The Foundations of the Debate

Much can be said in the creation vs. evolution debate but what can be said about the dispute itself? The creationist movement is Darwin’s illegitimate child. The father doesn’t want to know his child and the child hate its father for rejecting it. Before Darwin there was no such thing as a creationist movement. Science worked under the watchful, and sometimes vengeful, eye of the church. The church answered questions that science was not allowed to ask, among them were those of origin (cosmological) and those of the soul (who and what am I?). The latter intrinsically linked with the former. But throughout history there have been those who were not satisfied with the narrow confines that had been imposed on science and demanded access to the domain reserved for pious dogmatic philosophy.There have been theologians such as Luther who questioned the church as source of historical truth, stating that historic evidence has primacy over dogma (I know this statement need modification). In more ancient time church fathers who were philosophically inclined questioned dogma as the foundation for morality stating that that is good is good in itself and not because an external agent (God) says it is good. We also have those famous men in natural science, such as Galileo. Darwin and Freud, who dared to take scientific enquiry into the domains of dogma. The result has always been the same anathema. Al of these men have been accused not only of blasphemy but of moral depravity, carnal motives and lies.My thought about the creation vs. evolution debate is that it is not a matter of different interpretations of data because it never has been and never can be a question of facts. But it is, and will always be, a question of authority. Religion need and craves for a tangible basis for its claims. That base is the privilege of solely have possession of an answer to; why man is and what man is.Modern biology just as astronomy and psychology offers answers to that question. They offer answers, though not in the all comprehensive way religion does, that aren’t outside the sphere of religion. Religion is thus threatened at its power base, it is no longer the sole player in the arena, and it can’t lay claims on explaining man’s place in the universe without bumping into science.When one surveys the creationist camp the core arguments that are lashed against ToE are not about certain facts in nature but about theology. If mere facts were at stake the score would have been settled in the laboratory and not in court. Why does defenders of creationism otherwise go to great length in expounding the moral implication of Darwinism? Why does creationist proponents otherwise make a big fuss over “the methodological atheism” in science. And why, oh why, would creationists otherwise insist that their “theory” should be taught in school even when it is a field without research, without academic support and without a program apart from the idea of creation/design being taught?So the thing I’d like to ventilate is “why all this fuss?”. Why are people so upset and religious leaders so zealous in this matter? In short, reflections upon the motives behind the creationist movement.

In a historic retrospect the magic world view has been on the retreat for over 2000 years. Even religious documents such as the bible lash out against some part of the magic world view it self contains. Let me give two concrete examples. First, contrast the fable with the talking donkey in Numbers 22:22-30 with the view in 2 Pet 2:12 and Sap. Sal. 11: 15 that acknowledge animals lack the faculty of reason. Second, the commitment to magic places in the old testament (Gen 28:17-22) with the denial of the same in the new testament (Joh. 4:22).The cosmogonic myths of creation were disbelieved by the Greeks since they too closely reassembled human affairs and the church consider witchcraft as folklore based on superstition during a long period pre “Malleus Maleficarum”. So we can conclude that even within religion there is an opposition to superstition when it is considered harmful instead of useful or is deemed just too outright ludicrous.In this cases religion have used reason, as well as theology, to attack itself to remove what is unwanted religiosity. But in spite of the churches efforts superstition due to its un-dogmatic position evades and transforms itself in ever new forms.Today we have faith healers and new age gurus filling the role of ancient medicine men and myths about Satanism and Islam filling the role of witches. Man has a drive for the irrational and supernatural and mysterious explanations are found more appealing by a sufficient number of the population for religion to continue to thrive at least as long as it is not stung in it heart of hearts. But that is another question!What singles out creationism is that it has a fixed dogmatic position from which it cannot escape without losing its truth claim. In short, creationism defends a less evolved form of religion. It is a remnant of an institutional religion that had monopolised certain questions. When that monopoly disappeared there were only two options, either stand your ground and fight or undergo a metamorphosis until you are no longer susceptible to attack.Much of what has been done during the 1900 century within theology has indirectly been a response to Darwin. The Catholic Church as well as the Anglican and most Lutheran churches chose to undergo dogmatic change. Today they still claim the same monopoly as before but they do it in a way that, at least according to them, is beyond the scoop of scientific enquiry. They talk about “ultimate reality” and “the need for wholeness” not referring to observational facts but to the “inner reality” of man.Back to creationism again. It represents those who are still left on the battle field fighting, not a shadow fight but a fight for survival, the survival of their religion. They are still left with a way of presenting their question (why and what are man) that collides with observational facts. So of cause they are loosing and they darn well know it! That is why the either want to bring Darwin to their own arena claiming it’s a religion or attack scientists whit libel trying to discredit them. That is why they use politics and courts to settle their issue. That is why they rather talk morality then facts.But loosing is not the same thing as “going to loose”. I do think there is a die hard determination to stick to the fight with legal and political means. If the flame of the Arab enlightenment could be washed away in the avalanche of religious fanaticism that swept over the Muslim world a few hundred years ago and if the Greek thought could be quelled by Christian hogwash philosophy, why should not modern science as well be able to succumb to a religious revival?Religions most formidable opponent has always been reality therefore it strives to monopolize truth.

