As I do more research into the topic of my project, creationism and evolution in the early 20th century, I'm increasingly coming to believe that religious fundamentalists are framing evolution as the cause of an imagined problem, and are struggling to invent ways to combat it. In In the Beginning the author, Michael Lienesch, describes a problem fundamentalists faced in the early 20th century: the low levels of religiosity in schools, especially universities. By the 1910's, fundamentalists had identified evolution as the problem and began efforts to attack it.
But as the article points out, evolution doesn't even directly contradict religion. Evolution doesn't say how life began, nor does it require the absence of a god at any stage. But nonetheless, the crusade against evolution hasn't weakened in the hundred years since it began. In fact, Kathy Cox, the superindendent of public schools in my home state of Georgia, claimed in 2004 that "evolution" was a "buzzword" and proposed replacing it in schools in favor of the phrase "biological changes over time." The proposal has since been killed, but not before staying alive long enough for some of my teachers to begin satirically referring to star lifecycles as "stellar biological changes over time."
Today, fundamentalists seem to have identified creationism as their chamipon to the evolution problem and have shifted their strategy accordingly, but are finding the establishment clause and the separation of church and state to be major obstacles to their goals. The article mentions a federal ruling against Cobb County schools (in metro Atlanta), requiring the schools to remove the now-infamous evolution stickers that were stuck on every science textbook in the county:
This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.
It seems pretty clear to me (and most others) that the sticker is just a weak attempt to follow the letter of the law but at the same time indirectly advancing the creationists' cause. Despite overwhelming evidence for evolution, creationists insist on keeping their conjecture afloat and, at best, are advocating a theory in search of facts rather than facts that have formed a theory.
To me, intelligent design is nearly indistinguishable from creationism aside from rhetorical changes, but the article suggests that the public would disagree. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on the topic. Is ID merely a "public relations success" as the article states, or does it offer some additional merits above creationism?
More importantly, why do creationists impose a false dichotomy on religion and evolution, when they could make everybody's lives, including their own, much easier by accepting the scientific method? Even the Pope thinks this debate is absurd. Surely his words must carry some weight? It almost seems to me that creationism has evolved (or was designed) into an entity that lives and breathes apart from religion, so that even though religion and evolution might be able to coexist, creationists still are unsatisfied that their beliefs take the back seat to evolution.
(Not really related: In my search for an article, I found a funny opinion letter.)
Posts
3 comments:
I respectfully disagree with David that intelligent design seems like a manipulation of rhetoric rather than actually differing from creationism. In my view, intelligent design does not suggest that evolution and divine creation are irreconcilable, as creationists might argue. Because intelligent design is, according to Ken Miller, a “purely religious doctrine masquerading as science," the language it uses allows for evolution theory and divine creation beliefs to coexist.
I am really glad that Pope Benedict spoke out on this issue and stated that evolution and a faith in God as creator do not have to be mutually exclusive. While I don't think his statements will influence many conservative Christians, I think it is really important to have some Christians who can enter this debate intelligently and who are willing to discuss the implications of studying evolution along with believing in God.
I also do not understand the sensitivity over "evolution" in regards to some pro-creationism people. I do not see how evolution is an attack on creationism, it is a theory backed by significant scientific evidence which explains how modern species have come to be. In schools, evolution is not taught in contrast to creationism or alternate understandings of the creation of the Earth. The main difference between evolution and creationism is that evolution does not promote a particular religious doctrine, creationism does.
It also does not make sense to me that the same individuals who claim their rights to free religious exercise are violated by evolution being taught in schools are also the ones who push for creationism in schools, there-bye disenfranchising another religious group. It's hypocrisy.
Post a Comment