Creationism and Evolution.
I’m about to enter the murky waters of Creationist discussion. Murky not just for the controversial and contentious issues such a dialogue involves, but also because religion is not my intellectual forté.
The reason for my writing a religious entry was precipitated by the knowledge that within an hour (at the time of writing) a Creationist museum is to open its doors in Kentucky. Creationism and Intelligent Design are two religious doctrines that form the basis of much religious discourse in America. As such it shouldn’t come as a surprise that this museum has been constructed with generous support from “God’s people” to the princely sum of $27 million. God much be very happy.
Perhaps I’m being too narrow-minded when I become frustrated by many modern people’s blind devotion to faith. I completely understand and sympathise with the manner in which belief in a higher being and a spiritual ordering to the universe can give a positive sense of self-worth and motivation to do good, yet I cannot easily comprehend the dogmatic rejection of long established scientific fact.
Yes, science is not always right in the first instance and indeed we can get into an epistemological debate on the matter, but let us for the moment just take the world famous “Galileo moment”. The Christian faith is filled with references to the Earth being the sole centre of the known universe: Psalm 104:5 says, “the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”, and Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises”. However, it is now very well known that whilst the sun does indeed rise and set, it is in fact the earth’s own rotation that gives the impression of the sun’s motion across the sky.
This heliocentric realisation caused much stirring amongst the religious hegemony at the time and even today, with the advent of modern computer technology, many blindly refute its existence – or in some cases brand such discourses a “soulless, atheistic pseudoscience”. This aforementioned statement taken from a person under the nom de guerre of Sisyphus who uses Galileo’s academic recantation on the subject to prove that religious thinking on the matter is correct. Of course that was in no way attributable to the immense negative branding, pressure, vitriol and exclusion espoused by the loving and forgiving Christian church at the time.
Inayat Bunglawala, media secretary at the Muslim Council of Britain, last summer sought to follow the impact of Creationist thinking upon the Islamic world. For any religious adherent, Christian or Muslim, to analyse alternative understandings of the world is no doubt a testing process, as to place uncertainty on a deity questions their legitimacy and role in your innermost personal life. In so doing Bunglawala read works by Turkish philosopher, Adnan Oktar, who writes prolifically under the pen name of Harun Yahya.
Oktar’s publication, The Evolution Deceit, used the writings of many prominent scientists to systematically pick apart the Darwinist argument “of natural selection […] as a fraud perpetrated by materialists seeking to undermine belief in God.” Despite this, Bunglawala felt that he didn’t do this successfully. This stemmed partly from the overwhelming overabundance of scientific fact that rebuts Otkar’s claims, but also from the imposing and conceited manner in which Oktar writes, playing into the fears many believers have about atheism and science.
The point here is that both sides have been battling for supremacy for a long time and doing so in a very ill-advised manner. The fear and prejudices held by each side (myself included) restrict the ability for people to form open and informed judgements without themselves feeling as though they are being judged.
For instance, Bunglawala asked a Muslim doctor - and presumably a person with some scientific and medical training – what his thoughts were on Darwinist theory.
“He told me that evolution was certainly a convincing framework for explaining how so many different species had come to appear on the planet during the course of many hundreds of millions of years. Yet, when I posed the same question to him live on air (on my show for the Islam Channel) he would only say that “My belief on this question is the same as what our scholars derive from Islamic sources, so no, I don’t accept it”. He was clearly afraid of the reaction that his true views on evolution would cause.”
People, and most importantly academics, have today a responsibility to address the inflexible and assertive superiority that each corner champions, much in the way of evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. Whilst holding a similar contempt for Creationism as Dawkins, Gould openly accepts it as a legitimate counter-claim.
To this end he advises that biological evolution falls firmly within the arena of science. Just as it is important for religious scholars not to overstep their boundaries by making unsupported assertions about issues within the domain of science, scientists should similarly avoid making atheistic claims within the domain of religion.
In the meantime, perhaps Creationists should stop spending money on museums that try to blend science and religion into an uncomfortable amalgam, and instead try making progress on upholding the core beliefs of Christianity – love, forgiveness and charity.
Comments
11 Responses to “Creationism and Evolution.”
Leave a Reply
Science does a very bad job of defending its corner here, as it has the upper hand and a good argument, but resorts to pettiness, threats and ugly lines of reasoning.
