MyDD :: The War Against Modernity

The War Against Modernity

by Chris Bowers, Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 01:53:55 PM EST

OK, maybe Brad Carson was right. There seem to be large sections of our population who are engaging in an almost wholesale rejection of modernity:

Percent Who Believe in...
	Bible Inerrancy   Evolution 
USA	     33.5		 35.4
Britain        7.0		 76.7
Germany       12.5		 72.7
Italy	     27.0		 65.2
Philippines   53.7		 60.9
Poland	     37.4		 35.4
Russia	      9.9		 41.4

A chart like this might help to shed some light on why the Bush administration gets along so well with the current Polish and Russian administrations. Also, as Gallup notes today, further emphasizing Caron's point, those who reject modernity tend to vote Republican:

It is not surprising to find that the biblical literalists who believe that God created humans 10,000 years ago tend to be more religious and Protestant. Given the recent emphasis on the importance of religion in the Nov. 2 presidential election, it is of interest to note that this "true believer" group tends to be more Republican than the sample average.

I have to wonder, even beyond conservatives, how well will "reality based" arguments really work in our electorate? Both of the surveys I link in this piece show that our national understanding of evolution is equivalent only to the lowly figures of countries that were educated under totalitarian regimes. Reality is not something we have a very firm grasp of as a nation. That is not good for us in many, many ways.

Tags: Ideology (all tags)

Permalink :: 42 Comments :: Post a Comment

Bush's re-election proves (none / 0)

that reality-based thinking does not penetrate to a slim majority of the electorate. Bush suffered from NOTHING but objectively bad news for the six weeks before the election (media were slightly emboldened and the f__k up was so obvious). This made no impact. There we are.

Can It Happen Here?

by janinsanfran on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:01:58 PM EST

Re: Bush's re-election proves (none / 0)

Right you are, Jan!

by hawkseye on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Inflexible (none / 0)

I think it also points out the inflexibility of the FAR right. I know many Christians who can believe in evolution and christianity. But, there is that, what 30%, that can't bring themselves to bend.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:06:19 PM EST

Note How Constant the Gallup figures are (none / 0)

And so are the elections. If you look at on old say 1976 Almanac of American Politics all you find is that the Dixicrats changed parties and the overall ideoloical balance hasnt changes in 40 years!
Nor have views on evolutionand the Bible

by smalltownilblue on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:07:32 PM EST

Philippines Results Surprising (none / 0)

What is truly amazing is the result reported from the Philippines. How do they manage to have roughly 60% of the population believe in both bible inerrancy and evolution? That would mean 20% of the population believes in both simultaneously, despite events in the Bible which could not possibly be true factually (origins story, ancient battles, water into wine, etc.). The Philippines educational system must impart some sort of benevolent plasticity to its citizens' intellect to reach this result.

by VizierVic on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:14:58 PM EST

Re: Philippines Results Surprising (none / 0)

Correction: origin storIES. That's what makes it even more mindboggling, that people can believe that two stories that directly contradict parts of each other (albeit in somewhat minor ways) are both exactly true.

by dan s on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:26:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Philippines Results Surprising (none / 0)

well... its how you ask the question...

As a Christian I can respond

there are no mistakes in the Bible... everything was put there for a reason. The creation story of Genesis is not an error... it is a myth that is very central to the foundation of our faith. There are important things to remember in those stories... For example that

that God created us because He loves us
that each of us is born with the capacity to sin
that it is in our oldest tradition to take one day out of the week for purposes of rest

The creation story still speaks to people of faith as a testament to God's power and glory. It is not an error, but simply a myth. While we have (or should have) outgrown the myth scientifically, I do not believe we have outgrown it spirtually or morally.

by math geek on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Philippines Results Surprising (none / 0)

I believe Galileo said that if the Bible was intended to be an astronomy textbook, why did they leave out the astronomy? The same could be said of geology, biology, etc.

by fwiffo on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:02:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Mistakes? (none / 0)

One day out of seven for rest is 14.2857% resting. Apparently this is the proper moral ratio for rest, according to the creation myth. Resting more = immoral because such behavior violates the principles of personal thrift and industry. Resting less = immoral because this is like pissing in God's face (see: Ten Commandments).

