| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
> >The way I see it, paleontologists cannot win much against
> >creationists/ID'ers, except in court, because it is a deeply held
> >religious belief. Where it can be won, is on the religious front
> >itself. Most mainstream religions support science and evolution.
> >But where are they when the creationists and ID'ers force their
> >brand of extreme Christianity on everyone through the schools,
> >congress, and courts?
Going to the courts, however, is likely to be perceived as evidence that evolution is part of a political and anti-religious scheme rather than a scientific issue. It won't help change the minds of antievolutionists.
The antievolutionary movement is grassroots and does not entirely match mainstream versus conservative divisions. E.g., Philip Johnson (a major intelligent design spokesman) and a recent Paleo Society president are both mainline Presbyterians, yet they disagree strongly on evolution, good science ("scientific claims that support my view" or "true"), etc. Mainline religious groups often have little credibility with members of more conservative groups and so cannot have much influence on them.
What will be effective on the religious front is raising questions about the theological quality of creationism, ID, etc. In fact, a careful examination of standard ID and creation science from a conservative Christian viewpoint identifies them as anti-Christian heresies. Effectively raising this issue generally requires thorough familiarity with the beliefs of particular individuals. However, a few easily identified common practices among antievolutionists that ought to raise red flags for conservative Christians include their disregard for accuracy and quality and their promotion of other religions (e.g., the Hare Krishna _Mysterious Origins of Man_, Jonathan Wells' (Unification Church, aka Moonies) role in the ID movement, Harun Yaha, the Raelian endorsement of ID).
>People who begin with unquestioning acceptance of the type of history
> that is recorded in the Bible will have fundamental
> problems with the type of history that paleontologists maintain is
> recorded in the fossil record and in the morphology and genetics of
> life forms.
I see the problem as confusing the two types. The Bible claims to present a history of God's interaction with humanity, whereas paleontology provides the physical history of life. Creation science, intelligent design, etc. try to make the Bible or other religious source into a reference on the physical history of life, and expect to find a history of God's interaction in paleontology and other historical sources.
If one recognizes the difference, then reconciling the two becomes much easier. Members of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists (ACG) were involved in both the first and second Paleo Society short courses on evolution. Some members of the ACG have research directly relating to evolution, biostratigraphy, isotopic dating, etc. (at the moment, two of the officers have paleontological research interests), and the answers given on the ACG website “Ask a geologist” feature do not promote antievolutionism nor young-earth views.
Keith Miller’s Perspectives on an Evolving Creation provides a recent (2003) reference accepting evolution and considering it from an evangelical Christian perspective, whereas David Livingstone’s Darwin’s Forgotten Defenders examines some of the early history of evangelical support for evolution. References such as these may help reach some of the antievolutionists.
Dr. David Campbell
Old Seashells
University of Alabama
Biodiversity & Systematics
Dept. Biological Sciences
Box 870345
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at Droitgate Spa
Partial index: