WorldWatch - Creation and Evolution in the Schools

World Watch and The Rhinoceros Times ^ | January 8, 2006 | Orson Scott Card

[Tolik]

Dan Simmons is an amazing writer. I could not stop devouring his 4 books of Hyperion. Not really "hard" SF, but it is SF all right, and brilliantly written.

Stephenson is called one of the founders of what became known as cyberpunk with his Cryptonomicon & Snow Crash. But my real love is Diamond Age that explorers not very distant future with penetrating nanotechnology and societies transformed from today countries into a mixture of geographic countries and quasi-state entities uniting people who want to be united (like Free Republic). All this as a background to the primary theme of education, family, love and sacrifice.

[PatrickHenry]

Stephenson is called one of the founders of what became known as cyberpunk ...

That's probably why I'm not familiar with any of his work.

[mlc9852]

The Bible does say God created man, then woman. It does not say he created ape-like creatures, then turned them into humans, although he certainly could have. It's just that isn't what the Bible says.

And spare me that the Bible isn't a science book, blah blah blah. I realize that. Yet I have to wonder if maybe God didn't anticipate these arguments so he made it clear what he did. Someone else may interpret it differently and that's fine. I just read it the simplest way I can - that the Bible says things for a reason.

And I wouldn't vote for a communist, socialist, atheist, and probably some more "ists" that escape me now. However, I have no problem voting for a creationist.

[Dimensio]

I was actually thinking of referring to them as "Hovindists", perhaps with references to Carl Baugh, Ken Ham and other charlitans as "High Priests of Creationism".

[DX10]

Please excuse the interuption. Just wanted to add a thought. I have been reading these creation/evolution threads and even participated some for quite a while. I don’t think that much is being accomplished because of the belief systems concerning origins at the root of the discussions. For the evolutionist the answer has to be naturalism, hence his theory of abiogenesis, (non biological origins). (As Lewontin said, “…..we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.”) This theory dates at least as far back as Aristotle and the defunct idea of spontaneous generation and has undergone revision until it now states that life rose from non-life via the evolutionary guiding principles of mutations adding genetic material, survival of the fittest, and natural selection. On the other hand those of us of the opposite persuasion subscribe to the teleological principles that anything that evinces design proves that there is a designer. This thinking has been in the mind of man for a very long time dating at least to the Biblical Psalms around 3000 years ago and restated by the Apostle Paul in the first letter to the Roman Christians nearly 2000 years ago. Anytime, and in any manner, that you attack the naturalistic theory of origins you automatically raise the spectre of creation. Consequently, given the political environment, the courts cannot allow any criticism of the ToE to be taught in the government schools. Fair or unfair, the fact is, that in the government schools, the evolutionist wins. For those that accept the naturalistic theory of abiogenesis I wonder how they account for the natural processes of evolution resulting in cultures all over the world concluding that there is a creator? Does this simply mean that evolution has a long way to go until we cast this terrible thought out of the collective brain? Or will we eventually evolve God?

[USMCVet]

"The real problem is that Darwinism is not just being used to teach elements of biology to children - it's being used as a foundation to "disprove" the existence of a Creator to generations of students.

What's your evidence for this assertion?"

The proof is that "evolution as the source of all life" is the standard curricula thoughout our public school systems, thanks to the NEA and other leftist organizations. The only familiarization with "religion" that the kids get is another set of standardized courses, greek mythology.

It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to understand where this trail is designed to lead... After all, if science can prove everything and religions are represented by the Greek pantheon, then social maneuverings like abortion, gay lifestyles, and the whole Clinton administration is easily explained.

[L,TOWM]

Ecclesiastes:
1:5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. [Clear, unambiguous description of the sun's orbit around the earth.]

OK, so when I hear the weather report on my local news describing “sunrise” and “sunset”, I should hear that as a statement of geocentric astrophysics?

Context is also important here. “The Preacher” or as some assert, Salomon, is opening his teaching by pointing out how things were going on long before the reader or student showed up and would continue long after they were gone. Even the listener of that day knew from looking that the sun did not rise at the same place (from their perspective) in the east or set in the same place in the west every day, but changed "entry" and "exit" points.

Joshua:
10:12 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
10:14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel.

Leaving aside the miracle described in this passage, the perspective of the sun and moon “standing still” and “staying” would be the same if:
(a)earth’s rotation stopped, or
(b) (postulating a geo centric reality) if the orbits of the sun and moon were stopped. Either way, the objects will “look” as if they are standing still.

Much in the same way that I am sitting on my butt in front of a computer, so that subjectively, I am sitting still; however, to an objective observer (from a proper vantage point), the combination of the earth’s rotation, the earth’s orbit, the solar system’s orbit around galactic center, and galactic movement puts me in motion to the tune of thousands of mph.

The question is - 'Is the description that of the EVENT or the PERCEPTION of the event?' I understand this being an account of what some one SAW. Their veracity is a whole 'nother discussion.

1st Chronicles:
16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.

This is a nice piece of poetry, if you look a few verses down, David also refers to the “fields being jubilant” and “the trees of the forest singing”. You would be hard pressed to find even the most die hard literalist taking that at full face value. Does make a nice piece of ecstatic worship in praising the majesty of our almighty Gor, though.

Psalms:
93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
96:10 Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved: he shall judge the people righteously.
104:5 Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be re-moved for ever.

Again, poetry. Much in the same way that “The Preacher” in Ecclesiastes was making a point about a person’s place in the universe, so was David in the Psalms and that passage from I Chronicles.

I’m not wholly convinced that the old testament prophets were making statements in favor of Aristotolean or Copernican cosmolgy in these citations. I have read each of these passages several times, and never formed that impression.

