demiurgent: (Malachite Face)
[personal profile] demiurgent
Creationism -- now "intelligent design" -- is based on a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis. In other words, as you all know, it's Religion. Theology. A Myth of Creation. The current debate is whether or not it should be included alongside evolutionary (and one assumes planetary) science in science courses.

I've heard a number of points (mostly sophistry) about it. "There's no way to prove God didn't create the Earth in seven days." "We just want people to know all the theories." And so forth. And I've heard any number of good arguments against it, like "if we include one creation myth -- the Christian one -- we also need to include the Native American myths, the Buddist myths, the Greek myths, the Norse myths, et al," and "there's nothing scientific about it. Teach it in Theology where it belongs, but save things that can be verified with observation and math for science class."

That misses an essential point about strict Biblical Creationism, when applied to the real world. A point that to me damns it from a key theological position.

Let us say, for the record, that God created the Earth in six days approximately five thousand years ago. Let us also say that he is all powerful, that he put everything in place as it is.

If God did all of this... then he also put an absolute preponderance of verifiable, measurable and reproducible evidence that suggests A) the Earth is millions of years older than it really is, and B) that evolution works exactly the way it seems to be.

If we're going to accept Creationism literally and at face value, then God stacked the deck with evidence that it's wrong and punishes people for believing in planetary science and evolutionary theory based on the conditions He created.

I submit that a benevolent God wouldn't be that much of a bastard. I further submit that if he is that much of a bastard, all the bits of the Bible about how much He loves us are wrong. And if those bits are wrong, we can hardly take the Creation myth at face value. If He isn't a heartless bastard who enjoys damning people, then either the Creation didn't happen as it's put forth in the Bible or he doesn't care if we figure out the mechanisms of evolution, treat those as science (and the Bible as Religion), and doesn't use science as a litmus test.

In either scenario, evolution and planetary science should be taught in Biology, Chemistry and Physics, and creationism shouldn't be. And failure to follow that questions the beneficence of the Lord. And that seems like a much bigger sin than talking about Gregor Mendel and Charles Darwin.

*sigh* Mutual admiration societies

Date: 2005-08-11 07:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kazriko.livejournal.com
Reading these posts over and over again, it's occurred to me exactly why many of them bother me so much.

1. The self righteousness of those who have gone up against creationists and thrown some scathing point at them and walked away coupled with insults to their intelligence.

2. The mutual admiration society that grows around a group on the same end of a polarized belief commenting on how insightful some post or another is.

You should really ask yourself, what am I trying to accomplish with the teaching of science? Because these two trends will accomplish one thing, the alienation and shunning of anyone who believes in christianity and its various views on how life began. You're going to get a group of people who are basically out of scientific circles because of a handful who are unwilling to put their differences in non-scientific matters aside and concentrate on the science. This will lead to less people who are educated in and less people who believe in the scientific method and science in general when what we need are MORE people who embrace the scientific method. These two behaviors are part of why there is that big push to get non-scientific things taught in a science class.

There's really nothing new in this post other than the attempt to equate creationism and intelligent design. Everything else could be reasonably replicated by anyone with a working knowledge of what omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence are. Tune into any random theological forum and you'll find at least one person who will note how incompatible omni-* and benevolence are and how if god is an omni-* then he's a right bastard. This is just yet another example of that basic incompatibility. All of this back-patting just serves to increase polarization.

Everyone in this forum seems to think that ID is purely a wedge to get creationism into schools. Nobody has realized that by introducing real ID into christianity and having the blessing of the church on it allows a wedge going the OTHER way introducing science and evolution to christian students!

Science and Religion are not incompatible, or at least could reasonably coexist after the religious admit that things pure creationism 6,000 years ago that are contradicted by the evidence are likely to be wrong, and the scientific side admits that god is basically not within the realm of teaching science and cannot be tested either way. (The fact that by learning the scientific method and judging all of the evidence based on it leads you to believe that it is simpler without a god is irrelevant. Let them figure that out on their own.) If the teachers take a tolerant and purely scientific stance towards religious students then they may eventually work their way over on their own once they have learned the scientific method and done enough to convince themselves one way or another.

In any case, hopefully people will quit getting in a pissing contest over the size of their world knowledge and intellect and start trying to teach science instead. Getting that one zing in on the creationists just serves to make them angry and even more set against your opinions. With the polls showing so many more people pushing the other direction it will not be pretty for science with things remaining so polarized.

Think of it this way, If you take a fish from the fish store in water that is one temperature and drop them directly into a tank that is another, they will definitely suffer immense stress and frequently die from it. If you take the same fish and float their bag in the water to allow the temperature to slowly equalize before pouring them in, they will usually survive with no ill effects.

Re: *sigh* Mutual admiration societies

Date: 2005-08-11 01:35 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] demiurgent.livejournal.com
There's really nothing new in this post other than the attempt to equate creationism and intelligent design.

Well, no.

First off, I'll admit I conflate the two, when there's really a potential for depth in ID that doesn't exist in literalist creationism. However, the current debate pretty much has conflated the two, and the powers that be that are strongly pushing for the inclusion of ID in science aren't doing it from a general, theoretical standpoint. As has been mentioned, "intelligent design" comes down to the extremely simple point of "some people thing an intelligence was behind the process." Getting that into a textbook doesn't serve the interests of the people who are active behind this movement. The people active behind this movement are actively against the theory of evolution, and there is a very specific theory of intelligent design they're championing. It includes the phrase "God created them in His image," though admittedly that's a paraphrase.

Put another way, the Buddists, the Shintoists, the Native Americans and the Norse aren't pushing to have science textbooks and curricula changed.

