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."

"It has abolutely zero to do with politics, except that some people on the right are attempting to make it so."

Wrong. It is a political decision what gets taught to kids. I distinctly remmeber what was off limits when I was a kid. Now, I hear absolutely incredible things coming from the hallways of 'schools' today. Reeducation camps more like it.

Those on the left led the way with the 'politics' of this, and you are being deceptive to not acknowledge this; they are shoving homosexual agenda crap, pro-licentious crap, woment-sex-objects, crap into the minds of kids younger and younger, year after year. This is a FACT.

" I firmly believe the politization of evolution will blow up in the face of conservatives, and Christians. "

I'm going to take this at face value. If you believe this, as a good conservative, other thoughtful conservatives must agree with you, yes? I would like to see one single article from one single political journal that elucidates this claim. Please provide the link. thanks...

The only issue I have with you, mr narby, is the unique creation of humans. The rest of evolution is a matter of opinion. You have yours based on your worldview, and I have mine based on my belief that the Bible is God's inerrant word.

But if you, because of what you have been taught in science class, don't believe that God created man in His own image, unique and apart, the first of which chose to sin, and all of humanity thereafter made the same choice. If you don't believe that, then there was no reason for Christ to come and die for our sins and be raised from the dead, then you must also reject the words of the Apostle Paul about Jesus himself. And if you do that, you don't believe in the whole of Scripture.

Now we have come full circle, and you can start your accusations of me all over again, if you wish, but I am through.

I know what you believe about conservatives who believe in creation. You think we should shut up

About evolution, Yes.

I believe in creation too. God created evolution. What's your point?

Do you also believe that about those of us who are pro-life? We cause all kinds of trouble by speaking up about abortion? Should we shut up about that too?

No. Which is exactly why I'm passionate about this subject. Abortion kills children. Teaching about God's elegant creation of evolution does not.

You are wasting your time fighting evolution. You are not wasting your time fighting abortion. I'm merely trying to get you people to get your priorities straight.

Exactly how embarrassing are we religious freaks to you, as a so-called conservative Christian?

The only embarrassing part is when Christians read a couple hundred words in Genesis and jump to conclusions about the history of God's creation that are completely unwarranted.

By definition, God's creation, and His word do not contradict one another. When you want to understand His creation, study it, using the tools of science. That inevitably leads you to understand about evolution, WHICH IN NO WAY TRANSLATES THAT GOD HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!

When you want to understand about your soul and salvation, then you study God's word, because that information is not in His creation.

Got it?

If you want people to think you know what you're talking about, it's best to spell your words correctly

Evolution is incorrect because Darwin was racist.

I'm incorrect because I'm typing too fast to use spell checker.

I understand.

You make up your mind by using information completly irrelevant to the conversation.

Just for your enjoyment, I'll continue to spell boogyman in my own unique way.

I don't remember anyone on the left packing school boards to get schools to teach proper science.

We're not talking about homosexual agenda crap here. We're talking about science.

Stay on the subject.

So, I see it clearly now........

You only want conservatives to speak up about things you AGREE with. We need to shut up about things you don't agree with.

That's cool. Now we all know a lot more about you and your scientific open mind.....

Once again, you have amused me, narby. I like to see how evolutionary zealots think, and you have helped enlighten me.

Thanks.

I never said evolution is incorrect because Darwin was racist.

Those were two separate statements.

Evolution is incorrect.

Darwin was racist.

No "because" in there, narb, and that makes a big difference (if you are capable of going beyond elementary school thought progression).

Words mean things. Try to keep up.

You still don't know what you're talking about.

But if you, because of what you have been taught in science class, don't believe that God created man in His own image, unique and apart

I guess you didn't read my earlier reponse that I specifically learned what I believe about the Bible and evolution at a church retreat. But no matter.

God created man in His image. Wonderful. But that's not the point.

The point is HOW did God create man. The evidence from studying God's creation is that God did this via evolution. What's the problem here?

Science does not claim that God did not create the universe, including the special creation of man. But you ARE attempting to say that you understand HOW God created man and the universe, and that science is completly wrong.

I'm sorry, but we disagree.

I am through.

Well, so long.

Religious denominations have agreed for centuries to respect the belief of others. This is not a conflict between science and religion. It is a conflict over how some people interpret the Bible. I believe that they, and you, are wrong.

I will not enter your church and attempt to force you to teach my understanding of the Bible.

All I would hope is that people who have religious beliefs different from secular understanding of God's creation not enter the public arena and attempt to foist their religious beliefs on others.

It's called respect. It is the anti-evolutionists attempt to foist their religious beliefs on others that I have a problem with.

It's called respect. It is the anti-evolutionists attempt to foist their religious beliefs on others that I have a problem with.

And evolutionists respect us?? Are you joking??

The ugliest place on earth to be in on a FR crevo thread and be the subject of abuse by evolutionists. Have you ever been called a cousin of bin Laden by a creationist, narby? Give me a break!

Don't talk to me about OUR need for respect.

You live in fantasyland, if you really believe the statement you just made.

You only want conservatives to speak up about things you AGREE with. We need to shut up about things you don't agree with.

I'll try this again.

I want some conservatives who have a bug up their pants about evolution to understand that they are 1) waisting their time. 2) making conservatives look like idiots among people who are scientifically literate. 3) there are more important things to spend your political capital on, like saving children killed by abortion.

Got it?

LOL! You're a piece of work!

I think evolution is a crock, but it has nothing to do with the FACT that Darwin was racist.

I didn't relate the two together. You can pretend I did, because that's what your bias tells you to think that, but it's completely untrue.

I may be a stupid creationist, but I'm not a liar, and I said exactly what I meant.

The ugliest place on earth to be in on a FR crevo thread and be the subject of abuse by evolutionists.

And anti-evolutionists have come outside their church and attempted to foist their particular religious dogma on others.

Keep your religious interpretations where they are welcome. And that's NOT in the public arena, outside your church.

I didn't relate the two together. You can pretend I did, because that's what your bias tells you to think that, but it's completely untrue.

Just bringing up the subject that you believe that Darwin was racist is a clear and transparent effort to trash evolution by associating racism to it.

Making claims otherwise are not believable.

Sorry :-)

I'm not, by any means, a young-earther. I'm not ruling it out, either. However, it seems to me that evolutionists have long ago made the assumption that creationism cannot be true. Therefore, anything that challenges this belief is automatically thrown out. I'm not going to get into a flamefest on this thread (I don't have the time or inclination), but it is quite telling when evolutionary arguments have an underlying ID bias - and the evolutionists either cannot see it or deny it.

OK. Out the window goes the First Amendment.

Ok, now my disagreement on your priorities are labeled "censorship".

Talk about anything you want, anywhere you want. But count on conservatives that are scientifically literate to use their First Amendment rights to tell you how you're damaging us all. And count on us to distance ourselves from you.

This whole argument is all helping those aborted children, don't you know.

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.