(via)
Where would we be if we taught creationism as science?
July 3, 2010 By 32 Comments
A reasonable blog on atheism, religion, science and skepticism
Follow Patheos
Atheist:
Subscribe through RSS
Follow Patheos on
Faith Channels
Religion Library
Topics
Resources
Copyright 2008-2012, Patheos. All rights reserved. Terms of Service | Patheos Privacy Policy
You can cross off the rest of that photo with “flu pandemic”, too. Evolutionary biology helps us to make at least one new flu vaccine every year – as well as anti-viral drugs to stop the really nasty ones from killing you if you *do* get them.
Yup. It always surprises me when people pine for the “good old days”. In those good old days, I am generally happy to point out, they’d most likely be dead five-times-over by now, or horrifically oppressed, or starving.
This.
It’s my big refutation of Lori Gottlieb, the dumb broad who wrote a book saying that women looking for a husband should “settle”. Why people glorify a hard agricultural, slum, and sweat-shop life in which mere mean survival, illnesses, early deaths, and poverty necessarily took priority over seeking happiness in marriage, has always puzzled me. Keep in mind that divorce was less accepted then, but wife-beating and abuse was accepted and kept private as a family matter. If that’s what these stupid broads want, they should go for it all the way; don’t do it only half-assed.
If these broads jumped into a stupid marriage, squeezed out some babies, then divorced, they’ve already blown it. They should have “settled” like the real settlers did! How do they think going against tradition in one way by divorcing, then trumpeting tradition and “settling” for a second sugar daddy is going to solve their (self-caused) problems?
I always wonder why most people would say they’d rather, if given a time machine, vist/live in the past than the future. Okay, the future looks bleak, but come on, the technology would be way better and thus would a much better quality of life.
The only answer I’ve ever heard that sounded half-way convincing to me actually came from my S.O.. She pointed out that she often felt out-of-place temperamentally, with different social and cultural expectations of different time periods making particular urges more or less acceptable. For a(n American) warrior with a conscience, it is in some ways more attractive to have lived during WWII than during Vietnam or now, or during the struggle for civil rights for women and minorities than now with our more muddled and somewhat less strident current political struggles (not withstanding, perhaps, gay rights, though even there the sense of epic cultural transformation is somewhat lacking).
Nietzsche once opined that fighting for liberal institutions is more invigorating than living under them, because it cultivates a lust for freedom and a muscular attitude towards securing it. Perhaps this is only true for some personalities, but I can personally sympathize with the sentiment.
Is this one of those “quiverfull” families? If so, I like the statement of this photo even better.
It’s the infamous Duggar family, a good handful of kids ago
Like, six kids ago.
What wonders could be done with a gene tailored virus right there…
I understand that there is a betting pool on how many of the Duggar boys will be gay. A long-term project, obviously. Some bettors are relying on the math of the older brother effect, others are just SWAGing.
To the contrary, Christianity provided the foundation for modern science. It was Christian Europe that allowed for natural philosophy to grow and mature. If you disagree, take it up with Dr. Peter Atkins, chemistry professor at Oxford University. Oh yes, and he’s an atheist. Granted that he’s no fan of Christianity or creationism, but while I was studying there at New College, Atkins explained how Christianity was the “cradle” out of which modern science emerged. He doesn’t have to be a fan of Christianity to be honest about history.
I have no way of agreeing or disagreeing with your assertion without any evidence you could provide or I could look it up myself — but how does that bear the phrase “to the contrary” when the question was “Where would we be if we taught creationism as science?” If Christianity=Creationism to you, and it doesn’t to millions of Christians, make your case. Also provide other evidence of your assertion than one guy who taught at your college. This may be horseshit or common knowledge, or something very few people know, but is actually the case, I have no idea.
Christianity might have cradles many scientists (a surprising amount of early pioneers were monks or priests), but it also did it’s level best to smother the baby in the crib, so to speak. Galileo Galilei was just the start.
