Inside the Mind of a Creationist (Hope is Alive in California!)

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."

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.

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.

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."

At any rate I do not see "a reference text" and "a textbook" as one and the same. I also note that the individual uses the word "added," which, to my thinking means it is not substituted or used alone. Or do you really think this guy wants all science biology classes taught with the Bible alone as a reference? Shall we ask him if this is what he means? Would you care to bet on the answer?

"There's nothing wrong with the Bible being added as a reference text,"

"A textbook means just that. Singular. One."

This is the kind of willful stupidity that makes creationists impossible to take seriously- you have to TRY to come up with stuff this stupid.

Oh, by the way, the word your describing it 'the', not 'a', which can mean a member of a series (ie, more than one textbook, with each one of them being 'a' textbook). Maybe you should try learning something about the english language before lecturing others on it.

You think our ciminal justice system should be taught in science class?

A better question: Do you think the philosphy of evolution can hold up under scrutiny from the standpoint of forensic crime and still retain the name "science?" If science could sue it would sue to have its good name restored from the usurpation it has endured at the hands of those who cloak conjecture in the garb of objective truth.

Who in their right mind would hold the philosophy of evolution on the same level as forensic crime studies and criminal justice as if the proposition of a billion-year-old earth could hold up by virtue of eyewitness testimony?

Volcanic erruptions have been observed by man.

But volcanic erruptions have never been observed at Yellowstone. Volcanic erruptions do not happen everywhere. And in fact, if you compare any particular area of land, the odds are that it is not a volcano.

Why do you pretend not to understand my point?

Which is, if you're really that thick, that your rules of not believeing anything that is not repeatable, and testable preclude you from believing lots of things that a reasonable person should be able to conclude based on the evidence we do have.

You didn't answer my question. Do you think he meant to say the Bible alone should be used as a biology textbook? I understood his statement to mean otherwise. You willfully construe his words to mean he intends that the Bible should be the only textbook needed for biology classes. Like a typical evolutionist, you overstate your case and expect the rest of the world to follow suit. Fortunately the rest of the world is more reasonable. Even a six-year-old has a better grip.

Here are some creationst frauds, at least one of which will show up on every crevo thread, and which are never challenged by creationists.

Good list. But I have a quibble with #10: "The Da Vinci Code"

Dan Brown took a plausible legend (a relationship between Jesus & Mary Magdalene), mixed in some lies (Priory of Sion & Roselyn), some shabby history, and with a heavy dollop of Catholic bashing, cooked up a barely readable murder mystery.

The Da Vinci Code is a just a book, a work of fiction, not a statement of fact. I'm pretty confident most religious folks (creationist or no) reject it.

I'll start at the end. I never accused you of not believing in God. I said that throwing out the unique creation of man is throws out the whole of Scripture.

In other words, if I don't believe in your particular interpretation, then I've "thrown out the whole of scripture". In other words, you accuse me of not believing in God or his word.

.if science shouldn't be politicized, then why don't you stop doing it, OK? My belief in creation isn't political. It's spiritual........and very based on logic and common sense as well.

I don't believe it's scientists that are taking political means to force their ideas on religious believers. It's religious believers who have used the political arena in several jurisdictions in their attempt to force religion into science class. There are a handful of religious funded groups who's sole agenda is using politics to do just that.

Amphibians don't magically develop lungs,

It may appear to be magic to those who do not understand. But it's just evolution, and it happens litteraly every day a little bit at a time. Evolution is one of God's most elegant of creations. It's only too bad you refuse to see His wonderful creation.

and mankind didn't magically develop a soul.

Which is a totally irrelevant subject from evolution. I have respect enough for God to believe that he could give a soul to a grasshopper, should he choose. It does not tweek my ego to think that at some time in the past, 6000 years ago maybe, God gave man a soul. That this doesn't quite jibe with your interpretation of Genesis, well, we just disagree. Just like the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Religious disagreements are all over the globe, and have been that way for all time.

You in essence state that you can come up with nothing that proves evolution, and then you once again contort the facts to turn it against me, and then run away.

I've merely theorized that nothing I could say to you would make you see. So why should I bother?

There have been a great many very detailed posts in these creation threads that should easily prove to any open minded person that evolution in fact exists.

Why should I believe that anything else I could show you would change your hardened opinion?

But that does not change the fact that removing the unique creation of man denies the truth of all of Scripture.

Every single man, and woman, is a unique creation of God.

It does not matter to me whether God blew up dust and a man appeard, or that a sperm and egg came together to do the job. God still created the man.

Why it is that people are so stubborn to think that somehow Adam was different than all the rest of us I'll never know.

I don't believe that we INHERIT our soul. God gave us each our very own.

If I was created by the joining of egg and sperm, and I have a soul, then it's only logical that Adam was created exactly the same way.

Why would Adam have been different?

I'm sure you'll read some scripture here, but just save it. It's far too easy to interpret scripture in many different ways. Suffice it to say that we read Genesis differently. Yet my viewpoint, I believe, is every bit as viable as any other.

"The fact that you were taught a lie, and believe it so adamantly, really does not speak well of modern religion."...or evolutionists. :)

Different denominations have been making claims that "the others" are lying, and going to litteral war over the claims, for thousands of years.

The religious war over the litteral reading of Genesis is no different.

You're still wrong.

Do you think the philosphy of evolution can hold up under scrutiny from the standpoint of forensic crime and still retain the name "science?"

Actually, many of the skills used in forensic science were first developed by archeologists and anthropologists. Professions that I feel save in claiming have a 100% acceptance of evolution (yes, yes, I know they have arguments over the details, but not the fact that evolution occurs).

First, Creationism is not a/k/a Intelligent Design but if you choose to draw that line, you should also believe neo-darwinism, through mindless mechanisms, must infer a materialistic philosophy to the degree of fundamentalism.

Now, about that challenge… I would initially put forth that human consciousness does not come from mindlessness and assert AI as evidence.

I thought you didn't have time for me.

You're rather loquacious I'd say, considering that you're trying to convince someone as ignorant and hardened as I.........though I noticed in all your pontificating, that you didn't provide a shred of factual evidence that evolution actually occurred. Is that possibly because there is none?

And I still find your position that those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture......from beginning to end....... and God's creation are going to lose the 2008 election for Republicans highly amusing.

Let it never be said that hard core evolutionist zealots have no imagination. That may be the funniest thing I've heard since I joined FR more than four years ago.

Thanks for the laugh.

I'm not a 6-dayer, but I will admit my worldview is heavily influenced by concepts originating outside the narrow limits of naturalism. Undoubtedly, there are some serious negatives to that. There are also some positive things about it. For one thing, It encourages a healthy skepticism toward advancing the tale of evolution, a quality not easily found in the world of academic science.

Unfortunately, most educated believers in evolution are tongue-drooping "yuppers" that swallow every gosh-dang just-so story as long as it conforms to general Darwinian ideas.

The history of pathetic "examples" of evolution that have been splashed in our students' texts is a comedy of errors, a parade of corny nonsense. Jonathan Wells "Icons of Evolution" illustrates many of these prominent entertainments.

From Piltdown to peppered moth, from Nebraska Man to Ramapithecus, from areopteryx to eohippus, we have an ongoing marvelous display that lazy credulity is found as easily among materialists as it is among the spiritualizers.

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.