing the Red Sea and it occurred as depicted in the movies with these walls of water being held back and the Israelites walking on the ocean floor. How would you prove that the God of the Bible was doing it? Would there be some scientific test you could do?
Christians who accept evolution generally just accept that there is a creator God and this is how it happened. Biblical writers had no way to know this and so did not work it in to their thoughts about God and stories about God.
” If evolution is true then why hasn’t humankind transcended all the life threatening behaviors that could send our species into extinction?”
Evolution is a work in progress. Of course many life forms became extinct even without having the power to change the environment the way we can. We could easily have serious trouble if unsustainable levels of civilization collapse due to environmental degredation, pollution or war, or just using up resources like war and lacking the ability to survive. Again by evolution standards, human development has been an exceptionally short period. It is not clear that human beings are genetically significantly different than they were when settlements and agriculture began, or much longer. People wonder whether things that helped people survive at earlier civilization levels or earlier are now harmful.
Since peoples’ advancements have been due to culture, technology and religion, a more significant question may be why Christianity hasn’t gotten us to transcend all the life threatening behaviors that threaten us with extinction. It could, of course, but there are a lot of ambiguities, and a lot of issues that weren’t up front for Biblical writers. My perception is that Christianity (particularly the loving and forgiving community part) does not go very deep. Still a lot of these are human choices, even if they are on top of raw material from evolution.
qualities you assign to intelligence … Irreducible complexity
Ken Miller refutes the irreducible complexity of the 5-part mousetrap at Howard Hughes Medical Institute on ths three-minute youtube video.
… courtroom argument
Since the battle lines of evolution/creationism are long-drawn and hardened, the interesting question is how we address evolution in public schools. This will require any accommodations made to creationists stand up in court.
Here is one parent’s concerns presented to our State Board of Education:
To believe the multitude of complex bio-chemical machines, required for the cell, floated around in some primordial soup until just the right machines became enclosed in a nucleus and just the right other machines were enclosed in the cell membrane and this thing started to live and reproduce, is to believe in a miracle comparable with anything we read in the Bible.
“miracle comparable with anything we read in the Bible” Fine. The AAAS talks about the “scientific worldview.” (I consider this a mistake.) The problem arises when we compel schoolchildren to take science classes. What should we expect to find in public school science classes: “How scientists search for Noah’s ark,” or “How scientists search for the first marine mammals?”
Wikipedia has an intersting article on this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
Another issue that has come up is what do public schools do about teaching science when parents have a religious controversy with science? Do you excuse the children of literalists from science classes (and standardized tests), like they used to do with Jewish students when there were Christmas assemblies, or Jehovah’s Witnesses who wouldn’t salute the flag? Do you teach about both sides with no comment on validity, like may happen in comparative religion classes? Do you eliminate parts of science that literalists don’t like, as the Bush Administration’s Park Service did with some of its Grand Canyon publications? Or do you teach in scientists what the scientists say and talk about the controversy between the viewpoints in social studies? Or do you have public schools for different religious viewpoints? None of these will make everyone happy.
what do public schools do about teaching science when parents have a religious controversy with science?
A California plaintiff (Seagraves) sued for accommodation and lost. However, a state may choose to accommodate. I’ve sketched out the a rationale above.
A Biblical literalist can do anything a secular scientist does by adopting an “instrumentalist” perspective. Three billion years old? No problem; that’s the scientific interpretation of lead-laced uranium. The literalist’s motivation for adopting instrumentalism might be unclear, unless the individual simply thinks rocks and science are way cool.
Do you eliminate parts of science that literalists don’t like
I’m not keen to tell little kids that “scientists have proven common ancestry …” What’s the real motivation here? Indoctrination?
But you can’t get around evolution in high school biology class. Even literalists can concede evolution of many species from the “types” that fit on the ark.
Wikipedia…
“The court found that “Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers…” Ironicly, this makes irreducible complexity a scientific hypothesis.
do you teach in scien[ce class] what the scientists say…
Yes, but be clear about standards for evidence. Science uses a “preponderance of the evidence” and “falsifiability” standard. If you plan on betting your immortal soul, you might want a “reasonable doubt” or better standard. If your immortal soul came with a user’s manual, better yet!
Eric, what might this user’s manual for your immortal soul be? Is it the Bible that tells us God created the universe in 6 days, and also tells us how to live and get along with each other, and how to get to heaven? I wonder what the evolutionists think will happen to them after they die? Any answer they have would have to be a guess, because their user manual, “science”, has yet to figure that one out.
