While driving, I saw two different bumper stickers on two different cars...the "fish" for christianity and the "fish" ith the word DARWIN written in it. I then thought, what a great poll, uh I mean debate! What are your thoughts?
I voted creationism. The poll is too narrow, however. Even though I believe in creationism I do believe in evolution--Theistic Evolution, a reasonable synthesis. I also support micro evolution as opposed to macro evolution.
I think that a way of conceptualizing this 'Creationism'/'Darwinism' argument is to see it as a conflict between an impersonal naturalistic worldview on one hand, and a supernaturalistic, personalistic world view on the other. The idea of purpose is key. From ancient times through the middle ages, the earth was conceived as a stage for the carrying out of higher purposes. Earthly events were believed to reveal the will of higher powers. Those powers were conceived anthropomorphically, by modeling them on human intelligence and agency, and earthly events were believed to have meaning in proportion to their furthering the intent and purpose of those supernatural powers. In the modern world the idea of cosmic purpose has been largely dropped. Events are seen as unfolding according to the inherent regularities of the universe. These regularities are conceived mathematically rather than personally. They are discovered by carefully examining the events of this world and then by reasoning about them, not by applying a revealed tradition of supernatual truth to earthly events as their interpretive device. So when people argue about 'creationism' and 'Darwinism', I think that the real Darwin is almost irrelevant. 'Darwin' puts a human face on a whole culture. 'Darwinism' stands for the modern world's way of thinking, the way of rationalism, empiricism, science and technology. 'Creationism' is an appeal to an older medieval way of interpreting events. Its anthropomorphism makes it hopelessly inadaquate in scientific terms, but it might arguably be the more humane. Interpreting events in terms of supernatural purposes places personality and ethics squarely at the center of being and it addresses questions about how people should best go about living their lives.
At the moment, the votes are 7 for Creationism, 8 for Darwinism, 2 for Alienism. Maybe we should have a "flat earth" poll? Where can I get a Regionally Accredited degree in Creation "Science"? I attended a debate with Duane Gish once. Answering a point about vestigial organs, he said "I don't believe there's any such thing." How does he explain the axolotl, which has a vestigial life stage? Explaining similarities between species, Gish said, "God's like an engineer. He solved similar problems in similar ways." Now say with a straight face: "I'm not related to a chimpanzee. We have 98.5% of the same genes because God created us that way." Here's a creationist response on chimpanzee DNA: http://www.apologeticspress.org/docsdis/2002/dc-02-07.htm The author says: "This seemingly 'miniscule' [sic] difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s." In other words, humans and chimpanzees have different solutions that use the same DNA! Does that sound like Gish's engineer, or does it sound like François Jacob's ""Nature is a tinkerer, not an inventor"? Of course, the creationists dispute the 98.5% figure. Before you believe them, read this: http://www.primates.com/chimps/genushomo.html
I voted creationism, although I don't think that the choices are mutually exclusive. I believe a creator, Jehovah, created the world and its inhabitants by speaking them into existence. Undeniably, "evolution", or perhaps better phrased, "adaptation", has shaped the world and said inhabitants. I think this idea falls more in line with creationism, but does have elements of both theories.
I think there are gradients, too. For the next poll, I might suggest something like this: (a) Pure evolution by process of natural selection, without any possible divine intervention. (Evolutionary theory as it is usually argued today.) (b) Pure evolution by process of natural selection, with possible but unknown divine intervention. (Evolutionary theory as Darwin accepted it, and as many modern religious folk accept it.) (c) Evolution as a process of creation. (Evolution as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and many religious folk, especially among Roman Catholics and Muslims, accept it.) (d) Creation millions of years ago, done over a long period of time in an incremental way that suggests macroevolution. (Creationism as many in the Intelligent Design movement see it.) (e) Creation millions of years ago, literally done in six days. (Old-earth creationism.) (f) Creation four or five thousand years ago, literally done in six days. (Young-earth creationism.) I fall into category (b), and my suspicion is that most American evolutionists would be category (b) or (c). Most evolutionary biologists would be (a) or (b), depending more on whether they're theists than anything else. Cheers,
Shouldn't "intelligent design" have been on the poll, or is that just creationism with a different vocabulary? John Bear, who wonders why God created the universe on October 23, 4004 BC, at 9 am*, with light waves from the distant stars "in transit." ________________ * Surely the Vice Chancellor of Trinity College Dublin, supported by the Vice Chancellor of Cambridge University. wouldn't be in error. (http://www.sacred-texts.com/time/timeline.htm)
In a way, are we not all a little agnostic? I believe in God, but I have no proof. I have not seen God, but I do believe in Him. Is that not what faith is?
