creationism and intelligent design
(this is an incoherent stream of consciousness rambling entry inspired by my frustrations with idiots wanting to teach creationism and intelligent design in the classroom. it isn't very scholarly or well thought out, planned, or developed, however. just me frustrated and rambling. but im too lazy to proofread or try to organize it.)
Recently I have become preoccupied with the theory of evolution and the concepts often attributed to Charles Darwin. More specifically, I have been interested in the reactions of various religious groups in regards to these ideas.
The sheer ignorance of those who propagate such creationist myths regarding the origin of life is astounding. They rely on circular (il)logic based solely on texts created thousands of years ago and purportedly written by the historical Moses (who also curiously wrote of his own death and burial in Deuteronomy 34).
I will refrain from writing too much on the scientific evidence for evolution vs. creationism and intelligent design, but it is the current example of religious imposition haunting me. Between scientifically ignorant evangelists such as Ray Comfort and his partner in crime - Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron, actor/lawyer/intelligent design proponent/idiot Ben Stein, and countless others, science has been under attack and has been undermined by conservative religious lunatics with dubious credentials. (Personally I would rather be educated under the guidance of Oxford PhD biologist Richard Dawkins than a man who believes the simple existence of a banana disproves evolution, the star of the sitcom Growing Pains, or someone famous for repeating "Bueller.")
Science is based on evidence. Theology is based on faith. As a result of faith being completely unscientific in every essence, creationists have resorted to claiming a desire to "present both sides of the debate." The absurdity of this notion pains me. Simply because something is written down or commonly believed by many does not mean it is true. Unfortunately, an alarmingly large group of people believe the Holocaust didn't happen. Should we teach that side of the "debate" in schools? Or do we need evidence? Perhaps a book? Countless books have been written from such absurd perspectives. However, they have agendas and are contrary to the evidence and should thus be discredited.
Though perhaps not as shockingly controversial, parallels can be observed in the notion of a creationism "debate." I'm sorry, but the scientific evidence is contrary to that which is in your magical book. Science classrooms are for fact. Not theology. You have one piece of "evidence" - a collection of texts written thousands of years ago by different people in different times and circumstances and not organized until much later. The writers of the Bible, due simply to the time in which they lived, had a rather limited understanding of the world compared to even the most ignorant people of modern times.
Think of all of the advancements made in science in just the past hundred years or so. Electricity in every house. Unlimited information at your fingertips via the internet. Now imagine what "science" would have been like during the time of the composition of the Bible and how complex their understanding of the world may have been (or more specifically how complex their understanding WASN'T). I'm sorry, but personally, I feel scientists of modern times have more validity than anyone thousands of years ago. Thus creationism or intelligent design has NO place in the classroom. There is NO "evidence" for such myths other than the Bible and related derivatives.
One of my biggest frustrations is when the Bible is used to defend and validate itself. Theoretically, if it is in the Bible, it is the infallible word of God and must be 100% accurate. However, the Bible consists of a multitude of various texts which were merged at MUCH later dates. Controversial texts or those which did not fit current theology or circumstances or agendas. Although some prototypical versions of the Christian Biblical canon appeared around the 4th century (Synod of Hippo and Jerome, notably), the Bible was not established as we know it until the Council of Trent in 1546. Even so, this was not the Protestant Bible used by many fundamentalists today. This was the canon of the Catholic Church - including the Apocrypha.
What determined the establishment of the canon commonly used today? God? Religious leaders? Man? Often the chosen books were simply what was popular among early Christians. Books which had gained relative acceptance and popularity were chosen to be included. However, books with controversial passages or concepts were frequently left out (though not always!). Interestingly, books of the Biblical canon make references to non-canonical books, as well. Including among these references are the Watchers - angels who visited Earth, were seduced by human women, and produced giant offspring. The narrative is more fully developed in the book of Enoch but is hinted at in Genesis 6:1-4. Why are some of these books considered "true" or "authentic" while others are not? Particularly when they reference one another?
Although theoretically God is infallible, are the men who transcribed his words? Of course one could argue Divine inspiration regarding the Bible's origin - but that becomes somewhat problematic when you consider figures such as Jim Jones and David Koresh also claimed Divine inspiration and were obviously contrary to the theology of the common Christian - as evidenced by their murderous activities. Simply put, anyone can create a document or claim divine inspiration but does that mean they are valid? That is where faith comes in. While I am quite skeptical, I do not condemn others for their faith. However, I do get quite upset when others attempt to force their faith onto others such as wanting to teach creationism or intelligent design.
Furthermore, by focusing on the purported historicity of the Bible, one fails to recognize the significance of it as a metaphorical educational document. By insisting on the historical existence of an Adam and Eve, one fails to note the true lesson of the fable. Logically, Noah did not load an ark with multiples of every animal on the planet. That very notion is absurdly impossible. But the historical fact (or lack of) is not what is important. What is important (in an extremely simplified form) is the story of Noah and how the bad are punished and the good are redeemed.
When such ideas are framed in a manner in which they are presented as historical fact, it becomes problematic. It undermines true science and causes young people to doubt science if they feel it contradicts their religious beliefs. Faith is so ingrained, that of course it must be science that is incorrect, right? Do we want following generations to be ignorant and turned off of science simply to further propagate the creationist myth? Creationism and intelligent design have absolutely no basis in science or fact and thus have no place in the classroom. Political correctness and fear have dissuaded many teachers to minimize or avoid the topic of evolution. This cheapens science and somewhat allows further acceptance of such absurd notions by young people. Thankfully, I believe many people my age and younger are intelligent enough to understand science if given actual evidence. But lets refrain from presenting insane creationist theories as science, please.
