One day (many years ago), I realized that one of the following must be true:
- Scientists are in a massive anti-religious conspiracy,
- scientists are so biased against creationism that they're ignoring vast amounts of creation-confirming data or faking vast amounts of evolution-confirming data,
- Christians are in a massive pro-creation conspiracy,
- or Christians are so biased against evolutionary theory that they're ignoring vast amounts of anti-creation data or faking vast amounts of creation-confirming data.
I could easily imagine #4 being true, and within the health-and-wealth section of American Christianism I suspect massive insincerity, so that there is a conspiracy is easy to believe.
Think about the Christians you know (if any), and then think about the scientists you know (if any). Are you clearly in one group or the other? If so, think about the stereotypes you have of the other group. I'll tell you about the stereotypes I have; they are based both on personal interaction and reading works authored by representatives of these groups.
I think every scientist is biased about her science[1], but I think the scientific community recognizes this problem and continues to worry about it and debate ways of dealing with it...just as Christians worry about their interpretations of scripture and continue to debate how to do it properly.
I think every Christian is biased, usually toward what she has been taught. I think a lot of Christians have been taught a particular biblical hermeneutic that posits, as a cornerstone of Christianity, no less, a particular "literal" understanding of Genesis 1-2. I think the majority of these Christians are ignorant about not only the contested nature of biblical hermeneutics within the history of their own faith[2], but also about actual scientific history and practice. I also think the majority of these Christians don't know any practicing scientists (and are therefore willing to believe #1 or #2, above).[3]
I don't think many scientists are in conspiracies, and I don't think scientists' inescapable bias is covering up vast amounts of pro-creation data. I think many Christians ignorantly believe simplistic pro-creation assertions that are not borne out by actual science. Furthermore, I think Christ's command to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" (Luke 10:27) implies that we need to be intellectually honest, and many 6-day-24-hour literalist creationists are unintentionally breaking that commandment.
When general revelation (creation (the universe), see Romans 1) tells us that, according to our best theories, the Earth is billions of years old, we need to accept that as being probably true.
When I was a child, I was taught that "if you deny 6-day-24-hour creation you might as well throw out the whole Bible!". Then, when I looked into the issue by taking scientists seriously instead of merely reading creationist assertions against them, and in following Christ's command to be intellectually honest, I had to deny 6-day-24-hour creationism...and my faith in scripture was fundamentally shaken because that particular interpretation of those particular passages had been improperly wedged into the foundation of my Christianity. That was 10 years ago, and I'm still struggling with the consequences that unwise teaching had for my faith.
As the book of Job famously illustrates, it's OK to struggle with our faith (or lack thereof), and I think doubt can be quite healthy. But raising particular views about creation to equal importance with the Gospel of Christ is foolish. Beyond that, at this point in history, in my opinion, it violates Christ's command to love the Lord with "all your mind". When a particular interpretation (science) of general revelation (the universe) contradicts a particular interpretation (hermeneutic) of special revelation (scripture), we should be wrestling with that. I see ignorance and wishful thinking in many 6-day-24-hour arguments, and sincerity and a high probability of truth in science's differing conclusions.
One time I had a conversation with a classmate of mine who had some stereotypes about Christians; she seemed to assume that Christians were never serious about science, and always willing to believe whatever would confirm their faith. She seemed surprised to discover that Copernicus was a devout Roman Catholic, and [perhaps less so] that I, too, was a Christian who took science seriously. Christians and scientists alike would do well to foster a healthy respect for each other; we're all bringing personal bias to the problem of interpreting something. Both Christians and scientists have a duty to interpret the universe correctly, and if we're looking for common ground upon which to base a productive discussion of differing views, we couldn't ask for more than all the "ground" that exists.
[1] In his masterful book The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, Pierre Duhem discusses the difficulty of avoiding bias. (Duhem, Pierre. The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by Weiner, Philip P. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 1982. See page 182.) Duhem is responding to Claude Bernard's work in An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. (Bernard, Claude. An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine. Translated by Henry Copley Greene. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. 1957. See pages 40-43 for Bernard's discussion of respect for authority within the scientific community.)