Here is a link to some follow-up information on the “Irreducible Complexity” issue.
http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp
the Bible that tells … how to get to heaven?
That would be the key part of the user’s manual; perhaps all Christians need to agree “The Rock of Ages is more important than the age of rocks.”
I wonder what the evolutionists think will happen to them after they die?
Well, their prospects aren’t enhanced if they become convinced that Christians are stubborn ignoramuses with nothing credible to say. If non-Christians here Christians express foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead…
Eric — I like your reference to the many books that includes your great St. Augustine quote. I continue here.
Behe’s interaction with the various journal editors does seem a mix of orthodoxy behavior, faith statements and turf issues (our journal publishes this kind of article and not that kind) as well as science. Most of the scientific meat is actually left out of the exchange (something about the “clotting cascade” which is certainly not something I have expert knowledge of.) . Also it may be that the editors are drawn more into the philosophy of intelligent design than Behe invited them. From what I got out of this, the one journal editor says Behe’s point is “you can’t prove how this happened” and the response is “ok, but we have proven a lot of other stuff, so this particular gap is not that destructive.” Whether there is orthodoxy on the subject it seems that the both views are getting a hearing.
In any case, one thing about the internet is that it does allow for debates between sides, as was proposed and then rejected, to occur without needing the approval of any editors or journals. While orthodoxy is not unknown behavior in science (the popular concept of “paradigm shift” exists to explain changes in orthdoxy) in science the merits of arguments based on evidence is expected to win out in the long run over popular acceptance and “gang” behavior. The same thing actually happens in religion, explaining in part why Baal, Morloch and Jupiter no longer have many followers (social issues like the fall of Empires run by their followers is also a factor) but perhaps at a slower pace. Religion may however be more willing and able to use violence and other forms of earthly power to enforce its orthodoxy, which may be the downside of believing in absolutes.
Anyway I can see how this exchange can lead to believers in intelligent design and a literalist view of the Biblical God feeling like outsiders. I think this is the source of a lot of the emotional energy that accompanies this issue.
Stan, you ask an interesting question: Would Jesus Believe In Evolution?
But, the point is, the explanation that modern science gives for the origin of humanity does not require “belief,” it requires reason, it requires a commitment to truth. I think that it is clear that Jesus was committed to truth and was committed to sound and logical thinking.
It is a good question to ask, “What is truth?” And, “How do we know what is true?”
At some point, it was declared that the words of the Bible were literally true, as if they were dictated by God. This declaration, it should be pointed out, was made by fallible humans. At some point some potential books of the Bible were accepted and others were rejected. There was disagreement. Who had the authority to make such a declaration? Again, such decisions were made by fallible humans.
So, the companion questions to the questions — “What is truth?” And, “How do we know what is true?” — is: Who has the authority to answer such questions?
The Creation Museum says the source of authority is the Bible, the Bible, the Bible. But the problem is, a whole lot of people who are creationists, people who believe in an instantaneous creation, who believe in the inerrancy of scripture, believe the earth is very, very old. These “Old Earth” creationists scoff at the notion that humans and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously.
The “New Earth” creationist, — such as Dan and Duane — represent a very radical view, a very anti-science view that contradicts the views of many “Old Earth” creationists, and, of course, contradict the views of those who advance the idea of “intelligent design.” Dan and Duane’s views contradict the views of others who also believe in the inerrancy of scripture.
So, even if you are a creationist and even if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the ultimate authority must be your own reason. How else can you decide if the “Old Earth” view or the “New Earth” view is correct? I wrote that the Creation Museum’s view is “Astonishing,” because it so obviously rejects the authority of reason. Promulgating — here in 2009 — the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old is astonishing.
the explanation that modern science gives for the origin of humanity … requires a commitment to truth. … Jesus was committed … to sound and logical thinking.
No. It requires a commitment to objectively evaluating evidence (sound and logical thinking). Jesus was committed to Truth.
books of the Bible were accepted and others were rejected … by fallible humans
“the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me.” So Mike, you’ve determined that the Spirit of truth opted out of the debate over which books ought be canonical?
The “New Earth” creationist … represent a very radical view, a very anti-science view
Anti-science or unorthodox science? This is an important issue for a school board candidate. Do Dan and Duane’s kids need to be fixed by public schools?
even if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, the ultimate authority must be your own reason. … Promulgating — here in 2009 — the notion that the earth is only 6000 years old is astonishing.
This borders on viewpoint discrimination and intolerance. What guidance (local district policy, etc.) would you want science teachers in Kettering to have?