Close Topic Options

I apologise first for the descent into "leet", but it does to some extent sum up my opinion of the people for whom this seems a real fear! This commentary may not seem totally appropriate to the “Science, Just Science” campaign, but I believe it does strike to the heart of why we find ourselves on this particular old “battlefield”. All comments are very definitely IMHO and if the mod’s consider this an unsuitable debate topic: be my guest and delete it.

Strangely perhaps for a geologist and occasional mountaineer, groups of people for whom the stereotype tends towards atheism, I have never doubted the existence of god. Rather I doubt the human hand in the word of god and the motives of hierarchical religions. I was, and still am, typical of that peculiar brand of middle-class English Anglican for whom the church is about weddings, funerals and Christmas. Recently however I have been attending church, numerous different denominations, in the company of my wife. It was while attending a Baptist church a couple of years ago, that I first came across the opinion that "someone was coming to take our bibles away", a comment at the time I disregarded as being a piece of paranoid drivel. I have since heard it several more times and from people who I know are intelligent, well educated, balanced individuals.

The "conflict" between secular society and religion, the so called culture wars, are hardly news and have been for the most part been confined to the U.S.. The creation debate is just one of the battlegrounds of the "culture wars". A phenomenon which seems very much coloured by a duality that exists in fundamental and evangelical Christianity between a suspicion of all forms of hierarchical control and yet a desire to see their world view foisted upon society, because their faith tells them what is best for society. They seek to overturn what they perceive as the “dogma of neutrality” in the modern secular state and yet are perfectly happy to use it as a stick against other “minority” groups whom they feel are getting too big for their boots.

So where does this fear that the liberal, permissive, secular majority is suddenly going to start asking for people to hand over their religious texts and close down all places of worship? I don't know and I’ve never asked, mainly because I don't think I'd like the answer. Having heard too many sermons, denouncing a “society” that most of the congregation have no knowledge or understanding of, I believe what really grates is the loss of social control. The harkening back to those never, never days, when sufficient people sat in the pews on a Sunday to allowed Christianity to harness public outrage and effectively control the moral agenda because the majority were “practicing Christians”. As they lost that, they also lost contact with wider society, they can no longer connect with it and nor do they want to connect with a society that they perceive as moral bankrupt and without value. Perhaps then Christians are just badly “future shocked” and something that should have been a warning to scientists in general because we are starting to see an increased disconnection between scientific knowledge and the general public. This is the basis on which the “wedge” really works exploiting poorly understood and completely misunderstood science. Simplicity of ideas is also at the basis of “Christianity-light” perhaps best illustrated by the Alpha Course with its black and white theology, something, which comes from the evangelical’s belief that theological debate and enquiry can lead to “back-sliding” and ultimately apostasy. Also the great “liberal conspiracy” sits neatly on the shelf next to the great “science conspiracy” making for a complete set.

Are the “liberals” coming? No they are not; it is a mass paranoid delusion of evangelical Christianity. The “liberal society” has invested a fair amount effort in ensuring freedom of speech and freedom of worship ideals, which also equally protect Christians. Perhaps at its roots it’s because the “liberals” don't care, Christians are just another of many groups, all with equally valid religious views with an equal freedom of thought, word and worship. They do not see the Christian message of redemption as being any more or less valid than another.

So what is the point I’m actually trying to make here? These people actually do believe that at some point the liberal permissive society will take their bibles from them, they are equally willing to believe that several hundred years of human scientific and intellectual endeavour are a huge conspiracy to uproot Christian values. A friend of my wife’s and fellow Christian once said on the subject of creation versus evolution that “it’s not worth arguing with them (creationists)”. People will believe what they want to believe and quite often in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

Most of us will remember a time when creationists popped up but rarely in the media, and they were largely preaching to the gallery, but they’ve always been their. Now is perhaps different because we have a confused and slightly future shocked general public who the polls suggest are willing to plump for the nice black and white, easy to understand option of “God did it”. This disconnect must be addressed, science must explain itself, commercial interests must come second to tackling the ethical, environmental and health issues of new technology. We only have to look at the turmoil of the issue of genetically-modified crops a few years ago to see the havoc that occur with such issues unresolved. Freedom and communication of information is all, to paraphrase: explain; explain; explain! This must go for all science and technology education issues, including sexual health, which is currently a play-ground for “faith-based groups” who will happily pervert science and statistics to make their point (with a healthy dose of irrelevant Christianity-light indoctrination thrown in).

