| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
A few observations on the below.
a) What is a very, VERY small group? There seems to be a number of
religious groups--some not so minor--that are 'Biblical Fundamentalist'.
Not all of those insist on a 'young earth', but are those numbers really
tiny.
[Something I have to remind myself of often--especially after a xmas trip to
the Gulf coast of Florida and viewing all the MONEY and asking where it
comes from--1% of 300 million people is 3 MILLION! Small percentages can
still be BIG numbers.]
b) It would seem that a VERY large group (throughout the world) believes in
a 'Santa-Claus' deity--that is, one who is personally involved in their
lives, hears their thoughts (prayers), and keeps score of whether they have
been naughty or nice and will reward/punish such. Most of those people will
believe that this deity was DIRECTLY involved in the creation of human
beings. Some of that group will accept a deity that started the universe
with all its rules (physics, chemistry, biology) and let those processes
proceed naturally to produce THEM..(but must wonder why it took some 15
billion years to get to that point), while many others will believe in a
more active creation event.
c) IMO, it doesn't hurt the scientific literacy too much if one believes
that a deity wiggled a finger to change a gene or chromosome appropriately
to get our species to deviate from our ancestors, as long as the basic
developmental process is left intact. Humans as a special 'zap' creation
event (Adam & Eve) is more problematic (and should be for the adherents
since they then have to deal with the problem of the Cro-Magnum strain of
intelligent life.)
d) Theories (explanations) are NEVER FACT--they are our current (hopefully
best) ideas that explain the actual facts--the data available. Evolution is
the idea that explains those facts extremely well and which can (and is)
constantly being tested through experimentation. This is part of
science--we are never 100% certain--but if our science fails, it will fail
for scientific reasons (new data, new experiments, better theories).
Religion or magic sometimes fails as well, but always for magical or
religious reasons. The Seventh Day Adventists/Jehovah Witnesses are the
remains of a sect that survived a failed prophecy (of what else--the second
coming).
e) Don't underestimate the conflict between science and religion.
Most,
IMO, do underestimate the real gulf here--by choosing to ignore it, or not
think about it in too much detail. Most are content to say that these
disparate modes of thought can be conveniently separated or even believe
that there is little or no conflict between the two. That may be the case
with science and theism, but I'll suggest that science and RELIGION (any of
the major brands) are much, much harder to reconcile.
This is, I think, the
source of the conflict. One must either suspend (or at least push way to
the rear) one's religious beliefs when considering the big issues of science
(cosmology, evolution, and the like) or push away the science when dealing
fervently with one's religious beliefs. {Been there--done that.}
When push
comes to shove and one is somehow forced to confront both aspects
simultaneously, usually a choice has to be made. Yes, I know many will
contend there is no conflict in their own minds, but personally (and please
keep your personal attacks private--off list ;-)
I don't quite buy that. It
has to be hard to keep reasoned, scientific thought processes out of the
analysis of the gods our major religions have created. With most of the
populace tied much more strongly to their religious beliefs than their
scientific understanding of the world, we will continue to have major
problems wherever the two clash.
----- Original Message -----
From: "R. McDermott" <rmcder@gmail.com>
It's important to truly understand the opposing points of view. John
Denker
began that process; I'd like to try to further it. "Creationists" are not
a
monolithic
group. They exist, as most things human do, in a spectrum of varying
beliefs.
1. There is a very, VERY small group that believes that everything written
in the Bible is literally true: Everything was created, all at once, in
six
days. All species of flora and fauna coexisted at some point (though some
may have subsequently died out). Everything we see is 6000 years old (or
whatever the figure is).
2. Then there is the other, VERY large, group that consists of people who
believe that GOD created everything, started it running, and incorporated
a
mechanism that allowed for changes to occur over time.
Both groups believe in GOD and want their children to believe. Both
groups
object stongly to any message which contradicts their beliefs. The first
group is threatened by pretty much ANY evolutionary theory. The second
group is not - UNLESS - it leads to the presumption that no god exists,
and
certainly no god created the universe. And both groups will react
violently
to any message that states or implies that they are either stupid or
wackjobs whose beliefs are deserving of no respect whatsoever.
The definitions) of "evolution" held by the two groups are not usually in
agreement, and part of this problem is due to the fact that we (teachers
of
science and/or scientists) do a lousy job of being consistent in our usage
of the term. This is further complicated by the fact that "Evoluionists"
ALSO come in a spectrum of beliefs.
The first group of Creationists will always be at war with science, since
they see it as the means by which Satan seeks to mislead believers. As
John
points out, you cannot make any impact on this group.
The other group, however, does not have to be an enemy unless we make them
an enemy. ID, etc will die on the vine so long as there is no reason for
the second, huge group to feel threatened, and it's really simple to avoid
that.
The FACT that the PROCESS of evolution occurs is overwhelming, and it is a
FACT, because it can be DIRECTLY observed. For most Creationists, this is
"micro evolution", and no real threat.
"Macro" evolution, the gradual accumulation of "micro" effects to produce
entirely new organisms, begins to be threatening to some of the second
group, and extrapolating to the idea that everything derives from a
single-celled organism in a primordial pool forces the second group into
the
same camp as the first group. THAT's when it becomes a political
football.
It's important to note that "macro" evolution is not FACT, but theory. We
"believe" that this is a likely explanation for what we observe in the
fossil record. Some of "us" go further and believe that this is the
RIGHT,
or ONLY possible answer. Whatever one's PRIVATE level of confidence in
"macro" evolution may be, imo we lose nothing by phrasing PUBLICALLY that
this is what we THINK has happened, that we THINK that this is the best
explanation for what we have observed. Such careful wording costs "us"
nothing, and avoids antagonizing the second group of believers.
Then, of course, there is the origin of life (I think oogenesis). This,
too, is an issue that can thrust the second group into the same camp as
the
first. Again, imo, we lose nothing by suggesting that ONE possible origin
is the primordial pool. After all. we do not KNOW, for an undisputable
FACT, that this IS "correct".
It is those who are "extremist" on BOTH sides who have, and continue to,
contribute to this argument.