Posted on 04/21/2005 4:34:42 AM PDT by gobucks
In the last year, Silicon Valley has been a center of a showdown over religious beliefs in public schools. Meet the other side. LYNN HOFLAND often talks faster than he thinks. For Hofland, it seems the circumstances demand it. A creationist, he happily espouses a point of view that mainstream culture considers ridiculous and unenlightened.
The earth, according to Hofland, is about 6,000 years old. God created it in six 24-hour days. And, of course, evolution is just a theory.
Most people around here will shake their heads and wonder how anyone could think that in this day and age. But for Hofland, it's a basic foundation of his belief system.
And his belief system came to the South Bay in a big way last fall when Stephen Williams, a fifth-grade teacher at Stevens Creek Elementary School in Cupertino, filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Cupertino Union School District (and against Stevens Creek Elementary's principal), claiming he had been discriminated against because he was Christian. Williams, backed by the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization engaged in contesting cultural issues across the nation, said that his principal stopped him from handing out historical materials in class that referenced God. After an initial Drudge Report headline about the Declaration of Independence being "banned" at a California school, Williams' case was egged on by right-wing radio and blogs. Sean Hannity, of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, brought his show to the Flint Center in Cupertino for a special "Take Back America" broadcast.
Mark Thomas was one of the panelists for that broadcast. Thomas, the president of the Atheists of Silicon Valley (www.godlessgeeks.com), believes everything that Hofland does not. He believes men came from monkeys. He believes the animate sprung from the inanimate; the concept even has a scientific-sounding word for it: abiogenesis.
Thomas has met Hofland on more than one occasion; he even went so far as to give Hofland the floor during one of his atheist meetings held bimonthly in the community room of his townhouse complex in Mountain View. But the truth is, he thinks Hofland is a kook. Or, if Hofland's not a kook himself, that his ideas about the origins of life are definitely kooky.
"It's rather irritating to get into these conversations about the origins of life with him," says Thomas. "You keep coming back with God did this, God did that. The problem is for him there are no contradictions because he's right. In some ways you can't refute him. God could have created the world a hundred years ago with everything looking as though it were ancient. You can't disprove it. God could have created the universe a day ago with everything, including people's memories intact. You can't disprove that."
Evolution of an Anti-Evolutionist
Hofland may think the world was created in six days, but it took him a lot longer than that to arrive at that belief—30 years and then some, in fact. Born in Montana, near Missoula (he still mixes Montana wheat into homemade breads and waffles), Hofland, now 50, has always had a Midwestern sensibility. He graduated from high school (his mother was his eighth-grade biology teacher), but flunked out of college after a year and a half. Then, he did a six-year stint in the Navy, floating around the South Pacific on a nuclear submarine.
"My background," he admits, "did not lend itself to me being a creationist."
Of all things, it was a subsequent job at NASA, where he's still employed today, that led Hofland to discard the evolutionism he had grown up with. Watching NASA scientists taking lessons from the physiology of giraffes to develop gravity suits for astronauts (the thick-skinned giraffe boasts a unique blood pressure for mammals, which is especially helpful for outer-space modeling) eventually convinced Hofland to do his own research into the giraffe—an animal, as it turns out, that has been widely used in creationist arguments.
What he found, he says, converted him. The giraffe, he learned, has seven neck bones (the norm, for many mammals), even though, as far as he could tell, there's no reason why evolution wouldn't have demanded the number of the giraffe's neck bones increase with the size of its neck. Hofland was also amazed at the giraffe's capability to withstand extreme blood pressure (due to its height) in its legs, and to adjust the pressure when it bends its head down to drink water—without its reinforced artery walls, its collection of valves and a "web" of small blood vessels, intense pressure would reach the giraffe's brain every time it bends its head. Not to mention what Hofland considers the miraculous design of the giraffe's birthing process—the new calf, which drops into the world from a height of five feet, cannot fall neither head or feet first, as both positions would end up breaking its neck; instead, the giraffe maneuvers a "perfect" exit, hind feet first and supporting its flexible neck around its shoulders.