Unfortunately, I disagree with the whole concept of a ‘VS’ argument. People should be left with their beliefs. Only when they impose them on others should we step in.
And that goes for science as well as religion.
Indeed, trying to shout down the opposing side will never work - it has been going on for centuries after all. Argument and discussion can be a healthy and constructive thing, which is why I’ve tried to create a balanced argument and not run off the rails shouting down the theories of Creationism and Intelligent Design.
That said, the museum holds some intriguing arguments that don’t seem to have any strong grounding. For example, a lot of scientists state that Noah and the Great Flood never took place. To counter this statement the museum writes “God warned Noah about a global flood that would destroy the world, and it came as God said”. I’m sorry, but it’s hard to take seriously a museum that counters scientific arguments by merely reciting the bible.
Tbh, Christians who use things like that Ecclesiastes verse as the basis of a scientific worldview are idiots with no concept of metaphor. I really don’t see how it backs up any view that the earth is at the centre of the universe and that the sun revolves around it. Or why proving otherwise would be such an attack on their faith.
Still, at least they’re not speaking in tongues, eh?
Oh, and Dawkins is a bastard.
Azalea thinks he’s great, by the way. I SMELL DIVORCE.
¬_¬
Yeah, Dawkins is basically loathed by the entire philosophical community, atheists and theists alike.
‘People should be left with their beliefs. Only when they impose them on others should we step in.’
Ah, but then people who’s beliefs require a public commitment to them are automatically put on the back foot. So, for example, for christians to not wear religious symbols, thats fine because its not paramount to their beliefs. But for a muslim, its a much bigger deal. So to ban _all_ religious symbolism is egalitarian, through defect or design, the notion of ‘benign neglect’ is seriously disadvantagous for certain groups. Do you see? DO YOU SEE?!
Creationism doesn’t have as you state a “dogmatic rejection of long established scientific fact”. In fact you say “fact” implying that the “big bang” etc has been proven which isn’t even remotely close to the truth. Science backs up creationism just as much as evolutionist theory if not more so. Just pick up a magazine of “Creation” (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871). I suggest you do a little more research before try to take down a religion over 2 thousand years old.
Regards Tim
@ Rob - But the wearing of a cross and the wearing of a hijab are not imposing faith upon non-faith groups in a malicious or conscious manner. Though in a way I get what you’re saying: I presume you’re referring to the recent BA farce?
@ Tim - I completely concede your point that evolution is not ‘fact’ and is equally a series of theories as Creationism. The issue that differentiates science and Creationism is that science has long attempted to constantly question its own theories through empirical analysis. This is why through the centuries opposing scientists have fought for and against varying schools of thought that have led to the progression of human knowledge and understanding. Though, like all epistemological debates, it’s a never-ending process of questioning and that we can never be sure that what we ‘know’ in the present is ‘correct’ or conclusive. In a slightly agnostic conclusion, neither side, I feel, stands to irrefutably disprove its opposition. Thus, as I try to argue, both sides should try not to attack each other in shallow debate as frequently happens, but accept the thoughts of both sides as valid but different to their own.
However I do disagree with regard to the Creationist magazine: for me it comes across as being promoted in a dogmatic fashion; “Essential for homeschoolers and anyone wanting to ‘immunize’ their family against the anti-biblical worldviews bombarding us from all sides.”
Thanks for the interesting comment!
@Rob - I concede that there is a conflict between ideals at certain times. At that point, some have precedence over others. If the State decides that religious symbols should not be displayed, and you are a member of the State’s society, then you can’t display religious symbols. Simple as. If that causes a conflict with your religion, then the onus is on /you/ to resolve it - not the religion, and not the State.
I’m a firm follower of the ‘leave people to their own devices’ line of thinking, up until the point that beliefs conflict. But then again, I’m also a firm follower of the ‘1984 isn’t that bad a society’ line of thinking, too…
It’s… it’s a small line.
:(
Mike, I hear what you’re saying. I also like to think of freedom as being a negative thing - my freedom depends on people not interfering. But, the more Ive read about it, the more I think that people dont resolve the personal/state conflict in the same way across the board. So implementing policy on a blanket basis is passively favourative to cultural groups that are more cohesive.
Minority claims are interesting: on the one hand groups demand recognition of their diversity, but they also crave an equal footing in society despite their own highlighted ‘differences’ and its quite the paradox. You’re right, it’s a very small line indeed.