Creation, cultural wars and campus crusade
Regular commenter Alan Matheson emailed me to give me the heads up on an article he had written. I found it online and thought some here might want to discuss it.
“The debate about creationism and intelligent design (ID) is more than a debate about whether or not God did it.
The issue of evolution is but one dimension of a broader Christian agenda concerned as much with theocracy as democracy. Evolution has been on the periphery of Australian church concerns until the Campus Crusade for Christ (CCC) injected new life into the debate.
While commentators noted that CCC had met with Brendan Nelson and other politicians, and that following those meetings and his support, it would begin distributing thousands of ID DVDs into schools, little information was given about CCC.”
Read the full article here
January 3rd, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Thanks for the link. Very interesting article.
Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
http://www.emergentvoyageurs.blog.com
January 3rd, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Intelligent Design (or Creation Science repackaged) is just another form of pseudoscience. Using the 15 pseudoscience criteria from “Telling Lies for God”, this is easy to see. Just some of these criteria:
ID is dogmatic vs the non-dogmatic approach of evolution; ID is a set of fixed ideas (the genesis bible narrative) vs the continual development of science, it is falsifiable whereas ID is arranged to be non-falsifiable, ID appeals to authority (the bible) vs evolution theory confering authority, etc.
Religion and science are imcompatible and ID is one example of this.
January 4th, 2006 at 9:31 am
This article articulates the conflict between science and faith better than I can:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/science-must-destroy-reli_b_13153.html
January 4th, 2006 at 11:57 am
In my view the article is based on the same flawed assumption which drives devotees of intelligent design and young earth creationism. Those christian people that advocate these ideas (and they by no means represent all of Christianity) believe that science and religion/the bible is talking about the same thing for the same purposes. Therefore, they argue, science must be wrong if it conflicts with the words of this book, because my fundamental assumption are that the words of this book are intended as a scientific treastise on the nature of the world.
A friend once asked me how I justified the idea of the creation story and how it conflicts with science. I said that I believed that the creation story was written to describe the why and who of creation and not the how and when. I said that it would be absurd to think that the authors of a set of faith documents like the bible (particularly in the period when they were written) would decide that the best way to explain who God is and our relationship with him would be to describe natural science. It would be like trying to demonstrate that John Howard is a good PM by pointing to an atlas of Australia. She, incidentally, said that she thought my explanation was cheating.
However, there are a range of different approaches as to the question of science and religion - not just the either/or approach. I prefer Stephen Jay Gould’s idea of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). NOMA suggests that religion and science ask and answer fundamentally different questions about life. So I don’t believe that science and religion are incompatible, because I don’t actually believe that science and religion are in conflict.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:26 am
The NOMA approach appears unsatisfactory. Christian faith does make claims that require evidence and/or scientific testing: the resurrection of Christ, the alleged world-wide flood, a literal Adam and Eve, God’s supposed intervention in history from time to time, etc. Furthermore, there is a world view in the Bible that is distinctly out-of-date - flat earth, sun revolving around the earth, animal sacrifices, etc. Not many Christians adopt these views today. Except for the animal sacrifice being a representation of Christ’s crucifixion.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Surely it doesn’t surprise you that the world view expressed in the bible is “distinctly out of date” - the historical background and scientific understanding at the time that the bible was written is not a part of the central claim of Christianity. The underlying assumption is that in order to be a Christian you must believe that every jot and iota in the bible is true in a factual sense. And that is simply not the case. Even those who have a very strong view on the inerrancy of the bible are unlikely to suggest that the question of whether the earth is flat is central to the biblical truth.
As I said above, suggesting that Adam and Eve is a historical story, or for that matter examining the world wide flood in the same light is contrary to the idea of NOMA.
As for miraculous intervention (including the resurrection), the point of the story is that they are miraculous - unable to be explained by conventional methods. But the whole idea of NOMA is that this is fundamentally not the point. The resurrection story is not a commentary on how it is create that people can come back to life - it is not a story with scientific point, it is a story with a theological point.
There is an abominably bad christian novel, later made into an equally bad movie (with Antonio Banderas) which is based on the premise that someone finds the body of Jesus (which therefore means that there wasn’t a physical resurrection) and the whole world freaks out because it means that it would be the end of Christianity. This type of thinking comes from our modern idea of reportage. We read the bible and ask “what happened?” but people at the time of the authors read the bible and ask “what does it mean?”
And that is the core of NOMA - that religion is actually asking a different question than science. Similarly, it is equally irresponsible for science to suggest that it can answer ethical and spiritual questions on the basis of scientific evidence (as has happend at times recently with medical ethics - we are able to perform this procedure and therefore it is ethical to do so).