Before he learned all this, Hofland insists, he, always scientifically inclined, was very much an ardent evolutionist. But, after his study, he ended up penning an article which became the basis for a new creationist ministry he calls Stiffneck Ministries.
"I had to struggle with this, but when I did my homework, I was convinced the giraffe was created," he says. "And, if the giraffe was created, then I was created, and, if I was created, then I had some answering to do for my life."
Thomas, however, is hardly impressed by Hofland's conversion. "I'm very well aware of his Stiffneck Ministries and his giraffes," says Thomas, with an exasperated tone. "His arguments are false; they are completely false. Giraffes have evolved over a period of time, and it's not a very good system. Giraffes have a lot of problems, many babies die during birth because they have a long distance to fall, but it works well enough for them to survive."
Thomas has little patience for Hofland's logic. "What creationist and intelligent designers like to point out is, basically, 'Isn't X amazing? I don't understand how X could be. Therefore, there must be something else that designed X and that created X. I don't understand what this other thing is either, but it must exist, because I don't understand X. That's fallacious reasoning."
Tie For First: The way Lynn Hofland's neckwear pointedly quotes the opening of the Christian Bible leaves no doubt as to where he stands on the question of life's origin.
Putting God Into Schools
Hofland was in the audience for the Hannity special in Cupertino. For him, the hubbub was about nothing other than certain people—in this case, the elementary school's administrators and the concerned parents—being too "sensitive." The United States, Hofland likes to say, is largely a Christian nation, though Hofland's definition of what a "Christian" nation is seems to vary subtly with the context. Sometimes, as in the case of Cupertino's Williams, who Hofland argues was only distributing material that reflected the roots and realities of the United States, the nation's very Christian; sometimes it's not Christian enough.
Even the question of what "Christian" belief is in regard to creationism has shifted over time.
"The irony, of course, in all of this creation science stuff is that modern conservative Christians are not the equivalent of their 19th-century counterparts," says J. David Pleins, a professor of religion at Santa Clara University.
Pleins, who has written extensively about readings of Genesis, argues young earth creationism—Hofland's view of a 6,000-year-old history—wasn't always a traditional Christian perspective.
"In the 19th century, you people who we would today call fundamentalist or conservative Christians, who didn't think the earth was young. They were anti-evolution Christians; they were against Darwin, but they believed the earth was old because they believe that the science told us about all these ancient lost eras. And so you had conservative Christians who were committed to an old-earth creationism. That seems to be an option that's lost today, and it's lost not because of the Scopes trial."
Instead, Pleins contends that a book, The Genesis Flood, put young earth creationism on the map. "It argued that science, rewritten and interpreted differently, would validate a literal reading of the Bible, so with creation science, you get a commitment from all conservative Christians committed to a young earth reading of the text. That's new."
The reasons behind the shift in perspective are strikingly similar to the modern fundamentalist worries that Christianity would erode away if not somehow protected, which results in a defensive posture by the Christian right in the American culture wars. The book's authors, says Pleins, thought that "if you give away the literal reading of the Bible, you start giving up the biblical truth. Where would you stop?"
Similarly, Hofland wants to establish the Bible's authority in America's public schools.
"There's nothing wrong with the Bible being added as a reference text," he insists. "If the science classroom is asking questions about how old the earth is, then this"—Hofland pats a tiny blue Bible—"is as good of a reference as rocks in the ground."
Employing Hofland's logic, solutions for teaching evolution in public schools would, seemingly, become exercises in political correctness.
"Question number one," Hofland says, "could be according to the theory of evolution; question number two could be according to the theory of creation; question number three could be according to the Buddhism or whatever. Or something like that."
Hofland may seem to be far out of the mainstream, but his beliefs have made some inroads in popular culture, as seen in cases like that of the Atlanta school district that voted in 2002 to put stickers in biology textbooks which stated that evolution is "a theory not a fact." A federal judge ruled that the stickers had to be removed.