[2] For one of the most ancient examples, and to show that old-earth views were not newly invented in the 19th century to accommodate Darwinian theory, consider St. Augustine's commentaries on Genesis. Howard J. Van Till's post at http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199804/0345.html might be a good starting point.
[3] Of course, there are very educated, informed Christians who believe in a 6-day-24-hour creation event; I know at least one. I have not found them to be the norm.
[Note: Retitled from "Some Logic about Creationism and Evolutionary Theory".]
7 comments:
"I could easily imagine #4 being true, and within the health-and-wealth section of American Christianism I suspect massive insincerity, so conspiracy is easy to believe."
Check out the video on Justin Peters' site.
http://www.justinpeters.org
Hi caron,
Thanks for that link. I'm 6 years younger than Justin, and I grew up in the Word of Faith movement. My family's church was WoF in name (literally!), but thankfully it was quite orthodox concerning the Gospel and the inerrancy of the Bible. I empathize very strongly with Justin's story, and I'm encouraged to know people like him are out there working to correct the damage done by the "faith healers".
--matt
BTW, the video on Justin's site that I'm referring to is here: http://www.justinpeters.org/Chapel.wmv
I assume we're talking about the same one. :)
4. or Christians are so biased against evolutionary theory that they're ignoring vast amounts of anti-creation data or faking vast amounts of creation-confirming data.
Christians are terrified of evolution. They would become mentally disturbed if they gave up their childish belief that people were magically created to be separate from the rest of nature. The other problem Christians have is their breathtaking stupidity. Only a moron could still believe in magical creation in the 21st century.
Well, I don't think Christians are the only ones who engage in wishful belief, even though I'm calling some of them on the carpet here. In fact, one of the most interesting points to raise in any discussion of apologetics is how much atheism and agnosticism are often based on the same kind of wishful believing, coupled with a strong dose of unacknowledged cultural assumptions.
I was intentionally referring to practicing scientists in this post -- not merely believers in the prevailing scientism in which so many people have such unshakable faith. An inappropriate understanding of science is behind as much foolishness among the non-religious as it is among religious people. The 6-day-24-hour creationists are just doing a better job of appearing as fools.
Head on over to slashdot.org for an endless discussion of "science by consensus", and then contrast even that with the average level of scientific discussion in our culture. Because science has delivered technology, far too many people are ready to adopt any belief that is corroborated by "scientists". As a culture, we are woefully unaware of and unpracticed in the methodical doubt that (for example) Claude Bernard stresses so strongly, and culturally we seem to be just about as gullible about "science" as many believers appear to be about matters of faith.
This topic is one I generally avoid discussing like the plague. Yes, the intellectual dishonesty runs rampant, plus, for so many people, it has become nearly its own religion.
However, just a couple of comments and I'll go back into my shell on the topic.
1. Terminology. Casting the debate in terms of creationism ("what we have was created (by God)") vs. evolution, it perpetuates the notion that evolution necessarily eliminates God. Many outspoken evolutionists today are atheists, so the correlation between evolution and rejection of God just gets tighter. Maybe the debate is more about the "age of the earth" or the "manner of creation."
2. It's debatable that Christians need to accept a particular current scientific explanation. Science has its uses, but has been spectacularly wrong on certain things in the past and will continue to make similar mistakes in the present and future. A healthy skepticism and understanding of what science does/does not teach us is probably a good thing.
3. Lastly, I suspect many young-earth-believing Christians believe a faulty syllogism similar to the following:
- I'm quite certain that God exists
- Evolution tries to teach and prove that God doesn't exist
- Therefore, I can't believe in evolution
On the other hand, I've witnessed evolution proponents with the following reasoning:
- I know that evolution is a correct understanding of species origin
- Admitting errors in certain previous beliefs about evolution will give people doubts about the theory overall
- Therefore, we don't want to correct certain factual errors (in textbooks, for example) about evolution until we have something to sufficient to replace them with.
Hi matthew,
I'm inclined to agree with you right down the line. I hope it's clear my criticism is of most 6-day-24-hour creationists, and not of "creationism" in general, in which I must believe, in some form, as a Christian.
I think I'll change the title of the post, though. You raise a good point.
Old title: "Some Logic about Creationism". New title: "Some Logic about 6-day-24-hour Creationism"
Post a Comment