Custador,
The situation of Galileo was a political mess involving more than one pope. The church was defending Aristotle more than Christian scriptures, and they had fused the two as authorities. Galileo also argued that Kepler’s idea that the moon influenced the tide was complete rubbish, but the church was beginning to like the notion that the moon moved tides up and down. It’s a fascinating piece of history, and I encourage you to look into it. I think you’d enjoy it. The Church shouldn’t have put him under house arrest, certainly, but Galileo would have been well-served had he been more honest and learned how to win friends and influence people. :P
Apologist;
One who defends Christianity against intellectual objections. In early church history, the Greek apologists were Christian leaders from approximately 130 to 180 AD who wrote treatises in Greek defending Christianity against attacks by pagan philosophers.
Galileo would have been well-served had he been more honest and learned how to win friends and influence people.
Galileo was a total ass who could be obsequious to those who benefited him (the De’Medici’s) and scathing to those who didn’t. And I don’t know what brain damage he suffered that made him put the words of the current pope into the mouth of a literary character he named “simpleton.” And his scientific reasoning was wrong besides.
It’s still not good to have an institution that claims the authority to dictate was is and is not factual, and uses the charge of “suspicion of heresy” to enforce its decisions.
Christianity has had a long and very complicated relationship with science and philosophy, as has Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam. But as others have noted, that is neither here nor there from the denying of huge swaths of geology, biology, physics, and astronomy that young-Earth creationism requires. At best, it would teach students a lot of crap that they would have to unlearn when they actually got to study those fields. At worst (depending on how institutionalized it became) it could actively stifle or even reverse innovation in any of those fields and others.
And since you mention history, it is worth pointing out that YEC has not been the favored interpretation of Genesis by most Christians or Jews for a very long time. The resurgence in this particular idiocy inside the domain of Christianity has been quite recent, and generally geographically isolated to North America (with a few outliers in England, Australia, and New Zealand).
best discussion of this I’ve seen is here
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2010/01/flynns-pile-of-boners.html
which addresses a very flawed response to a flawed argument that Christianity seriously delayed scientific progress in the dark/middle ages.
I just read the Wikipedia entry on “natural philosophy,” and the role of Christianity is striking in its absence.
Kodie, I heard him say it myself. You could certainly travel there I suppose and ask him, but that’s not realistic. My statement was more philosophical. As for creationism, I mean that the world was created by a being. This includes many schools of thought. Yes, 6-day creationism is in there. So is the belief that the world was created by a god billions of years ago. That the philosophy behind a Christian worldview provided a forum for scientific growth (as opposed to Greek mythology or Shinto-Buddhism in Japan). Multiple religions have versions of the world being “created” by a being or beings. But the Christian strand has a philosophy about an orderly god or law. Simple elements like the fact that miracles are not common occurrences or that the moon and sun are not anthropomorphized influenced Jewish and early Christian thought. This argument is not at all clear-cut, as Medieval cosmology enters the influence of the church as leaders latched onto Aristotle and Ptolemaic philosophy. Part of my study involves religious cultural study and why belief-systems influence academia in different ways.
I’m trying to think of books you could access that would provide more information for you. Rodney Stark is one historian who’s written about the Christian church’s influence on science in “The Victory of Reason”. And while you don’t sound like the sort of chap who would engage in ad-hominem and this probably does not make an ounce of difference to you, Stark did not (at the time he wrote anyway) profess to being a Christian. I believe at the time he wrote the book mentioned, he said he has a problem with faith and would probably have been described as an agnostic. As for other books, they’re out there and have been mentioned, but I’ll have to look a bit more for you. You could certainly look at the number of breakthrough scientists that were spurred by their Christian creationist beliefs. I’m the sort that attends lecture more than reads books, (though I do try to read as best I can). Much of my recent study has been on Islam, so I’m not as fresh on this as I’d like. I would look into Philosophy of Science and History also. The former field is a rapidly expanding one for students pursuing D.Phils, partly because it’s been abandoned by the scientific community.
But as for the article above, the existence of DNA and material diseases would be consistent with Christian cosmology and teleology. Most religions fuse a transcendent/spiritual world with an eminent/physical world to the point that any disease must simply be caused by spirits or jinns. Japanese Shinto-Buddhism is a great example and still impacts organ donations today due to superstition about mixing of body and soul. So in effect, without the Christian creationist worldview, we would not have discovered cures for diseases in the first place.