Now is this 14.2857% "the word of God?" Or is it just "hey, some guidelines" from the human beings who wrote the Bible (we'll just assume that if God wrote the Bible he'd have recognized He need to punch up the whole so and so begat so and so bit)?

If it's just "hey, we Bible-writing humans think this makes a lot of sense the one day off thing," then how can you possibly say "there were no mistakes in the Bible?" Sorry, but I haven't met any perfect humans yet, and I suspect you haven't either.

This isn't saying the myths, creation myths and other myths, didn't serve a valuable purpose when they were written. And this isn't saying many of the myths aren't valuable today. I myself was confirmed Presbyterian and know the stories and the rituals associated with Protestant Christianity.

I will just assume that what you meant by no mistakes is that the writers had deliberate intent in including what they included. And on that I will agree.

by PocketNines on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Mistakes? (none / 0)

the 14.2857 thing is snarky, but its has no argumentative value. Fact : Jews were the predecessors of the Christian faith and Jews N,000 years ago had one day of the week as a Sabbath Day... a day of rest. See --- the Ten Commandments

I believe in Divine Inspiration. The Bible was written by imperfect people, but these people were chosen and guided by God for this task. The Bible was written as God intended it. However, it was never intended to be a textbook, as the commenter above said, but instead a book of wisdom for people of faith to learn from.

So what I'm saying is... the Bible is not a textbook... it is closer to a literary work for us to study and internalize. God meant it to be this way, and people insisting for direct simple yes or no answers to all the big questions should find another religion.

by math geek on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 12:49:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

FWIW, The Question Was (none / 0)

"The Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word."

so that should rule out people who interpret the bible in a non-literal, symbolic, or mythical way.

I do find it confusing the way inerrant, infallible, and literal seem to be used interchangebly. I would assume and fundies would believe all three, but not sure how it starts vary outside that.

BTW for those interested in this battle against modernity check out:

The Battle For God by Karen Armstrong

She does portray the rise of fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as a battle against modernity. Although, that might not be what you think.

by RedStateIndie137 on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Philippines Results Surprising (none / 0)

depending on your view, inerrancy requires that the bible describes 'truth' at a phenomenological level, not a scientific one.

-jeff

by j pratt on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:41:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Philippines Results Surprising (none / 0)

Most Phillipinos are Catholic.

To many Catholics, biblical inerrancy would only refer to issues of faith and morals.

by wayward on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 08:30:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Poll young ones (none / 0)

I wonder how the percentages change for young people. Is there hope for the future? I assume so, just because Kerry's only victory according to exit polls came with the young population. THe way most big ideas take hold is the older, stubborn generations die off. Some people just wouldn't believe Magellan's crew when they returned, but it was only a matter of time.

by dan s on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:25:37 PM EST

Re: Poll young ones (none / 0)

Actually, not so good, and very weird:

"Believe that humans were created in present form 10,000 years ago, but not biblical literalists:

Total among those polled: 20%

The largest group in this portion of the study were 18- to 29-year-olds"

by Chris Bowers on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poll young ones (none / 0)

Its kind of a weird position to describe yourself as not being a biblical literalist but also believing in creationism, but for young people who were raised as evangelicals this might be a transitional phase.

I suspect that if you polled people under 18 the answers they would give would have a very strong correlation to the answers their parents would give. And further, the 18-29 y.o. who most strongly describe themselves this way are closer to 18 than to 29. This is based on my experience and knowledge and not any research, but I would say views on morality and sexuality are the first parts of the 'literalist' framework to be questioned, followed by particular points of theology. This is probably true particular to creationism, since that view is 'drilled' into young peoples heads through sunday school and other church youth group type activities in evangelical churches.

-jeff

by j pratt on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 04:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

The arguments in favor of the Theory of Evolution are both compelling and simple enough that a layperson can understand and repeat them. Every progressive ought to know them by heart and bring them out every time some fundamentalist simpleton talks about evolution only being a theory (in fact, your existence on this planet is only a theory, too).