January 5th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
You cannot claim that the spheres of science and faith do not overlap. Here are areas where they do:
1. The physical resurrection of Christ. This is postulated by Christians with unsatisfactory evidence
2. Our “spiritual” nature or the claim that we have a soul that survives our physical death. This would suggest there is a soul-body interface, but no-one has discovered this or proved its existence.
3. Some Christians would insist on a literal Adam and Eve. The new testmanent writes talks of sin entering the world through the first Adam and man being redeemed through the last Adam (Romans Ch 5; 1 Corinthians Ch 15). Saying that Adam/Eve is symbolic seems to remove the need for the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I used to ‘stress’ over reconciling the creation/origins issue with my logical mind and the teachings of science. I even subscribed to Creation magazine for a time!
I now rest easy on the basis that I don’t believe we can apply a post-fall/post-flood mindset to a pre-fall/pre-flood (‘world without sin) reality…in the same way that our understanding of the world-to-come is fundamentally limited.
This is where the YER’s, the ID’s both have it wrong to a degree.
After all, will we have ‘free-will’ as we know it (ie. Could we choose to sin) in a reality that is devoid of sin (ie. Perfect).
I don’t think we are comparing apples with apples when we try to compare these very different realities.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Dave,
I am unsure where science has commented on the physical resurrection of Christ with satisfactory evidence. Can you point me to some?
There are some Christians who maintain a pre-modern world view but as you are becoming aware this is not all Christians.
The atoning sacrafice understanding of Jesus’ death is but one theological understanding and if you search our blog you will find some discussion about the different understandings.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
I agree, it is not possible to say that the spheres of science and faith do not overlap - but that is different to saying that they are not the same (which I believe is what Dan is saying?)
To take your examples Kieren -
1. There may be limited scientific evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ, but there is historical evidence for it (mind you, it can be argued against, but so can any historical evidence)
2. The existence of a spiritual nature has not been disproven any more than it has been proven. Further, your argument suggests that there is nothing science cannot explain, which I think is bollocks. While science can explain some aspects of romantic love, it cannot explain all. To suggest that science can explain everything is a bit like taking postmodernism to the nth degree…I am White, Female, Straight, Christian, and like walking along the beach more than through a shopping mall…I can deconstruct all those things and show how they’re fabrications, but it doesn’t mean they’re not “True” in a larger sense. Science has never come up with a satisfactory criterion for defining “race”, and there’s reams of journal articles on deconstructing race - but look around the world today and we can all see that it “exists”!
3. I’m confused by your last point. How does saying the Adam/Eve story is symbolic remove the need for the atoning sacrifice of Christ? Regardless of whether the Adam/Eve story is “true” in the scientific sense, or whether it is merely a myth/parable/etc, it talks of the entrance of sin into the world. I simply do not see how the scientific or mythological nature of that story negates the need for atonement!
January 5th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
There no eveidence for the ressurection??? Phil, I think you just talked me out of my faith.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Well that wasn’t hard lionfish or I am just brilliant
January 5th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
1. The only evidence for the resurrection of Christ is that provided by the new testament - many years (probably generations) after the alleged event.
2. Science has very limited applicability. One should never assume that science will ever been able to provide answers to everything - Gödel’s incompleteness theorems suggest we may never be able to (yes I know they are strictly applicable to formal logical systems).
Science’s limited applicability goes hand-in-hand with its falsifiability. Additionally, science advances - we know more today than one hundred years ago, even though some knowledge is lost along the way, there is a net gain. This cannot be said about faith.
3. If the Adam/Eve story is symbolic, maybe the Christ resurrection story is also symbolic. The Adam/Eve story essentially says that man became separated from God (or sin entered the world). We are too sophisticated to believe in a literal Adam Eve, after all we have evolutionary theory to contend with. Similarly, we’re too sophisticated to believe a man-god-resurrection story (there have been many of those stories before Christ), all it essentially says is that God provides a means of reconciliation. If that’s all, lets not just rely on a book of cute stories (and not-so-cute) such as the bible - why not throw all faiths into the mix - there are new-age beliefs that say the same thing (e.g. getting out of the cycle of reincarnation caused by karma to finally reunite with God). These are just as “unbelievable” as the Christian faith - i.e. lack of evidence and too wide in their applicability to the extent that they cannot be falsified.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Dave,
Are you wanting a serious discussion about the issues above or are you looking for a fight?