By the way, Atkins is at Lincoln College. I was at New College where Richard Dawkins was. Saw him now and then, and one of my mates got a good pic with him.
As for creationism, I mean that the world was created by a being. This includes many schools of thought. Yes, 6-day creationism is in there. So is the belief that the world was created by a god billions of years ago.
Ah. Hence the confusion. The implication of the picture and the article is that the creationism under analysis is the one that would necessarily deny evolutionary biology as a mechanism, hence, basically, young-Earth creationism. Certainly nearly all theists are going to be creationists in the broadest sense, but that is not the position that is being attacked here; rather, only the subset that actively denies the various fruits of scientific exploration.
What’s usually meant when someone says “Creationism” is young earth creationism, as in, if it’s in the bible, it’s true, and if it contradicts it, i.e. science regarding many things including the origin of the earth and how life sprang from it and evolves, etc., then it’s not true. If Creationism was taught instead of science — your assertions would basically speak to “if science was taught,” which it is. You are equating creationism (Adam and Eve sinned in the garden then bore the lineage to all humanity) with belief in a creator, which can mean a lot of things.
I was hoping maybe this professor had something to read that’s available on the internet, because “I heard him say it myself” so it must be true doesn’t really convince me of anything. I admit I haven’t heard of this man, or have a personal cache of knowledge on the subject, so if someone says something, I might read it and see if it supports the assertion, has references to other texts supporting this assertion, you know, credibility. He was an atheist himself and said such things that I heard him say myself… and he teaches at Oxford where I went also. That’s not an argument. Has this authority published anything I could investigate with my own eyes, short of visiting him in England and asking him?
When you say “usually meant”, it depends on which circles you’re in. Though for the record, I know some young earth creationists, and they don’t have any problem with evolution itself or natural selection. They have a problem with common descent. You should be aware of that so as not to create straw men, which I see a lot on criticisms against young-earthers. There are good arguments against them, but they’re rarely used.
As for Atkins, I’m surprised you didn’t just browse Amazon.com. He’s got several books there. If you read scientific journals, he should be there too. Trust me, he’s famous enough in the circles of science that there’s stuff you can read on him. You could probably find debates of him online of him arguing against various Christians. He’s almost as famous as Daniel Dennett, but not as famous as Anthony Flew or Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is just so vocal about his cause along with Christopher Hitchens. As for verifying my exact quote, I was looking for videos or transcripts of the debate I saw him at with Richard Swinbourne, and I could not find any. So you’ll have to be just as skeptical of my word as you would a journalist quoting someone at an unrecorded event.
Note: Early on, I made a comment and admit I didn’t try to make an argument. Like you hinted at, an argument must be able to be disproven, and it would be hard for you to disprove what I said. My effort was to encourage you to look at a comparison of religions to see which ones were the most influential or unhelpful to modern science.
Rodney Stark is one historian who’s written about the Christian church’s influence on science in “The Victory of Reason”
I’m sorry, but Stark is a sociologist who doesn’t have a clear grasp of the history involved. He’s made some real howlers, like suggesting there wasn’t much scientific progress after Aristotle.
Richard Carrier has spent hours demolishing claims like that. The bottom line is that the greeks and romans made huge advances in science that were lost during the dark ages.
I’m not going to blame Christianity for the dark ages, or suggest that it is always opposed to science, but the argument that it is somehow responsible for modern science is just not sustainable.
Vorjack,
I read Stark, and he does not suggest that there “wasn’t much scientific progress after Aristotle” like you said. He’s also a sociologist of religion, and though I think people without formal history training can write good history, that degree specializes in historical backgrounds and developments of particular religions. Furthermore, as for Carrier, I’d like to see what he says about the dark ages, as I have found an increasing number of historians shy away from the term, feeling that it should not be used at all.
