The problem with Creationism
Aug. 10th, 2005 07:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
demiurgentCreationism -- 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-08-12 03:48 am (UTC)Heh. I remember college, my Elementary Modern Physics (i.e. the development of relativity as a theory) class. End of the semester, my professor asks us, "What have we learned in this class?" He calls on me, for some reason I can't discern. I say, "Nobody knows anything."
He didn't appreciate that.