You:
I think you could be safe saying this conflict centers around man’s place in the cosmos as suggested by the theists and the humanists. That’s just the tip of the iceberg, but it’s a far more useful place to start than the painfully uninformed debate centering around evolution.
I wouldn't describe the conflict in worldviews as being between theists and humanists. Many science-minded people are theists, so the evolution side of our debates isn't strictly a non-theist position. And "humanist" is a philosophical position which carries far too much baggage for my taste. I may be in error, but I've been under the impression that humanism generaly involves atheism and socialism. That's not my position at all, and it's not at all what is represented by the evolution side of our typical debates.
The theist allegation boils down to a belief that worldview controls action. They believe all that’s wrong with the world could be alleviated if people would only subscribe to the tenants of their religious text. Yet, for thousands of years everyone did subscribe to the tenants of their religious text and it solved nothing.
Probably true. During the 1,000 years in Europe generally known as the Dark Ages, theism was the general rule, and no objective observer could claim that human life then was a better deal than it is now. But the problem, in my opinion, isn't theism. I see two problems during the Dark Ages: (1) the lack of separation between church and state, which gave religion way too much coercive power; and (2) the absence of what we now call a scientific worldview to supliment the theistic worldview and to enhance the human condition. And I think that points 1 and 2 are what are really at stake in the evolution-creationism debates.
I would concur; I tend to use “humanist” in the classical sense, someone who subscribes to “a system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth”. Such a system doesn’t preclude the existence of God or the validity of spiritual thought. I speak of men like Da Vinci who was without a doubt a believer. But I understand it is a loaded term.
Yet theists feel most threatened by a scientific worldview, particularly those who accept a literal interpretation of their holy books. It seems to me such men reject humanism because they believe men have no worth apart from God. Reason may supplement faith but reason must remain subservient. When reason in the form of scientific inquiry contradicts revealed truth, science must be rejected. Thus they often cite the failures of materialism, with an emphasis on the atrocities of Communists and Fascists. Reason without religious guidance leads to disaster, as men are too intrinsically corrupt to be reasonable. Thus evolution is a product of men’s desire to sin rather than the fruits of his intellectual labors. The terms humanist and theist are not entirely accurate but do denote what I believe is the essence of the conflicting worldviews – the intrinsic worth of human beings.
I may be in error, but I've been under the impression that humanism generaly involves atheism and socialism. That's not my position at all, and it's not at all what is represented by the evolution side of our typical debates.
There are some die hard atheists who have represented the evolution side on Freerepublic in the last several years. Lazamataz comes to mind. I myself consider the issues separate and do not consider myself an atheist. Yet I think that accepting evolution as an accurate account of our origins precludes a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I see two problems during the Dark Ages: (1) the lack of separation between church and state, which gave religion way too much coercive power; and (2) the absence of what we now call a scientific worldview to supliment the theistic worldview and to enhance the human condition. And I think that points 1 and 2 are what are really at stake in the evolution-creationism debates.
You speak of separation and supplementation but do you really believe that such disparate world views can co-exist? I have my doubts. If two men are driving a car approaching a cliff and one wishes to turn right while the other left, can they compromise and continue moving forward?
The culture war is important because I don’t believe these two worldviews can co-exist. One will eventually become supplemental and perhaps that’s the first step to becoming vestigial. Which one will prevail? I believe that issue will be decided by the needs of the audience rather than the actors in our little play. Time will tell.