Having said that, I have to confess that I do not have these arguments at my fingertips, so I have to start by taking my own medicine. But I will do so, then post a diary with the arguments in simple and concise form.

by The Goatherder on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:29:52 PM EST

Re: Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

A wonderful resource for this sort of thing: talkorigins.org.
Start with this FAQ list and work your way in from there.

by ColoRambler on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:39:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

This page specfically addresses the most powerful evidence that supports macro-evolution (most cretinists you'll run into will admit "micro-evolution" as possible or even necessary for their particular brand of cretinism).

by fwiffo on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:05:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

Perhaps there are deeper grounds that we can learn from in the right-wing resistance to scientific rationality and their assertion of values against pure reason..

http://www.xenos.org/classes/papers/pomosci.htm

- Tom McDonald

by mcdonald928 on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 04:14:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

Actually, don't get me wrong.. I am not a fuzzy-headed new-ager.. I'm just not optimistic about what the theory of evolution means for progressive causes. I'm concerned that many of you here are assuming that a strong scientific argument for the truth of evolution somehow (as in effect a device to purify people of their false cultural values) will result in more 'rationally ethical' people..

by mcdonald928 on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 04:28:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Believe because it is true (none / 0)

not because it is expedient.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 07:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Believe because it is true (none / 0)

That is the classic high Western value - pursue the Truth methodically 'for the sake of itself', and to hell with the 'merely cultural' illusion of personhood. Point being that from a scientifically purified standpoint of 'knowing', the cultural attributes of personhood cannot be understood as true. This is known in philosophy of science as eliminativism:

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+eliminativism&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&s tart=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

by mcdonald928 on Fri Nov 26, 2004 at 02:21:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

The post modern side of that chart reminds me of that article that Alan Sokal did.

-jeff

by j pratt on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 04:34:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

Yes. Good point. But what if the left-wing postmodernists that Sokal is ridiculing are exhibiting what we could call for the sake of argument an 'irrational cultural wisdom', similar to what their counterparts on the irrational creationist right exhibit. The reason for calling it so this may have to do with evolution itself. I'll use an analogy - If you begin to see that 'the search for pure Truth' is taking you off a cliff, is it not smarter to cultivate myth over truth, if myth somehow heals and is a better aid to survival? This is what Nietzsche was trying to tell us - we have perhaps reached the end of what 'value' science can provide for 'humanity' as such, a point of reversal where we need to figure out how to balance our paradoxical need for both truth and myth.

Democrats need a meta-narrative.

by mcdonald928 on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 05:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Arguments for Evolution (none / 0)

Hi G

I must disagree: I would say that being able to defend evolution won't do a single thing to help promote progressive causes in America. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that implies we have a moral responsibility to look out for each other because scientific theories aren't about what we ought to do. Progressive politics are about creating a society where the powerful don't always win, where the free market doesn't trump human values, where people have an equal opportunity to realize their dreams. Compared to that, the age of the earth is trivia.

And I think this is very important: calling religious fundamentalists "simpletons" hurts our cause, since conservative politics isn't fundamental to fundamentalism. Besides it's an unjustified bit of smugness that tells us that we are so much smarter than those Bible thumping creatiionists. Most people who believe in evolution are not trained in science, so most people accept (rightfully so, BTW) the scientific evaluations that trained experts make. But this means that for the most part, the evolution believing liberals are going by faith just as much as the young earth creationists. In fact, the scietists who are creationists probably understand evolution better than the non-scientists who believe in evolution. Given all that, I think that a little humility is called for. I'll start tomorrow:-)

Keith

by keith johnson on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 09:49:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

These Numbers are Shocking But Meaningless (none / 0)

These numbers are shocking but meaningless. Certainly the evolution number should be in-line with the Brittish and others, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'd get their votes. By contrast, the Bible numbers will never come our way. They are part of the permanent right wing base.

by jmckay on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:31:09 PM EST

that old time religion (none / 0)

Hi Chris

History's most prominant young earth creationist was a two-time Democratic Presidential nominee: William Jennings Bryant in 1892 and '96 and he ran on economic populism against the wealthy and powerful. There is nothing in Christian conservative theology that implies political conservatism. Conservative theology is even consistent with a robust support of gay rights--you can believe that homosexual behavior is contrary to God's law without believing the government ought to discriminate against homosexuals; you can leave those matters to God. The correlation between being an American white evangelical and voting Republican doesn't come from belief in an inerrant Bible.