My point is not the inherent paradox of omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence, either. You're right. That one's been done. My point is, if the strict, literal interpretation of Creationism is to be believed, then God specifically set things up this way. He specifically made the stars seem to have been created in an explosion billions of years before the Universe's actual creation. He specifically made all the dating methods we have point to a world millions of years older than it is. He specifically put a record in place that lends strong evidence and credence to the evolutionary process in man and beast alike.

If He did all that, and then damned people for believing his evidence, he is a bastard. (And, to be blunt, is unworthy of praise and worship.) That's where the theory of Creationism -- and the theological belief that one must only believe Creationism or be damned -- falls down metaphysically.

So, the point is not a retread of "if God is all powerful, why do bad things happen to good people." The point is "Creationism as stated -- and the belief that Creationism must be taught as science and belief in Evolution is wrong, evil and damning -- yields a God who is actively cruel, and that point is both incompatible with Christian theology and is sinful within said theology."

Is that polarized? Yup. Is that polarizing? Yup. But it's also key and core to Christian belief, and far far easier to demonstrate than the thought that you have to reject Darwin or burn in eternal Hellfire.

The fact that by learning the scientific method and judging all of the evidence based on it leads you to believe that it is simpler without a god is irrelevant.

It's worth noting, people who believe in Intelligent Design as a philosophical point but have an understanding of science and faith in the scientific method believe it is metaphysically shown that it is not simpler without a god. They cannot accept that the mind-numbing number of coincidences necessary to lead to a world where we could live and think and see could just happen without intervention and a plan. And they may be right.

However, they don't advocate teaching that in science class.

Re: *sigh* Mutual admiration societies

Date: 2005-08-11 04:28 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kazriko.livejournal.com
It is just another example of the same though. A more specific one you might get more mileage out of though. The whole example was one I had seen cited as why an all-powerful god who can create all of these things including fossils, stars that are >6,000 light years away 6,000 years ago and follows the bible was not benevolent. (Heck, a glance at the old testament and the koran will tell you that their god isn't benevolent.)

As far as not being part of the class curriculum, that's entirely right. The believers in the theory wouldn't put that in, but some people would take their idea and put it in twisted towards old creationism. There's momentum behind it. It's unlikely that we'll be able to stop the push entirely. The only thing you can do is find a way to control it and bend it towards science more. Restrict intelligent design to the base "There might have been something messing with it" rather than the full out pseudo-creationism that some lawmakers are calling ID. Other than the screwing up of the text books it may end up being a good thing, allowing more students to meld into the mindset from an ID base rather than running into a brick wall of a creationism base.

Re: *sigh* Mutual admiration societies

Date: 2005-08-12 02:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ursulav.livejournal.com
This would be a great argument if, for example, it was the week about "Origin of Species" had been published, or even the FIRST time the Kansas school board got its panties in a knot. But it's now, not then. We've had since Galileo for science and religion to equalize in the Western world. Darwin isn't new. This isn't a case of science and religion suddenly spotting each other across a crowded room. We've been here before. A LOT. The fish tank's been equalizing for hundreds of years. For a lot of the fish, it's perfectly fine, science and religion can coexist happily. For the remainder, this isn't some delicate long-finned beauty suddenly thrust into an alien environment, this is an ugly little bastard who's ripping chunks of science's fins and peeing on its head.

We're not dealing with a hothouse flower, people who are just now hearing about evolution, and will eventually come around if we're all nice and cuddly and never ever strident. We're dealing with nutjobs who now have the power to do what they wanted to do all along. I'm not going to roll over and hope that if I'm just nice enough and nonconfrontational, logic and reason will somehow stealthily infect what's basically a great emotional scream of "I Don't Want To Be Alone In The Universe," because frankly, we've had a century plus for that to happen. You cannot argue reason with people so immune to its effects.

Think of it this way, instead--if you put a frog in tepid water and turn it up a degree at a time, you get a boiled frog. (There are better analogies, since I don't know that that one actually works, not being a bastard frog boiler myself, but I'd have to break Godwin's Law, and it's too early in the morning.) And this ID crap is somebody turning up the heat the first few degrees.

Re: *sigh* Mutual admiration societies

Date: 2005-08-12 03:57 pm (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
I'm sure everyone (including the snarky one) is tired of this discussion by now. What I was trying to say was that anyone with a decent ability to judge the science will realize that anything that gets into the realm of creationism at X date less than 1 billion years ago instead of just mild tampering is very much against the evidence out there. The only leg most of these people as well as young students have to stand on is the steadfast propaganda from the churches saying that because it was stated in the bible, creation < 1bil years ago is the only way it could have happened. Now the churches are backing off from this statement. You're not going to be able to convince all christians, but a large portion are no longer going to have that little life-raft held out for them by the church.

Remember, while the people who are introducing this are nut-jobs, the children you are teaching are NOT and have just sat through X about of propaganda in sunday school. If that propaganda is more balanced and allows for evolution in the framework of ID, then they'll be more receptive to evolution not needing ID.

Like I said before, the people in power aren't going to back down. The only thing left is to try and make the best of the tools they're handing to you. Like I said before. This could be as simple as getting all of the activist atheists teaching rounded up and make sure they teach it without religion at all.

Just stick to the scientific portions and leave the religion out, including atheism.

Re: *sigh* Mutual admiration societies

Date: 2005-08-12 03:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kazriko.livejournal.com
Curses. The journal isn't set to require logins. Ah well.

Profile

demiurgent: (Default)
demiurgent

June 2013

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags