Posted on 07/16/2007 12:59:52 PM PDT by dan1123
In this paper, I will define creationism, talk about the relationship between creationism and science, discuss the way that Karl Popper inspired creationists such as Philip Johnson to see the debate between creationists and scientists that subscribe to evolutionary theory and biblical literalists as philosophical, how this conclusion, combined with reflections on creation science, should be applied to the constitutional debate, and discuss whether or not we can persuade creationists to believe that evolutionary theory is true.
My metaphysical commitment to naturalism is unjustified and may be unjustifiable. I believe that we shouldn’t argue with creationists because we can’t convince them that creationism is false: it seems as if they begin with different metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality. So, the theory of evolution or creationism will appear false if you use the perspective of one to evaluate the other. So, creationists are going to be able to believe in creationism, as far as I can tell, for as long they would like.
I am a metaphysical bigot and you probably are too. What do metaphysical bigots think? We think that creationism is a historical hypothesis: it is not a hypothesis about the future. We come to the conclusion that creationism is not scientific because it, by definition, is a supernatural historical hypothesis. We come to the conclusion that creationism is probably not true because we cannot tell whether or not creationism is, in fact, true.
We believe that the theory of evolution is a historical hypothesis, like creationism, because it is a theory, or, if you prefer, fact about the history of life on earth. We come to the conclusion that evolutionary theory is a stronger historical hypothesis, because, evolutionary theory gives a natural rather than supernatural explanation of the history of life on earth. The theory of evolution is also a hypothesis about the future: it is probably going to tell us how life is going to evolve over time.
Since the theory of evolution can be tested now, with evidence that is available to all of us, provides us with an explanatory mechanism that is still at work, and will be able to explain the development of organisms today, we conclude that the theory of evolution is true. We come to this conclusion due to the fact that we subscribe to metaphysical and methodological naturalism. We recognize that our unjustified commitment to naturalism has determined our answer to these questions.
The fact that we are aware of this fact makes us enlightened and distinguishes us from ordinary metaphysical bigots, such as creationists. This commitment maybe justifiable but we are comfortable with accepting that it is unjustified. We are aware of the internal coherence of the way we justify our claims, and we are also aware that other belief systems, can be coherent, though we do not believe in them, in a literal sense. We value consistency and coherence.
The fact that it is true, we contend, is due to the fact we have the unjustified metaphysical commitments that allow us to talk about the truth, and that if we did not have those commitments, we would not be able to talk about the true. If we did not have any metaphysical commitments, we could not talk about the truth, in any meaningful sense, whatsoever. We believe, given our sociological circumstances, that naturalism is probably true. We can investigate this fact, and understand how we came to believe in naturalism
We can accept that we are not as different from creationists as we would like to believe. We know that if we are going to make metaphysical claims, we need to be dogmatists. We need to posit distinctions as well as assumptions about the ultimate nature of reality that will presuppose what answers are acceptable and unacceptable. So what do we evolutionists do, now that we know that, in the end, incommensurable metaphysical commitments, distinguish us from creationists?
We now can be somewhat certain that we are not going to be able to settle our disputes with creationists and talk to someone else about something far more interesting. We evolutionists should focus our energy on developing evolutionary theory and investigating the natural word. If asked whether or not our world-view is “true” we can say, “Yes, in a sense, but only against my theoretical or metaphysical background.” If asked whether or not creationism is “true” we can say “No, in a sense, against my theoretical or metaphysical background.”
I understand that most of us want to say much more than this, but then again, most of us are not enlightened: "To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven."
>> Who are the “non-biblical” creationists?
The narrow YEC line is a small subset of creationists that I believe metmom was referring to. There are other interpretations of Genesis 1 that don’t require solar days before there was a sun.
read later
It’s the literalist part and you know it.
Evos would have a lot harder time ridiculing and mocking creationists who are old earth creationists or not *Bible literalists* in an attempt to disparage their views.
Besides, taking the creation account literally, which some do, does not equate with taking the whole Bible literally, which I don’t know of anybody who does. It’s intellectually dishonest to make that conjecture.
There are other religions who have creation accounts, but you knew that, too.
That's because OECs for the most part hold to the scientific consensus concerning the history of the Earth. They don't try to rewrite public school curricula to reflect a demonstrably false pseudo-history. (And Genesis 1-2 is a pseudo-history; it was adapted from Egyptian creation myths in order to disparage the Egyptian gods and elevate Yahweh.)
Most OECs believe in evolution, so there's no reason for "evos" to mock them. On the other hand, YECs can sometimes be quite vicious to the OECs. Friends like these, I guess.
We're supposed to think so.
OK, demonstrate it.
Never mind that the public school system did just fine for decades before the Scopes trial anyway, when the Bible and creation account were taught. We can't have someone breaking the stranglehold the secularists have on public education, now can we?
Never mind that the public school system did just fine for decades before the Scopes trial anyway, when the Bible and creation account were taught. We can't have someone breaking the stranglehold the secularists have on public education, now can we?
1920 the currently accepted (and taught) geological theories dated the Earth at around 200-250 million years. Old earth theories based on geological evidence that conflicted with YEC doctrines had been around and generally accepted for at least 100 years before that.
It seems, then that it was considerably removed from a literal Biblical interpretaion by then, based on theories that predate evolutionary theory by several decades.
The point was in response to arguments that before Scopes, natural history based on the Biblical account of Creation was taught in public schools, as if Darwin and ToE was solely responsible for “secularizing” science in the classroom.
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.