Others who criticize the way evolution is taught in public schools say they aren't necessarily creationists, but simply believe God has been pushed too far out of the debate over life's origins. In 1998, after receiving a letter co-signed by two widely respected religious scholars, Huston Smith and Alvin Plantinga, the National Association of Biology Teachers was forced to edit its definition of what to teach about evolution in schools. The association had described evolution as "unsupervised" and "impersonal"; Smith and Plantinga argued there was no scientific basis for those descriptors, and the association ended up agreeing, deleting the two words.
At NASA, Hofland often visits an artistic depiction of the origins of human life that has been put up in a building neighboring his workspace. The depiction, a colorful painting that, from left to right, shows the evolutionary stages of life through bold white lines. It begins with volcanoes exploding, moves on to micro-organisms in the oceans, to various kinds of mammals in the forests, to cave men, and finally to modern man driving along a highway.
"I did meet the artist, the original artist," he says of the painting. "At first, he told me they told him to paint all the volcanoes exploding. Then, they told him, Oh that was too much, that would cause a nuclear winter and shut everything down, so they only had two volcanoes that were exploding and the rest were dormant. And see, they keep changing their view of what happened."
Conservatism has been on the steady rise for a decade or two now. It has done so because it has found truths that the left either ignored, or denied.
Affirmative Action doesn't work, and is in fact discriminatory itself.
The Welfare State does not help people over the long run.
Appeasement of tyrants is counterproductive.
"Conservative Values" is a demonstrably superior philosophy to maintain a viable civilization.
The Earth will manage itself just fine without "help" from the environmentalist movement.
The UN is the biggest criminal organization the world has ever seen.
All of these truths can be "proven". Some of these can be argued over, but basically the weight of evidence is on the conservative side, and we are winning politically as a result.
But when conservatives bring in "creation science", it is an Achilles heel, because belief in it can easily be shattered by the overwhelming weight of evidence. Once conservatives are demonstrably "wrong" about something, they can never again regain the image of always having truth on their side that they now have.
I predict that sometime in 2008, when the election cycle is hot and we have decided on a candidate, the Discovery Channel, and a host of others will have entire series designed specifically to destroy the believability of ID, and secondarily of faith itself, and will tie both to Republican and conservative politics. It will be a full court press by the media, and they will have the evidence to easily prove their case, except among those who refuse to see.
Conservatives will be seriously damaged as a result. So will the faith of many people, which is a tragedy, because I think we need more faith in God, not less.
The only way to immunize against either tragedy is for Christians and other believers to recognize that God could, and I believe did, create evolution first.
By definition, there can be no conflict between God's word, and God's creation. And when the question is "how does God's creation operate", the proper place to look is in that creation, by the means of science, and not to lock yourself into a particular interpretation of God's word that disagrees with what we see in His creation.
God's creation cannot disagree with His word. Only humans can disagree with how they interpret one or the other. And since there's only a few hundred words in God's word about the creation, while we have the whole of the creation itself at our fingertips to study, I believe science on this matter, and not a particular interpretation of Genesis by some, but not all, Christians.
Wrong. An elite group of scientists profess the philosophy of evolution as if it has something to do with science, and not even among those do they have a consistent story. They are no more consistent than the many religions observed in the world today, and certainly no more worthy of acceptance where education is concerned.
I suppose that's a nice delusion, if you can maintain it.
It's no delusion at all. The delusion is in pretending science is in agreement where it is not. Add to that the pride in asserting evolution as the only viable world view where science is concerned and you have a maliferous delusion. You are free to maintain it if you please, but please do not expect the rest of the world to do the same.
A nice delusion, if you can maintain it.
Where?
There is no evidence...that is precisely why it is called FAITH. If there were objective evidence, it could no longer be called FAITH.
Hope this helps.
Joshua 10:12-14
On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon."
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!
My point is that there is much dissention within the evolutionary sciences and yet our kids are shoveled this as fact. Our feathered friends' "ancestors" are a case in point. Even one of the "most important fossil finds" is argued over by the same people who are pushing the Darwinist theories - some say bird, some say "transitional", some say dinosaur.
