Since originally proposing this topic it has come to my attention that Duane Gish(Senior Vice President of ICR(Institute of Creation Research), maybe future president since Morris' death), a public face of Creationism isn't overly respected by the majority of Creationists. This puts to rest the thoughts I had that his and ICR's way of thinking represented a majority in the movement.
I say Gish is a public face, because of his appearance on Penn and Teller: Bullsh*t!(
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=c). The episode he appeared on was ironically enough the same arguement this very website is built around, Evolution versus Creationism. It is partially why I sought out a forum to debate the topic, as he did a very poor job of convincing the hosts and myself that the idea has any merit at all other than an entirely religious one.
He lost me when he claimed the Grand Canyon was cut by a single massive surge of water(great flood) rather than over time by a steady flow.
Though even if people like Gish, and ICR as a whole do not represent a majority the following excerpt from that website is still a prime example of my arguement.
" We believe God has raised up ICR to spearhead Biblical Christianity's defense against the godless and compromising dogma of evolutionary humanism. Only by showing the scientific bankruptcy of evolution, while exalting Christ and the Bible, will Christians be successful in “the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (II Corinthians 10:4,5). " (
The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research)
The choice of wording leads me to believe they are at war with everyone that has a different view, the use of "and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ" implies that ICR has not outgrown Christianities history of forcing itself onto everyone it encounters yet the Church(as a ruling body) seems to have done just that(you still have isolated members who are not backed by the Church that pressure others, but nothing like the organized group represented in ICR).
ICR also takes every oppurtunity to jump on scientists who falsify their findings, so that they can mention the inherent fallibility of all scientists. (
Can We Trust Science? | The Institute for Creation Research)
" We trust science. We trust that scientists have done their work well and honestly when we drive a car over a bridge, ride in an elevator, or undergo a surgical procedure. But we need to be realistic in our trust of scientists. Scientists are human with sin natures just as the rest of the human population. As Christians, when a scientific “breakthrough” is reported we should either examine the evidence for ourselves, or if we are not qualified to discern the data (which in many cases only a specialist in the field would be able to do), we should wait until the data are verified and confirmed by other reputable scientists before claiming it as fact. Unfortunately, many Christians transfer their trust in science to a scientist when he gives an opinion or hypothesis about the origins of the universe, the living world, and humans as well. Many assume that since a scientist said it, “it must be true” even if it apparently contradicts Scripture. From the recent events depicting the problems that a few scientists have had with honesty and integrity,
we should remember that they are human and just as prone to sin as the rest of us. When can we fully trust scientists? Just as soon as people stop running red lights! "
Usually when I hear that phrase it goes more like this, "they are human and just as prone to mistakes as the rest of us" though they get a B+ for effort in trying to hide it because the last I checked falsifying findings isn't a sin. Though as it says scientists are prone to mistakes like anyone else, so their findings should be checked by other reputable specialists ... why then do they ignore the fact that many specialists who are not part of their club consider Creationist "science" to be untrue and in some cases entirely speculative?
After reading a bit of ICR's website, and a few more like it there is no doubt in my mind that I would not be safe from discrimination living in an area where these people were a majority or had integrated themselves into local politics to a point where they could initiate change(such as forcing a strictly religious topic to be taught in schools).
A current example of problems which could arise from fanatical and uncompromising Creationists like ICR gaining any type of political power(putting aside just for the moment the threat from individuals who support the movement) can be seen in Salt Lake City, which has long had problems seperating Church from State.
I am not saying that these problems in SLC have not been bettered over the years, but there still remain the many stories of discrimination against business owners and even private citizens who excersized their right to freedom of religion instead of following what was in power. The infamous blacklist is probably the best known discrimination in the city, business owners and private citizens(usually those who voiced their concerns the loudest) on the list had trouble getting licenses, unbiased health inspections and fair pricing on water and power. A few people even claimed that they had been framed for drug possession, and other charges. Their claims were supported by friends and family that knew them, and the fact they had no prior criminal record of any kind.
What about the extremists in the Creationist movement? The individual zealots, every religion has them and to think a few have not latched onto Creationism is very bad judgment.
The very idea of the movement as put forth by ICR and other similar groups is to wage war against those who refuse to believe, so I ask you what is to stop them from bombing museums and other institutes of learning which don't support Creationism?
If I were to put myself in this persons shoes these buildings and the people who visit them laugh in the face of god and Creationism by merely existing and resisting the inclusion of Creationism as a serious subject which should coexist in classrooms with Evolution.
Those are the reasons I am afraid of Creationism gaining any type of real power or overwhelming following, the majority of people who believe it may coexist with those who don't ... but the fanatics that can't coexist are the ones that have my attention and influence my opinions the most.
Suffice to say, I think there's a far greater number of things to fear from Creationism than there are from Evolution. The prime one being a degradation of our culture to a more superstitious time, after all what are the wrathful events in the bible if not prettied up magic?
This message has been edited by AlgolagniaVolcae, 03-10-2006 05:42 AM
™ Version 4.2