Replying to Evolution Or Creationism, Or Neither

I agree that everyone interprets, I call them literalists because that is how they often refer to themselves.

The inability to edit posts is fustrating sometimes. The following quote are corrected sentences in my previous post.

I believe that this division directly results from a mechanistic interpretation of evolution that is just as blindly dogmatic as fundamentalism.

They would not exist at all.

Like all living things, the tomatoes are both responsible and responsive.

Whether or not the two views are compatible really depends on whether one is a biblical literalist or not.  The literalist can't deal.  Granted, as far as I am concerned, most biblical literalists are either shockingly ignorant, or rather insane.  That view just doesn't sit well with just about anything we know about the world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The idea of some people being literalists is a myth. Everyone interprets. Everyone. The real question is how seriously do people take the Bible and what is their interpretive key. The people who take the Bible most seriously take their interpretive key from the Bible itself. The largest group that do this are what I call the Pauline consensus. These take their interpretive key from the writings of Paul. Since these writings are particualarly clear they form a basis of interpretation which a very large group of christians from many denominations can agree upon.

Now it is true that these writings have very little to contribute when it comes to the issue of evolution versus creationism so the position of different people in this Pauline consensus will tend to vary. They can be divided in to two camps those who still adhere somewhat to protestant liberalism and those who are fundamentalist reactionaries. Of these two the fundamentalist reactionaries take the Bible far more seriously. They are reacting against the philosophical impact of evolution and against historical and literary criticisms of the Bible, precisely because these effectively reduce the Bible to the status of a fairy tale. They are not insane, they are rebeling against what they perceive to be the tyrrany of academia. Anyway, their problem is not literalism but an outright rejection of evolution itself.

The essence of protestant liberalism, on the other hand, is to find new meaning for the scriptures within the changing context of modern life. It tries reconcile the christian belief system to the discoveries of modern academia. Evolution has made this position nearly untenable. And the reason is that evolutionary philosophy sucks the life out of christianity at the roots. It makes a serious attitude toward the bible rather difficult. The root motivation for chritian belief fades considerably.

I see much to admire in both traditions. I love the vibrant and living faith of the fundamentalist reactionaries and I like the open minded thoughtfulness of protestant liberals. I believe that evolution is the knife that divides them by cutting christianity from academia. I believe that this division directly results from a mechanistic interpretation of evolution that just as blindly dogmatic as fundamentalism. I think that this mechanistic interpretation of evolution, itself arises from fundamental ignorance shared by evolutionist and creationist alike. It is an ignorance about what it means to be alive.

I think that that if this were understood then the absurdity of both positions would be apparent. For example, consder the stacks of bright red tomatoes in your local grocery store. Were they created or did they evolve? The creationist points to their bright red color and pefect size and shape and says that clearly these tomatoes were manufactured according to the careful blueprints of a talented engineer. The evolutionist claims that these tomatoes are product of natural law and the end result of a long history of competition between individuals for scarce resources. Both positions are absurd. The tomatoes are a fruit of living organisms. They are not manufactured; they grow by themselves but not in a vacuum. They interact with an are reponsive to an environment that includes farmers and geneticists. Without the farmers and geneticists the tomatoes would not be what they are. They would they exist at all. They are created but there are no blueprints. Live all living things, the tomatoes are both responsible and responsive.

Take another example: engineers. Are engineers created or do they evolve? They make the effort that makes them what they are, so you could say they create themselves, and yet do they not owe a debt of gratitude to teachers, parents and authors who made it all possible?

The traditional vision of God as the great watchmaker is fundamentally flawed because watches are not alive, but we are.

Whether or not the two views are compatible really depends on whether one is a biblical literalist or not. The literalist can't deal. Granted, as far as I am concerned, most biblical literalists are either shockingly ignorant, or rather insane. That view just doesn't sit well with just about anything we know about the world.