As for the Catholic Church using the passages from Ecclesiastes and Joshua at Gallileo’s “trial” – well let’s just say that that is’nt the only thing they’ve gotten wrong over the years. One of the reasons why I am not one… The King James version is also a little interesting in a few areas. I used to really like it until I found more literal translations such as Young's or the NRSV. I am still working on Hebrew and Septuagent Greek.

Thank you for a reasoned, well researched and obviously well thought out reply, though.

[PatrickHenry]

I was actually thinking of referring to them as "Hovindists" ...

Perhaps neo-Swaggartites? Or Jim Jones-ists?

[Dimensio]

Perhaps neo-Swaggartites? Or Jim Jones-ists?

I prefer to counter their strawman theme with a suitable mirroring, hence my choice of names that are easily associated with the creationist movement and an avoidance of the more "provocative" comparisons such as to Jim Jones. OTOH, I do believe that Jim Jones can be used as an "example" of what creationism "leads to", analagous of creationists who claim that evolution "leads to" the atrocities committed in Germany in the 1940s and in the Soviet Union soon after.

[edsheppa]

The main points are: ...

Missing. That is, Card neglects to mention (other than his last point) the cogent arguments made against Behe. Is this intentional? I don't know, but it is certainly tiresome.

[highball]

The proof is that "evolution as the source of all life" is the standard curricula thoughout our public school systems

Nonsense.

Evolution has nothing to do with the "source" of life. Provide examples of evolution being taught as the source of life.

Another unsupported assertion, this one offered up to defend an unsupported assertion. Still waiting for proof.

[PatrickHenry]

OK, so when I hear the weather report on my local news describing “sunrise” and “sunset”, I should hear that as a statement of geocentric astrophysics?

The TV weather-girl is hired because of her big boobs and her willingness to date the station manager. We expect a bit more from scripture. But that aside, I am impressed by your skilled dismissal of literal meaning of these passages. Those passages nevertheless nailed Galileo for heresy because he was writing and teaching about the solar system. In retrospect, the literalists look like idiots. This is something that we should seek to avoid. I suggest that those same interpretive skills can be happily employed to reconcile Genesis and evolution. Many denominations already do so.

[Tolik]

Thank you!!

Quick summary of the Sci-Fi books' recommendations: (in no particular order):

• Alistaire Reynolds "Revelation Space" (must read from the beginning)

• The early Honor Harrington stories by David Weber.

• Peter Hamilton's Reality Disfunction series. Peter Hamilton's Pandora's Star series.

• David Feintuch's Hope series. (first 4 books)

• Heinlein

• Forward

• Niven

• Pournelle

• Joe Haldeman

• Keith Laumer's time travel and alternate-universe stories.

• Iain Banks  "Culture" novels

• Greg Bear (Eon, Queen of Angels)

• Neil Gaiman (American Gods, Good Omens-with Terry Prattchet).

• Vernor Vinge (everything),

• Dan Simmons (Hyperion Cantos)

• Neal Stephenson (Diamond Age and Snow Crush)

• Orson Scott Card

[Celtjew Libertarian]

The Bible does say God created man, then woman. It does not say he created ape-like creatures, then turned them into humans, although he certainly could have. It's just that isn't what the Bible says.

It does not specifically say that. But it does say God formed man out of the "dust of the ground" or "clay," depending on translation. To form something is not an instant event -- it's a molding through transitory forms to a final one. Seems to me that the "ape" or "ape-like" creature is a apporpriate transitory form, between formless clay and formed man.

Which raises an interesting point... You seem to be saying that seeing man as evolved from apes means imagining God as an ape. If so, does that mean you see God as formless dust?

[b_sharp]

"I was actually thinking of referring to them as "Hovindists", perhaps with references to Carl Baugh, Ken Ham and other charlitans as "High Priests of Creationism".

Don't forget their philosophical leader and master manipulator P. Johnson.

[mlc9852]

I certainly don't imagine God as a man or an ape. But I guess he would take whatever form he wants.

[VadeRetro]

That was something of a hurdle we had to get over, yes.

[Physicist]

Snow Crush

Make that Snow Crash. Highly recommended.

[highball]

I'd add Neal Stephenson's CRYPTONOMICON to your list.

Fantastic book. Don't let the length scare you.

Requires you to use your head, and well worth it.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Thanks for your post. A few things to add.

Whether logically consistent or inconsistent, most evolutionists seem to deny the theory as entailing abiogenesis. I'm not sure, why because if one is going to attribute everything to so-called "natural" causes, it hardly seems unnatural for matter to simply assemble itself somehow (if we even dare admit to the suggestion of an assembly, for that, too, implies design).

Second, it would be inaccurate to see the presence of organized matter as "proof" of intelligent design, or even "proof" of God's existence. The word "proof" carries too much certitude for human intellect on a scientific basis to allow its use for all but the most fundamental axioms. Science is happy to work with evidence and make reasonable assumptions based on the same. That's all either side should ask of the other.

Third, you are right in asserting that both sides go at the evidence with different starting assumptions. It seems both sides are unwilling to admit it, perhaps out of fear for compromising objectivity. Frankly there is absolutely no way for science to be completely objective because it is by definition a human undertaking. Naturalistic underpinnings will lead the observer to naturalistic conclusions, and reasonably so.

Finally, as far as public school policy goes, the federal government has no business endorsing or establishing solely atheistic principles. It is in principle atheistic to state that science can only be done to the exclusion of theistic underpinnings. Notice I did not say "theistic hypotheses" or "theistic experimentation" or "scientific attempts to prove the existence of God." Besides, it is entirely alien to science to allow its parameters to be framed by government fiat. If the public cannot handle generic references to a higher intelligence as a scientifically viable explanation for organized matter on a massive scale, then the public does not deserve or need government funded education.