The Creationist Agenda

The Creationist Agenda January 30, 2014

Jerry Coyne blogged about Genesis 3D, and had these insightful words to share:

It’s a science-y world we live in, and you don’t have to be a genius to see that. If your church is anti-science, you don’t only look anti-modern, you look stupid.  But since some modern science (particularly evolution) violates the tenets of evangelical Christianity, they have to pretend that their creationists myths are actually supported by science. I’d claim that creationist propaganda is more than just getting creationism taught in the schools; it’s getting creationism to look scientific and therefore more credible.

I’m not sure how that fits with his earlier post about the phenomenon of science dismissal. But it does seem that both are on target – often the attempt to co-opt the authority of science goes hand in hand with the dismissal of what mainstream science concludes.

Commenter Patrick said on this blog recently about the supporters of Intelligent Design, “”no one wants ID well-defined enough to be proven, for then it could be disproved.”

Caroline Blyth takes Genesis seriously as a literary work by ancient authors, and concludes, “Genesis is a book that I think explores the human condition in all its fullness and frailty; in particular, its ancient authors seem at pains to articulate the complex and at times incomprehensible relationship that exists  between humanity and the divine. In my opinion, they do this incredibly well.”

Gavin at Otagosh takes Blyth’s comparison of Genesis to a racy soap opera as his starting point, and concludes by asking, “Can Genesis be prised from the clammy hands of Ken Ham, Ray Comfort and their ilk, or has the battle already been well and truly lost?”

Hemant Mehta offered 11 tips for Bill Nye. Pete Enns also had things to say about the upcoming debate with Ken Ham.

Jason Rosenhouse shared this trailer for the HBO documentary “Questioning Darwin”:

And in an older article, Valerie Tarico talks about the role of science in causing her to lose her faith.

"Yes, logistically speaking, there's a world of difference, especially for Protestantism. I think the best ..."

Come Compromise at Crooked Creek Baptist ..."
"Now that I think about it, though, I´m wondering how this would play out in ..."

Come Compromise at Crooked Creek Baptist ..."
"An excellent discussion. As a MS Lutheran turned Roman Catholic, I have always wished that ..."

Come Compromise at Crooked Creek Baptist ..."
"Wow, this sounds really interesting. Too bad it's so far away. Plane and accommodations would ..."

#CFP Philosophy and Eschatology, or: thinking of/from ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • complex and at times incomprehensible

    -Nice euphemism for “nonexistent”. Won’t fool anyone, though.

  • David Layzell

    It is this claiming that creationism is scientific that concerns me as a biology teacher and a Christian. I have heard talks to churches by Young Earth Creationist speakers. They make statements like “The amount of genetic information is decreasing” or challenge the accuracy of radiometric dating. It all sounds so scientific and convincing to non-scientific audiences. However anyone with knowledge in this area can easily contradict what the speakers say. But the nature of the talk is that they do not allow challenges.
    The sad thing is that when young people do senior biology or go to university they will find that the YEC speakers have provided misinformation. and as it was in church, they will wonder how much of Christian doctrine is also false.

  • Travis

    While some denominations hold that young earth creationism is true, ‘evangelical’ is a broad term, and I don’t think young earth creationism is one of its basic tenets. I, in many ways, am an evangelical Christian, but I do not believe in young earth creationism.

    Perhaps it would be better to say that many evangelicals who believe young earth creationism is central to Christianity resist modern science because they fear the changes their faith would necessarily undergo. It’s the difference between calling it a structural bias, verses a widespread personal bias.

  • arcseconds

    is it really thought through by a coherent community to the extent that it’s accurate to say there’s an agenda like this?

    clearly they’re aiming to get creationism taught in schools, but have people sat down with one another and said ‘folks, we need to make creationism more sciencey, to make it more playable for the youff, who are all into science’?

    • The infamous Wedge Document shows the agenda of those promoting Intelligent Design. I doubt that is the first or only case of creationists formally developing an agenda. But even if it is not something formal, there is reason to think that this consideration is in the mind of many, as far back as we can trace “creation science.”

  • Philip Bruce Heywood

    Jerry Coyne to my limited experience is anti-free speech and anti-science, merely the other side of the coyne (sorry) to Ham. Along with a few other higher proposed educators, they should be investigated by their employers for leading students down the path of totalitarianism.

    Professors such as
    Coyne (U. Chicago), direct from setting up the Gulag. All religion is, quote,
    ‘superstition’, to be expunged from humanity – by force, when the opportunity
    arises? Professor Coyne demands we throw off superstition. He claims to be
    rational and guided by science. The basis of science, as a ten year old knows,
    is that every effect has a rational cause. This supposedly learned and rational
    professor sees the world, a giant ball, hurtling around in Space, and asserts
    that only ‘superstition’ would allow a cause behind such an effect!

    His world of reason, powered by hokums and spooks. He
    lives in a haunted house. No effect, rattling chains, black cats, broken
    mirrors on the 13th, has a cause.