I think that the theory of evolutionism supports the idea of creationism. God is able to do all things imaginable and other wise. Evolutionism is just the physical evidence of what God created. I think it is simply beyond our understanding and that we should just accept that we will become enlightened by God when we reach his holy kingdom. We can't deny that all living things evolve. There is too much physical evidence for that. But I also think that we can't deny that there is a higher consciousness that guides us which created all of the beauty on this planet for us. So God created us with a big bang! Get over it...

i believe in evolution, but i also believe that, god or otherwise, something more than just chance created everything i know and love.

i dont believe that evolution/creationism is one of the biggest philisophical arguments of our time. i think it is like this, there are four possible opinions:

- you believe in straight creation in 7 days. i personally think this means you are a bit stupid and need to do some more thinking.

- you believe that something created something in the first place then everything evolved. this is me but it is possible that this is a bit too hopeful and 'spiritual' but hey.

- you believe in evolution straight. i guess this is the most sensible, it definatly is the most logical i think but a bit cold and leaves you searching really hard for any reason to live.

- you dont care or know, which might suggest that millions of years of evolution were a massive failure or they never happened!!!

Well try telling them that.

Indeed Creationism seems to have had a foothold in America, yet there is absloutely no scientific proof that it is true, and there'll probably be no way of conclusively proving it.

Guess people just take the Bible to seriously.

I don't say whether its a good or bad thing because it really isn't either. While it may appear to be bad long term, by a lack of responding to the environment, it isn't actually for the same reason the genetic changes have stopped. Modern medical tech continues to improve, and is just now hitting the area of gene therapy and manipulation, in order to solve the problem of genetic diseases. So, right now, the weak live when they would previously die. In the future, it is looking more and more like there will be no more of the weak. The potential downsides to that are: Cosmetic gene manipulation, which I wouldn't mind provided it stayed small scale, because looking good causes others to treat you better, and be nicer to you (basically, looking good has health benefits), and species weakness created by engineering a lack of individual differences. Such a lack opens up the potential for super-diseases because they don't have to adapt to each, individual, host anymore, and can simply be perfecty for a single (or close to single), genetic makeup.

The two issues are actually very related. They can be solved with the same type of regulation: limits on acceptable alterations to genetics. Solve nasty disease: fine, Strengthen bones and natural immune system: fine. Most anything else: off limits.

The other thing I fear is that we will look to medical tech to solve all of our problems instead of doing things like exerciseing or other more 'natural' and holistic remedies.

Responding to your other comment, you are right: One species of extremisim breeds another. The level of anger in this country right now amazes me. With so much hostility, and with it mounting, we all need to take a chill pill.

So, diseases that affect only the old are not getting weeded out.  In fact, with modern medical tech, even diseases that would normally kill the young are not taken out, so that is gone as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are careful not to say whether this is a good thing or not. Evolutionism would seem to suggest that this is a bad thing.

I think that the social darwinism of the last and early part of this century which was accepted so readily by academia (even in many seminaries) is largely responsible for the reactionism of the the christian right which no longer trusts in the academic sciences and have even begun to build a counter science to fight back. As a christian I understand the motives, but as a scientist this appalls me. The same kind of reactionism has led to America voting for the stupidest candidate calling himself a christian that they could find. As much as I hate and fear what has happened. I also think it is only natural. Academia and other "non-religious" aspects of our society have been too hostile to the dominant religious viewpoint of this country. This country was built by compromise and understanding between widely different viewpoints and this gaping rift between viewpoints is quite capable of destroying it. What is happening to our country reminds me of what happened in Germany when people elected an insane person named Hitler to power in their country.

Well, evolution, the process will not stop, but one of its effects: genetic drift, may. With a large enough population and a stable enough environment, this slows down a lot. Realize that the only genes taken out of the pool these days are those that lead to immediate death. Genes don't care so much if you die after making a couple babies. So, diseases that affect only the old are not getting weeded out. In fact, with modern medical tech, even diseases that would normally kill the young are not taken out, so that is gone as well.