The science textbooks take the approach that, after hundreds of years of scientific progress in understanding the natural world in terms of physical processes, there is in every likelihood a natural chain of events leading from non-life to life (even if we never figure it out). After all, the reasoning might go, here we are. Trying to stay clear of a confrontation with a multitude of religious claims, the textbooks do not attempt an analysis of natural versus super-natural causation. What they do teach is the consensus view of our understanding of the natural world (albeit always a few years out-of-date).
The creationists here are coming from a different viewpoint - they already know God "poofed" everything into existence 6,000 years ago, and so reject any claim that a natural chain of events led to life, because they "know" that is not how it was done.
Just as with ID, even if we can't figure out HOW it could have happened, this does not mean that God did it via a supernatural event- it just means that we have not figured it out. So we are back to the classic God-in-the-gaps explanation. YEC-ers argue for gaps in our understanding where they can say, "see, God did it." Inevitably, the gaps reconfigure, and the YEC-ers are forced to say "What I meant was, God did that."
Compare this with geocentrism in Martin Luther's time. The gap was different, but the approach is the same.
| Quote: |
| "Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding." - Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43. |
Martin Luther based his geocentrism on the Bible (just like YECs), he denied the evidence in deference to his interpretation of Scripture (just like YECs), and he was demonstrably wrong (just like the YECs).
The YEC position results in:
- a celebration ignorance (God acts only where we don't know what happened - as soon as it is explained "scientifically" God disappears from view),
- discouraging real science (any attempt to demonstrate the "hows" of a gap are seen as part of an anti-God agenda), and
- distorting our educational system (instead of learning about the world, the classroom is given over to partisan wrangling about the validity of the Genesis account of creation).
So not only do I think the YEC approach is flawed as both an approach to biblical interpretation AND as science; it also shrinks God to fit into a set of ever-diminishing, tawdry gaps.
6 comments:
You know, not even the devils are atheists (at least according to the Bible), so I wonder if you are overstating the case. I worry about the kind of polarizing language religious conservatives are encouraged to use on these subjects. It is making it harder and harder to be part of a civil society.
Are you also worried about the polarizing language Dawkins uses, Greg?
You know, religion is evil, Idists are all "lying, ignorant, or insane"...that kind of language.
Or maybe some of the language your buddies over at KCFS use? Do you find THAT plariizing, or does the accusation you made apply just to conservatives?
I am worried about Dr. James Kennedy selling DVDs titled, "Darwinism, the Heart of the Problem?" And about the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" suggesting that scientists who support evolution persist in their lies because of a desire for sex, money and power.
These messages go out to tens of millions of Christians who view their Christian leaders as speaking with the authority of God. Atheists command tiny fractions of that kind of audience, and are not treated as speaking on behalf of anyone but themselves. So, yes, I think they are different.
But I get the impression that you do find this kind of talk polarizing. As a Christian, what are you doing to heal that rift?
Here is what I am doing-- I am trying to help conservatives see that they have been sold a pack of lies and distortions about evolution and the nature of science. I am trying to communicate that you do not have to choose between faith and science. I am trying to say that science is not inherently atheistic, even if some scientists are atheists. To scientists on the KCFS site (some of whom are atheists) I am trying to send the message that not all Christians are anti-science bigots, and not every Christian believes that the Bible teaches special creation and a 6,000 year-old earth – that faith is not incompatible with our more recent discoveries about the nature of the world in which we live.
Over at Kansas Citizens for Science you have been saying that to suggest atheists don't care about other peoples culture is false.
And you have just ingored what you KNOW Dawkins, PZ MYERS, Madison, CRAIG, and others say about Christians.
YOU KNOW they are deliberately polarizing, that it is the strategy of their spokesman, that Dawkins has said people who disagree are lying, ignorant or insane, etc.
You KNOW about the atheist track record, you have been informed of the 100 MILLION dead killed by practitioners of athestic philosphies and that the CHINESE are, for example, forcing atheism on the TIBETANS for the purpose of destroying their cultural identity.
The people who pointed this out at KCFS have been banned...although they will be back!...and you are posting like you never heard of it.
That can not be a mistake.
It means you are DELIBERATELY LYING!!!
YOUR credibility is ZERO.
You're scaring me. Why all the shouting? I guess you already know the truth, so there is no point in discussing it. But one more time, just in case anyone is listening… Just like there are Christians (with a bigger audience and more money) who blame evolution for the culture’s ills (Kennedy, Dobson, Johnson), there are atheists who blame religion (Dawkins). I never denied that there are at least two sides of the issue, so I am not sure why what you think I am lying about. This topic has been discussed at KCFS, and the idea that science promotes either atheism or religion is not endorsed by the site (as has been stated publicly). No one has been banned for pointing out that some atheists claim scientific evidence for their atheism, or Jack Krebs would have to ban himself (as he has pointed this out many times, but holds that this claim is baseless).
I am distressed about what I see going on in the world. I will, however, remind you that these horrible things are done, some in the name of religion, some in the name of governments, some in the name of profits, some in the name of politics and so on. As far as I can tell, no group has lock on bad behavior.
While you revel in the luxury of hate, and neatly divide the world into those who agree with you and everybody else, there are real problems that must be solved. Even assuming that America is made safe from evolution, same sex marriages and abortion, the real problems facing us will not have been addressed. There is no real plan to engage and deal with the issues our world faces. The current administrations approach to problem solving, both in the Executive and Legislative branches are a good example. They both have adopted approaches driven in no small part by their conservative Christian base. The result is clearly solutions that are not working. The plan seems to be to scare a bunch of conservative Christians into putting the Republican party into power, and then... oh, wait - that already happened.
Oh, my gosh!!
Greg, the poster who used the name reasonable kansans is not me. "Me" being Forthekids.
I came over here to try to find something we've talked about in the past, and noticed that someone was using the name of my blogsite. They also used it at Thoughts from Kansas a while back.
Goldstein, if that is you using my handle, CUT IT OUT!
Post a Comment