Recently I have become preoccupied with the theory of evolution and the concepts often attributed to Charles Darwin. More specifically, I have been interested in the reactions of various religious groups in regards to these ideas.
The sheer ignorance of those who propagate such creationist myths regarding the origin of life is astounding. They rely on circular (il)logic based solely on texts created thousands of years ago and purportedly written by the historical Moses (who also curiously wrote of his own death and burial in Deuteronomy 34).
I will refrain from writing too much on the scientific evidence for evolution vs. creationism and intelligent design, but it is the current example of religious imposition haunting me. Between scientifically ignorant evangelists such as Ray Comfort and his partner in crime - Growing Pains star Kirk Cameron, actor/lawyer/intelligent design proponent/idiot Ben Stein, and countless others, science has been under attack and has been undermined by conservative religious lunatics with dubious credentials. (Personally I would rather be educated under the guidance of Oxford PhD biologist Richard Dawkins than a man who believes the simple existence of a banana disproves evolution, the star of the sitcom Growing Pains, or someone famous for repeating "Bueller.")
Science is based on evidence. Theology is based on faith. As a result of faith being completely unscientific in every essence, creationists have resorted to claiming a desire to "present both sides of the debate." The absurdity of this notion pains me. Simply because something is written down or commonly believed by many does not mean it is true. Unfortunately, an alarmingly large group of people believe the Holocaust didn't happen. Should we teach that side of the "debate" in schools? Or do we need evidence? Perhaps a book? Countless books have been written from such absurd perspectives. However, they have agendas and are contrary to the evidence and should thus be discredited.
Though perhaps not as shockingly controversial, parallels can be observed in the notion of a creationism "debate." I'm sorry, but the scientific evidence is contrary to that which is in your magical book. Science classrooms are for fact. Not theology. You have one piece of "evidence" - a collection of texts written thousands of years ago by different people in different times and circumstances and not organized until much later. The writers of the Bible, due simply to the time in which they lived, had a rather limited understanding of the world compared to even the most ignorant people of modern times.
Think of all of the advancements made in science in just the past hundred years or so. Electricity in every house. Unlimited information at your fingertips via the internet. Now imagine what "science" would have been like during the time of the composition of the Bible and how complex their understanding of the world may have been (or more specifically how complex their understanding WASN'T). I'm sorry, but personally, I feel scientists of modern times have more validity than anyone thousands of years ago. Thus creationism or intelligent design has NO place in the classroom. There is NO "evidence" for such myths other than the Bible and related derivatives.
One of my biggest frustrations is when the Bible is used to defend and validate itself. Theoretically, if it is in the Bible, it is the infallible word of God and must be 100% accurate. However, the Bible consists of a multitude of various texts which were merged at MUCH later dates. Controversial texts or those which did not fit current theology or circumstances or agendas. Although some prototypical versions of the Christian Biblical canon appeared around the 4th century (Synod of Hippo and Jerome, notably), the Bible was not established as we know it until the Council of Trent in 1546. Even so, this was not the Protestant Bible used by many fundamentalists today. This was the canon of the Catholic Church - including the Apocrypha.
What determined the establishment of the canon commonly used today? God? Religious leaders? Man? Often the chosen books were simply what was popular among early Christians. Books which had gained relative acceptance and popularity were chosen to be included. However, books with controversial passages or concepts were frequently left out (though not always!). Interestingly, books of the Biblical canon make references to non-canonical books, as well. Including among these references are the Watchers - angels who visited Earth, were seduced by human women, and produced giant offspring. The narrative is more fully developed in the book of Enoch but is hinted at in Genesis 6:1-4. Why are some of these books considered "true" or "authentic" while others are not? Particularly when they reference one another?
Although theoretically God is infallible, are the men who transcribed his words? Of course one could argue Divine inspiration regarding the Bible's origin - but that becomes somewhat problematic when you consider figures such as Jim Jones and David Koresh also claimed Divine inspiration and were obviously contrary to the theology of the common Christian - as evidenced by their murderous activities. Simply put, anyone can create a document or claim divine inspiration but does that mean they are valid? That is where faith comes in. While I am quite skeptical, I do not condemn others for their faith. However, I do get quite upset when others attempt to force their faith onto others such as wanting to teach creationism or intelligent design.
Furthermore, by focusing on the purported historicity of the Bible, one fails to recognize the significance of it as a metaphorical educational document. By insisting on the historical existence of an Adam and Eve, one fails to note the true lesson of the fable. Logically, Noah did not load an ark with multiples of every animal on the planet. That very notion is absurdly impossible. But the historical fact (or lack of) is not what is important. What is important (in an extremely simplified form) is the story of Noah and how the bad are punished and the good are redeemed.
When such ideas are framed in a manner in which they are presented as historical fact, it becomes problematic. It undermines true science and causes young people to doubt science if they feel it contradicts their religious beliefs. Faith is so ingrained, that of course it must be science that is incorrect, right? Do we want following generations to be ignorant and turned off of science simply to further propagate the creationist myth? Creationism and intelligent design have absolutely no basis in science or fact and thus have no place in the classroom. Political correctness and fear have dissuaded many teachers to minimize or avoid the topic of evolution. This cheapens science and somewhat allows further acceptance of such absurd notions by young people. Thankfully, I believe many people my age and younger are intelligent enough to understand science if given actual evidence. But lets refrain from presenting insane creationist theories as science, please.