I have my complaints of Stark, but that isn’t one of them. And as for Christianity being responsible for modern science, there’s a great deal of questions that must be answered in why science emerged when and where it did and was pursued the way it was compared to equally intelligent cultures in China, the Arabian peninsula, and so on.
I have a book on my desk examining links of christian philosophy and how it interacts with science, but I fear going down that road would just get away from the original article. I’m glad you are not suggesting Christianity is always opposed to science. And while I have problems with young-earth creationism, even if my young-earth friends were 100% correct, I don’t feel that medicine would be the least bit compromised. Some of them are physicians and biologists and did very well in their focuses in academia and medicine.
And with that, I have a thesis to finish. It’s been fun. Adieu.
Carrier was interviewed on Polyschizmatic Reprobates Hour and cites Stark’s Victory of Reason, p. 20:
Carrier then spends a happy couple of hours listing all the great scientist who came out of Greece and Rome following Aristotle. The highlights are men like Galen, Archimedes and Ptolemy. He accuses Stark of relying on medievalists to get his knowledge of the ancient world.
Furthermore, as for Carrier, I’d like to see what he says about the dark ages
Carrier uses the phrase carefully, but he does use it on occasion. Perhaps he’s conforming to popular conception. But I suspect it’s because his specialty is ancient technology, and he is acutely aware of all the knowledge that was lost. You’d be amazed at the technology that Rome had available.
If creationism were taught……that would assume that someone created the world and us. Questions: How long ago? How many of us? We could assume that the world was created billions of years ago by a supreme being and that man evolved into what we are today. Couldn’t we? Oh, but that just wouldn’t line up with “scripture”. But that might satisfy us as the reason for the many varieties of humanity. Could that version of creation actually be taught in the schools? On the other hand, if the actual “scriptural” version were to be taught, then wouldn’t somebody wonder about the incestual relationships, of the “first” family, that would eventually populate the entire world? That would have to be ‘brushed’ over! Considering the terribly slender gene pool, wouldn’t somebody wonder how humanity even managed to get this far without ending up as brainless nitwits? That would have to be “brushed” over also! So…just what part of creationism could be taught? God wiped out his creations in the big flood because they were not satisfactory to his purposes??!! He then began to repopulate the world with just Noah’s family and two of every animal?? What part of too slender a gene pool didn’t he get? Could anyone ever truly believe this comedic nonsense? Just what part of creationism could be taught and believed? How long could this go on before people come to their senses and reject the whole concept of creationism?
The whole problem with creationists is that they refuse to believe that man evolved from monkeys. As for myself, I would rather be related to apes than be accused of being stupid because my earliest ancestors were Adam, Eve, their children and their children’s spouses??!! It wouldn’t hurt to remind people dumb enough to believe in creationism that if what they believe is true, then due to the slender gene pool, they are nothing but brainless nitwits!! Bananas, anyone?
Well, the creationists have that one covered. You see, the various gene pools were much purer back then, so inbreeding was not yet a problem because of those stronger genes. This is also illustrated by how various ancient Bible characters lived to be over 900 years old.
A retarded explanation for sure. But that never stopped a creationist.
But what about “incest”? You know …..Adam’s children’s spouses? Surely somebody(?) back then would have said…..”ewww, not with my sister…..I’m not doing it with my Mom, either!”. Wasn’t that a stonable offense some years later, in a law for the very people who were generated from that horrid act of incest?
I loved your comment…..very humorous!
No, they’ve got an answer for that one as well. The law against incest was mentioned for the first time in Lev. 20 as one of many laws dictated to Moses – which to some fundies means incest was not a sin before then. So Cain banging his mother (or some sister not mentioned in the Bible) or righteous Lot banging his daughters was therefore allowed.
The other possible explanation is that God made Cain a wife. Many fundies probably feel uncomfortable with the Leviticus explanation so they instead choose divine intervention to save the day. (It’s funny that the Bible neglects to mention another miraculous creation like this, but maybe it was getting to be routine). It still leaves them with the problem of how Cain’s family reproduced, though.
There should be at least 4 more skulls. One girl for being burned as a witch – the 3 youngest dying of starvation.