And even though I am one of those Christians who doesn't believe the Bible is inerrant and does believe in evolution (I do believe that God performs supernatural miracles, for the record) I am annoyed when liberals equate creationist belief with ignorant stupidity. I would bet that the vast majority of evolution believing liberals are practically illiterate when it comes to the science supporting evolution and that they can't do much more than mouth vague claims that there's tons and tons of evidence--I'll bet that most of those people couldn't explain any specific evidence at all. And they sure don't know enough science to evaluate the evidence for themselves. They (like me) rightfully accept the word of those who are competent to judge the evidence. They are right to do so, but they are not right to imagine that they are less ignorant and more open minded than the (alleged) rubes who believe in Adam and Eve and vote for Republicans. If you ask me, the "holier than thou" self-righteousness of a lot of liberals explains as much about why so many working class folk have gone over to the Party of Privilege as does the alleged inability to follow rational argument.

Keith

by keith johnson on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:33:13 PM EST

Re: that old time religion (none / 0)

I agree with alot of what you say, but some conservatives would argue that their theology does have a direct relation to their politics, particularly over the issue of abortion. See 'A Christian manifesto' by Francis Schaffer. He saw abortion as devaluing life and therefore devaluing God's creation and advocated civil disobediance in response. He was one of the early voices in getting evangelicals involved with conservative politics and said that Christians should forge an alliance behind Reagan over the issue of abortion.

Of course, in the 60's schaffer said that the worst thing that evangelicals did was to raise their kids as conservatives and display US flags in churches. He wrote a book at that time claiming that evangelical theology required that christians adopt a radical environmentalist position. But the 60's were a crazy time.

-jeff

by j pratt on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:59:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that old time religion (none / 0)

Hi J

You are right that a lot of Christian conservatives think being anti-abortion is mandated by the Bible. I don't agree with them, but you are right that abortion is one of the biggest policy questions that has moved religious conservatives to political conservatism (I don't want to ignore that). I think that necessarily a practicing religionist will make political decisions based in a large part on her religious beliefs. I know I do. And I don't imagine that we will get most conservative Christians to vote for our guys. But I think we can make a dent, maybe a really big dent, and that might be enough to start winning again.

Keith

by keith johnson on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 07:37:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that old time religion (none / 0)

Keith,

I think you're getting a lot of things right here.

While I think the perception that liberals are elitist is a bit overblown (Republicans are every bit as elitist as we can be with all this 'real Americans," Heartland BS, for example, they just don't get called on it), but unfortunately, for most people perception is reality and the fact is most people think of us as elitist.

We have to stop contributing to this impression. And frankly, articles that are implicitly denigrating towards religion and religious convictions are counterproductive and play right into the hands of our foes.

It doesn't freakin' matter whether people believe in evolution or not, or an inerrant Bible-- but I'll bet Karl Rove LOVES it that we think it does. Every day we beat our chest over how "irrational religion" is another day we willingly refuse to engage people in this group and show them how many of their convictions are the same as our own.

What matters are beliefs and convictions. These don't need need to be described in terms of Jesus, but they DO need to be laid out clearly, and in language that speaks to the people whose votes we want to get.

by alteran on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that old time religion (3.00 / 1)

If I may say so, God bless you, Mr. Johnson.

What good liberals should always do (and, incidentally, what Jesus also taught us to do) is to treat people who disagree with you with respect, always remembering that you yourself are just chock full of flaws and contradictions, and that people, in the end, are always more important than ideas. All this talk about how stupid creationists are may make folks feel good, but it does nothing to advance a progressive agenda. It is at best counter-productive and at worst turns us into the very type of person — elitist, arrogant, intolerant — that the SCLM says we are.