Basically I think you are right! But would you say this is only a matter of their “bible interpretation” or do you think there is something deeper more basic about their stanza?I myself would think that their conception of reality is such that they can only deal with absolutes and that their biblical fundamentalism and thus their literal creation fundamentalism are just expressions of this more basic approach to life.

In this I think Paul the apostle preceded professor Dawkins in solving the age old mathematical question of the square root of evil
But I don’t think the answer is that simple. Sure many scams like Ken Ham are there for the money, the same thing goes fore the whole lot of the God channel folks. But money could be made on people’s gullibility in a more easy way than taking on a fight with the whole scientific community. Somewhere there is a reason why people are ready to pay for it and are willing to believe in it even when it’s so obviously ludicrous like when Mr. Ham are held as a scientific expert while he gets puzzled by the fact that the sun burns without oxygen. Why do people still cling to him for hope? Edited by jerker77, : No reason given.Edited by jerker77, : No reason given.

Of cause there is money involved and the same ridicules tax and special rights that apply in the US for religion are making their way into Europe. (In my own country, Sweden, for example the state helps the churches by taking out taxes for them from their followers!) But the money is there ripe and ready to harvest because someone is willing to pay. People would not be willing to pay for a flat earth or a Ptolemaic protagonist. Why are they willing to pay for a creationist? Surely not because they want to get rid of their money and get scammed! Edited by jerker77, : No reason given.

Yes, sure it is the conviction and holy wrath of the flock that fuels the pockets of creationism advocates! But why are people so easily led to believe their preacher is right when he jolly sings “I don’t believe in evolution”? Must it not respond to something within themselves? Or are they just downright stupid?

If it only was a matter of propaganda one think it would have been an easy task to re-educate the common creationist. But as this forum gives ample proof of it is not that easy.I think people like Ham are successful because they tell people what they want to hear, they confirm their basic belief system thus providing them with a sense of security that their preconceptions were right.Creationists, at least all I have meet, are absolutist in their approach to life. They are dealing in either or’s and thus have a literalistic and anthropomorphic religion. ToE is to them a threat to something into which much emotional energy and personal prestige as well as economic resources have been invested. The cost of skipping out are simply to high and from a game theoretic point of view there will be very little sense in skipping as long as the cost of staying is relatively low. I think this is sometimes referred to as the Concord phenomenon.

The difference between Europe and America are possibly best accounted for by the events that led to the Scoops trial. There have never been any great religious revivals in Europe that have been able to gather momentum enough to get self propelling power. In Europe religion had been institutional in a very formal sense and more often than nor aligned with the state. So in the age of the great revolutions there was always a speck of, if not atheistic, so at least antireligious zeal. The popular sentiment thus became irreligious and religion itself banned from public life.In America religion have a central place in public life; it is there in symbols and rituals, even in the constitution! Indeed, many of those who in Europe were ignited with spiritual fewer fled to America thus fuelling the religious sentiments oversees and depleting them back home.
In America there were fuel enough so set alight a religious bonfire and the Scoops trial provided the spark.My general point would be that the US like some Muslim states have an unhealthy mix of religion and state that provides good breeding ground for religious movements, that want to impose their worldview on the public arena simply because they really can’t see a fundamental difference between public life and private (and communal) spiritual aspirations.

---

/Jerker
*Religions most formidable opponent has always been reality therefore it strives to monopolize truth*

Sorry, I was thinking of the declaration of independence!
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights"

Luther’s revolution was one of the burgers and princes, not of the common man. But sure, during those days we have the iconoclastic Zwingli, the Zwickau prophets and a whole bunch of other Jons and Sams who stirred public sentiment among the gentry and rural populace. What I had in mind was the period 1600 and onwards.

As a matter of fact I think it is a bad thing that any form of deity is referred to in legal code and in hindsight even more so. I always get an uncanny feeling when references are made to god outside churches; it tends to be a slippery sloop. A general reference there, some public praying there, some talk about being in pace with tradition, and woops the spirit jumps in as a sticker in biological textbooks.