January 5th, 2006 at 4:21 pm
1. There’s records elsewhere of a loony bunch of people who were talking about the resurrection of Christ, and I find the argument about the change in behaviour of the disciples being attributable to their realisation that Christ was alive pretty persuasive…
2. Yes, science has limited ability. I believe that some ‘miracles’ can be explained by science - I don’t think that doesn’t make them miracles. However I also believe there are things that can’t be explained by science. You seem to accept that science can’t explain some things…so I’m now even more confused. How is this an argument against faith?
I also disagree that it can’t be said that there are “net gains” in terms of faith - the Old Testament reveals a growing understanding among the people of God of God’s nature. Beliefs about God have changed over time, whether or not you regard that as a “gain” or not will depend on your theological persuasions.
3. Ouchies! “Too sophisticated” to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, because we have evolutionary theory to contend with? I find the assertion that we’re “too sophisticated” to believe in a literal creation story culturally biased. Also, my understanding was that the ancient Jews never regarded the story as “scientific fact” but rather a creation story, similar to the Dreamtime stories. I certainly wouldn’t suggest to my indigenous friends that their belief in the Dreamtime stories was “unsophisticated”, nor would I suggest those stories were necessarily at odds with “evolutionary theory” (but now I’m being circular).
I believe God provides a means of reconciliation. I believe that Jesus was God, and I am content to believe that he was resurrected because (a) this is one of the very few things for which I’ll use the phrase “because the Bible says so”! and (b) Christians throughout time have believed it, and while I think skepticism and even cynicism is important, I see my community of faith as extending throughout time. I am not so confident in my own ability to figure things out so as to go off on my own and dismiss the beliefs of generations and generations of a people I identify with. There is a fine line to be walked between independence of thought and arrogance, between being an individual in community and being an individual who completely ignores those with whom they allege to be in community with…
I’ll post as long as the conversation stays interesting…and I get pretty bored, pretty quickly, when I think someone’s just up for a stoush rather than genuinely interested and wanting to engage. ;P
January 5th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I think most of the discussion so far does have bearing on the original topic, in spite of its “robust” nature (I’m the one providing the robustness, I must admit).
Bec, your last post draws out the essential nature of faith - it is a matter of belief. Now whether one is motiviated to come to a particular belief because of respect for historical authority, one’s peers, a born-again experience, or the “bible says so” does not negate this perspective: faith is what you have when you don’t have evidence.
Since faith is personal - others would argue the Muslim faith is better for similar reasons (historical authority,
lots of believers) - and because there are so many variants of faith, it does not make sense to teach one variation in schools under the guise of “Intelligent Design” when we all know it is just a cover for the old Creation Science.
Here’s a quote:
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cosy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor all their own.
– Bertrand Russell, What I Believe
January 5th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
I should expand a little on the NOMA model (which is really Stephen Jay Gould’s model discussed in detail in his book “Rocks of Ages”) but you can get a brief idea of his thoughts here.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
I am not sure anyone was arguing in favour of teaching ID.
But, you havent answered my question Dave?
January 5th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
Phil,
1. Why is my name now “Dave”?
2. Why can’t a serious debate be a battle of ideas - an all-in-brawl, if you like the fighting terminology?
3. Heard from Richard, recently?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Dave, I was just saying that these days, I withdraw from these conversations very quickly if I have the impression they’re not really “conversations”. Now, this has nothing to do with me not liking to be challenged - I’m an Arts/Law grad after all - and everything to do with me just finding what I referred to as “intellectual tennis” very boring. I shut up very quickly if I feel like I’m not listening, or like I’m not being listened to. Brow beating’s boring, and achieves nothing.
A good mate of mine, who happens to be Muslim, and in my view a brilliant writer and brilliant intellect, finds discussions such as these rather bemusing - he says that historically there’s no discussion about things like “creation myths”, “evidence” and “science” in Islam for cultural reasons. The Islamic world lead in terms of scientific discovery and development. It was in Christian West that religion/faith/spirituality and science came into conflict - this has never happened in the Islamic world (well, it’s arguable it does now, but that’s pretty complicated…)
I agree 100% with the quote from Russell…and I think everyone else who’s commented so far would as well…nobody was arguing in favour of teaching ID…
In fact, I’m an environmental science major, and the first books I remember reading were kids books on evolution. I was utterly obsessed with the history of the earth as a 5 or 6 year old - I was lucky to have parents who were teachers and were more than happy to seek out books on evolution for 6 year olds!! I have very vivid memories of lying in bed at night reading a book that described how germs became creepy-crawlies which eventually got out of the water and became other things, and then dinosours came along, and then a big thing called a Meterorite crashed into the earth and…I’m laughing as I write because I realise now that I was a complete and utter nerd from a very young age…but the point is that even back then I was incredibly excited by Creation and the Creator, and didn’t see the stories my parents read from the Bible and the stories they read from my kids books on evolution as incompatible.