Overall, I believe that most creationists are still preaching to the gallery and will continue to do so. There numbers are small and as such they inhabit a small world, in such a small community a self perpetuating fantasy that can contradicts anything becomes easy to maintain. Most creationists do not make much of ripple on the surface of modern public life, and they are entitled to air their views in public and to lobby parliament. However, there are those who see themselves as having a higher calling and a moral imperative to be heard by the public regardless. If they willingly throw their weight around in the public arena while being disingenuous, about their motives and qualifications, then I see no reason for them not be questioned on those in the public arena. There is a strong anti-Catholic undercurrent in some perhaps surprising parts of the evangelical wing of Christianity (something that deeply upsets many main-stream evangelicals), racism, religious intolerance and graduate/post-graduate qualifications from unaccredited institutions are not uncommon.

In short, the hard-core of creationist believers can not and will not readily change their spots. They see a world made and run by God on a personal level, were as I happen to see a world made and run by divinely ordained natural laws (truly intelligent design perhaps….), and they do not wish too see anything else. They see a liberal and permissive society, which they do not like or perhaps understand, and it is only then a short step to believing that “society” is out to get you and everything you believe in. What is needed is to ensure the dissemination of information that closes down the disconnection between the publics understanding and the scientists understanding of science. It is this disconnect that they are using currently in conjunction with an apparently well funded PR push.

Very, very good Jon,

A few minor spelling mistakes but aside from that very insightful ... makes me wonder if we shouldn't have a kind of opinions page on the website. Obviously such articles will be pro-science/anti-fundamentalism and, in line with out campaign's stance, tend towards religious neutrality but this is nice because it portrays moderate religious viewpoints in a subtly positive way.

Any objection if I post that around some places (crediting you of course)?

Kyu

Very interesting stuff. In their defence, I can see why when people like Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers say things like: 'the only way to stop creationism is not to pander to religious opinion it is to promote critical thinking', this is interpreted as saying 'we want to turn you kids into secular humanists'.

With most of the creationist scientists the story seems to be they were ok with evolution until they read an earlier creationist work. Perhaps how strictly religious their upbringing was affects whether they will eventually turn to YEC or ID, but it seems to be that they start out supporting evolution/geology. Then at some point they read a creationist book, and see it as a way to bring science and their beliefs closer together, as long as it seems 'sciency' up to a point. A good example is Henry Morris, who appears to have become a YEC after reading George McCready Price, and says it was a life changing experience. After that, most modern YECs probably were 'converted' after reading Morris. Interestingly the same thing seems to be true of the ID people. Mike Behe for example is not evangelical at all as far as I can tell, and claims he rejected evolution after he read Michael Dentons evolution in crisis, and this convinced him evolution wasn't true even most of the main thesis was completely wrong which even Denton admits.

Bascially Im trying to figure out what it is about someone who may be knowledgeable in science, that when they read a creationist book makes them reject the science, even though their training tells them the book is bollocks. And because of people like Behe we can't just say oh its crazy fundementalists, because there are obviously many much more religious people who are fine with evolution.

In my defence when I refer to Christian fundamentalists I am tending to refer to the 19th/20th centuary movement, mainly in US Protestantism, who are conservative evangelical Christians, who actively affirm a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs. The inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles. It should be noted that this movement being as it was a reaction to modernism can to a greater or lesser extent be seen in all churches (and religions) currently, so it ain't just the "happy clappies".

I would also say that it is very easy to be persauaded by a well written article or book if you are not intimately acquainted with the subject enough to be critical of its content. Or if you have a vested interest in the conclusions it draws. Many (if not most) scientists will rabidly defend a theory they have an intimate connection with, but at the end of the day they usually retain enough objectivity to except its fall. Creation scientists are unable to exercise this objectivity when it comes down to questions that impinge on their core (fundemental) beliefs.

JFTR What really ticks me off about creation scientists is not their inherent belief in the inerrancy of the bible, rather that they "invent" science to fit what they see as the facts and then scream secular persecution when someone says "that dosen't work". It also explains why main-stream science won't touch creation science with a barge pole (the great science conspiracy) because of their willingness to ride rough shod over established scientific principles rather then attempt to work within them!

I was reffering more to the majority of non-religious people who look at the problem and say 'oh it's just the crazy fudementalists'. Im just trying to work out why an evangelical christian can read a creationist book and say it's a load of rubbish, whereas people who are a lot less religious can read the same book and be persuaded by it.