The article you linked shows exactly my point: the writer spends pages trying to support his theories on Archaeopteryx and cites numerous dissenting theories doing so. Most of these opposing theories are scientists from his pro-evolution community.
Why then does this uncertainty not make it into textbooks? Doesn't it strike you as a bit dishonest to teach something as fact when the scientists themselves don't agree that it is fact?
"The Bible isn't a science text, it seems."
Precisely. Nor was it intended to be. And those who try to read it as one (i.e. deducing that the universe must be only 6,000 years old) will end up feeling very foolish indeed.
The Bible was written for us to know God and have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ, period.
Years ago, as you know, people thought that earth was flat because they thought the Bible made it clear. Of course they were wrong and ended up looking very foolish. I believe it will be the same story for these "young earth" believers today who try to make the Bible into a science book.
You say there is a controversy. The article gives a history of the findings going back to the 1800s. Give me an example of any controversy that would affect the theory of evolution.
The only overwhelming evidence for evolution is in the arrogant heads of those who choose to view the universe in their own way. Your screed fearing lack of progress in the conservative agenda due to a handful of folks who believe the world was created by God in six solar days is an indication that you are no conservative, but a moderate, like George Voinovich, who places political expediency above conscience and personal convicitions - worrying about what other people think than what is right.
Not a nice delusion, but you'll probably embrace it anyway.
I think you're reading more into that passage than is actually there. In common language we refer to the sun moving all the time, even today. Saying that the sun rose this morning isn't an expression of belief that the sun orbits the earth.
Ever been out in the desert where it's very flat? If so, you might have commented on the flatness of the terrain. In reality, the land in question was curved, but to your eye it appeared flat so that's how you'd likely describe it. It wouldn't mean you think the earth is flat if you called a vast desert expanse flat.
The Biblical depiction of the sun standing still is the same thing, it's just describing something as it appeared to the naked eye.
"So your "Both are true, but at different times." referred to South American population, not the question of where life began Africa or Asia?"
Yes. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't actually mean to post the first part.
"The Bible is truth, and science is only man's finite (and often failed) attempt to discover one small aspect of it."
So you believe. I believe otherwise. At least with science, I know that new information may alter a theory. With the Bible, there's no new information forthcoming.
"PLease reread my "challenge." Again, I'm asking for the creationists to support their position not by attacking evolution, but by providing objective, positive evidence in support of creationsim that is not based upon a huge leap of religious faith."
I assume evolutionists have evidence showing one species becoming another species? Has it been observed? Is it repeatable? If not, IT'S NOT SCIENCE.
Variations in species (micro-evolution) cannot explain how bacteria becomes human. Also, how does inorganic matter become organic? Also, isn't it AMAZING that a female AND male evolved in EVERY species at the same time so it can have babies? Because we know that different species (eg. dog and cat) cannot produce babies.
Who has religious faith now?
Proof of Creation? Look at the machine that you are inhabiting...
"But you forget that the founder of your faith believed that Africans were not as fully evolved as Europeans."
My faith? You must be speaking of Darwin. Much has changed regarding the Theory of Evolution since Darwin wrote. In any case, evolution is not a matter of faith with me. It is a matter of the theory being the best fit for the evidence, at least at this point.
The Bible wasn't written as a science text book so don't get too wrapped up in the wording like "four corners of the earth", etc. We all know the earth is spherical and yet we use this phrase today. To Joshua, the sun stopped in place - in reference to where he was IT DID.
No one is suggesting we use the Bible as a textbook in biology class just as I wouldn't suggest you use a biology text book from 100 years ago. Scientific terminology, technology, and theories change over time and so does the non-scientic. You may not agree with the terminology used by the Bible's writers but the truth is still the truth.
"Also, isn't it AMAZING that a female AND male evolved in EVERY species at the same time so it can have babies?"
That would be amazing, if it were true. Of course, it is not true. That you do not know that is reason enough not to continue discussing the issue with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.