I get very, very angry about the use of religion - or, for that matter, science - to deny people access to the many stories they might be excited by and find meaning in.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Dave,
Because you refuse to tell me who you are and I believe that you are David Harris formely of FCS and Solsup. Correct me if I am wrong.
I spoke to Richard yesterday actually.
A serious debate can be a battle of ideas - plenty of them here on this blog if you have a look through the archives. But, because (I think) I know who you are, I am interested in your motivation. I am also curious as to your use of language about faith - do you seriously want to talk about the issues or are you just having fun on a keyboard about stuff that people believe?
Like bec, if it is the first I am happy to converse and you will find many people here who will be happy to - even if you don’t believe. But if it is the second - I will tire quickly.
So, let us get it out on the table now, so we are not wasting anyones time and energy.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Kieren, Dave, whatever or whoever you are
…
A “battle of ideas”, an “all-in-brawl”? Well, I’m not one for physical fighting, and I’m not one for intellectual fighting. In fact, I despise the former and the latter even more. I’m excited by ideas, by engagement - punchups masquerading as intellectual debates are utterly boring…and, in my view, profoundly UN-intellectual.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
what’s FCS and what’s Solsup?
January 5th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
It is two computer software companies that I and Dave worked for - before I became a minister.
I was referring to an email conversation Dave/Kieren and I were having - and he referred to things that showed he knew me from my computing life but wouldn’t say who he was.
Needless to say, this annoyed me.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
General comment: I’m interested in ideas. I’m from an evangelical christian background. I’m now a skeptic. I could use the term “atheist” but that has undesirable emotive connotations.
I have an enduring interest in what motivates people of faith - why they believe what they believe. And the fact that this can, at times, be a form of entertainment or “having fun on the keyboard”, does not detract from its serious nature.
Which brings me to another perception: people of faith can sometimes become angry or upset if they percieve their cherished ideas are under attack or simply questioned (”excited by and find meaning in”).
I’m reminded of the time I gave my father’s eulogy at his funeral, where I said, because there were both Christians and non-believers present, that the bible was an important book for “many people” rather that the most important book - I got an look of absolute horror from the pastor who performed my wedding (he was a “guest” at the funeral) at this obvious statement of non-belief on my part. In other words, he couldn’t image how someone could deviate from the Christian faith - but in fact, this is quite common.
Anyway, back to the topic.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
I think you all need to go and sit down take a deep breath and talk to GOD,The true and living GOD and see what HE has to say .Ask Him to enlighten you all about the origins of man and creation and you may just find that GOD will tell you the truth,which by the way will set you free,free from all this speculation and heresay stuff .
Read the Hebrew account on faith and ask The HOLY SPIRIT to reveal to you His truths from the BIBLE the word of GOD
January 5th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Allan, you’re leaving yourself wide-open there.
God tells different people different things. Sometimes, what God tells one on Thursday is different from the impression from Tuesday afternoon.
Anyway, how does God “talk” to people? It’s certainly not in an unambiguous way so that we all get the same message.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Erm…yep, I agree with all of your above post, and have had experiences (with christians) similar to those you describe above. However, I’d add that it’s not just people of religion that can “become angry or upset if they perceive their cherished ideas are under attack or simply questioned” - the most irritatingly intellectually self-righteous people I know are atheists. I tried to convey it above, but I’ll put it here again - I am bored stiff by people who aren’t interested in anything other than telling me how outmoded, irrelevant, unintellectual and generally stupid my belief in Christ is. I’m yet to meet a staunch atheist who doesn’t seem at least half as loony as a fundamentalist christian…
January 5th, 2006 at 6:16 pm
There was an implicit attack there, Bec, in post 28 - loony atheists, indeed! I’ll ignore that since my skin is thicker than my typing skills. (Skin not head, thankyou).
Well, of course, you can’t always put a particular behaviour together with a matching set of beliefs - yes, I’d agree that there are rabid boorish people in all walks of life, atheist, Christian, Callathumpian, whatever. That goes without saying, really.
I’m more than happy to stick to the discussion of ideas/concepts/facts/perceptions without resorting to personal attacks. This means that I will usually ignore implicit attacks, such as the one above - since they are often unintended, and anyway, who cares if someone calls someone else a moron - stupid people can have the occasional good idea or make a valid contribution.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
“…. We may define faith, as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. When there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We speak only of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.” Bertrand Russell on God and Religion (Prometheus Books, 1986), p. 283