I think that there might be extra-religious metaphysical assumptions (held consciously or unconsciously) that affect the outcome. It should be borne in mind that the principle scientific opponent of evolution in the US in the 19th century (Agazzis, I think) was actually less orthodox in his religious beliefs than his main opponent (whose name escapes me; he corresponded a lot with Darwin). Agazzis was a Unitarian whose views were influenced by neo-Platonism; he held a strongly essentialistic view of species (and thus was unwilling to allow for their evolution). His opponent was (I think) a Presbetarian and had no such metaphysical scruples.

Brief summary: It may have something to do with intuitive assumptions about how things change over time and what those things are, that might be influenced by religious belief or background, but are probably partly independent of it.

God, that sounds pompous...

People can be persuaded that black is white and white is black, but I think what really matters is what happens when an attempt is made to disuade them that their view is incorrect.

A child who knows no better can be told that 1 + 1 = 5 and they will believe it. However once they are taught how numbers actually work they will know that 1 + 1 = 2 and that you need five 1's to make 5!

I think ultimately to hold an ID/creationist view point, in the face of all the evidence and are resistent to dissuasion, must be holding a religious/metaphysical conviction of some kind.

The sterotype christain evangelical in the uk is probably the jumper wearing, tamberine waving "happy-clappy" evangelicals of the Anglican communion (so lampooned in the 80's), with probably quite liberal views. For christain fundametalists they probably envisage a mix baptist/pentecostal, very charismatic, lots of singing, pro-life views, and religious hysterics.

The terms 'liberal', 'traditional' & 'fundamental', which perhaps best characterise religious standpoint cut acoss those sterotypes. It is perfectly possible to have a liberal baptist and a very buttoned down 'conservative' member of the anglican communion (even if they do have a jumper and a tamberine) who holds strong 'fundamental' views.

Oops, missed that, no I don't mind - its in the public domain already after all.
JON

I apologise for the threadromancy…

Part Two II – Building Ghettoes of the Mind

“Christian science” I’ve heard that phrase in innumerable different contexts now and I still have little idea about what it really means. Worryingly in many cases it seems to mean “science for Christians” at least that’s how some Christians of my acquaintance seem to interpret it. So should we be surprised by this? The answer it would appear is a definitive “no”. After all, nearly everyone must of heard of the Christian music scene, principally a stateside phenomenon, but occasionally one or another band breaks the surface tension of popular perception. Look closer and there is everything there from Christian metal groups to boy and girl bands. If one looks hard enough nearly anything can be found with added “Christianity”, TV stations, radio stations, marriage guidance courses, parenting courses, don’t won’t to give to a secular charity give to one with an affirmative Christian ethos, suitably “modest” fashion, Christian literature available from Christian bookshops, pretty much anything you can think of stamped with some appropriate bible quotation. Surely people remember the “what would Jesus do?” wrist bands of a few years back. In the more charismatic reaches of Christianity you can find dream interpretation as new age as any sun-touched Californian beach mystic. Is this just niche marketing, does it appeal to Christians because it allows them identify themselves in someway through their lifestyle, is it a way of avoiding or insulating themselves from mainstream “secular” culture inside a “purely Christian counter-culture”? I very much doubt this is an entirely Christian phenomenon and that parallels can probably be found in any of the other major faiths.

Previously I suggested that certain elements of Christianity were “future shocked”, something I continue to believe I’m right about. Especially as I’ve heard “fundamentalism” described as a reaction to modernity. We hear of Muslim communities, the fundamentalists of popular imagination, in the UK physically ghettoising themselves (though this may in part be as a result of economic factors rather than a particular desire to separate themselves), but what about Christians, are there many Christians quietly building ghettoes of the mind? If so it is perhaps not surprising that they seek out “Christian science” that accords with, rather than challenges, their world views. They also want schools equally insulated from secular culture for their children. They do of course periodically sally fourth to find those kindred members of society who cannot cope with modernity and for whom life is missing something of the divine. The current vogue for the “Christianity-light” with its black and white literal interpretation of the bible can only reinforce this creeping mental ghettoisation tinged as it is with a growing desire to gather in the “fallen” before it is too late. After all if the bible is the literal truth, but society refuses to accept that, then what value to is society? This of course misses the point, that to change society, you have to successfully engage with it, and to engage with anything or anyone you have to understand it. Neither of which you can do if your hiding from it.

This whole argument constructed on a “stereotype” view, which makes it a dangerous generalisation, but is creationism really nothing more than just a comfort blanket for certain sectors of the Christian community?

On this theme, may I recommend this post and its successors? They approach the problem from more of a sociological perspective, which I think is probably the level at which this needs to be fought.

Oh, and I'd second Kyuu's comments about having an opinions section (as long as it's very clearly delineated as such). This would be a brilliant post for that.

Interesting, I will digest...