We can believe what we believe without being ugly about it. And right now, we should be doing all we can to expand our numbers and not chase possible allies away. Do consider what Mr. Johnson says about William Jennings Bryan.

by cgeiger on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:16:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Questioning "Modernity", Left and Right (none / 0)

The American Richard Rorty and the Frenchman Jacque Derrida are just two of many well-known left-wing academic thinkers who have become famous for questioning the conceptual 'foundations' of modernity (often called postmodernist thought).

Anyone who studies these influential thinkers can see that their anti-theories are lending influential support to right-wing anti-modernism as strongly as left-wing re-evaluation of the modernist 'rationality'. For instance, it makes perfect sense within their framework to put 'warning labels' on evolution text-books ("This is a THEORY of man").

The German progressive theorist of communication Jurgen Habermas has become famous himself for taking exactly this position - the tremendous influence of 'deconstruction' of the rational foundations of modernist thought by self-styled 'post-modern' liberals is helping to fuel the rise of the right and specifically NEOCONSERVATISM! (the right-wing response to modern nihilism).

It is a paradoxical situation, because both sides have strong points.

Although the academic-ese may seem obscure, the underlying issues are potently relevant to understanding the current cultural division in America.

Some points of departure:

http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/bassr/gaynor/ep.htm

http://www.sirreadalot.org/philosophy/philosophy/rortyR.htm

http://www.geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/derrida_and_lyotard.htm

http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_data/postmodern.html

- Tom McDonald

by mcdonald928 on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 02:58:49 PM EST

Re: The War Against Modernity (none / 0)

Left-wing critique of modernity in a nutshell:

The stance of modern scientific knowledge (reason) assumes assumes an absolute division between subject and object (knower and known), this assumption about how our 'scientific self' is essentially separate from it's objects in the world made sense when humankind were desperate to develop techniques to get nature under control, but is now resulting in a hyper-technical culture of alienation and nihilism.

Just consider the uniform model for the structure of managerial capitalism.

Bottom line: A 'culture' of reason does not result in a utopia for man, but in a rigid systematic technotopia that enslaves humankind by our own rational/technical creations.

If this scenario is the case, then even left-wingers must come to admit that the right-wing neoconservative reactionaries may deserve a hearing for interest in preserving 'irrational' cultural values against the encroachemnt of a 'strictly rational' scientific world.

- Tom McDonald

by mcdonald928 on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:52:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

war against modernity (none / 0)

This campaign has been going on for awhile and it
peaked in 2002. During the election of 2002, control of the Wake County Board of Commissionerss swithched from Democratic Control to Republican. They also gained control of the county school board. After they gained control of the school board, they started to require the teaching of creationism in school. They also restricted the teaching of sexual education to abstinance only in school. This is in a county school board that had been ranked in the top 5 in the country and is located in an area that boasts one of the leading research and technology areas of the country.

This is a prime example of why we need to redefine our message and not our principles. Wake County has it's share of rural voters, but also is an area of the country with one of the highest level of PHD's per capita. We have to win over some the exurban and suburban voters.
We cannot win them back by reacting negatively to everything the conservatives believe in. They have pushed the cultural divide on abortion, gun control, religion and gay rights. We have responded in knee jerk fashion by running to the other extreme in our political party. I do not think we would have to change our principles to win these voters back. We have to have an open and welcoming message that accepts members who do not agree with us on every issue. As General Wesley Clark said on the Al Franken show earlier this week. A leader has to spend more time on receive mode than transmit mode. We will not change the ideology of voters over 29, in the next election cycle or two. Nor should we want to change their ideology, by their very nature ideologues will resist change. We can spend more time listening and change our message to make more voters feel at home voting for our candidates

by ncpatriot04 on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 03:51:56 PM EST

Big mistake about religion here (none / 0)

The war against modernity is not a religious war, but a world view war. It really doesn't matter what the religion is, although we seem to think it does. Let's face it, the Muslim insurgents aren't about being modern, they're about [perpetuating their worldview of top-down, patriarchal, static relations on the rest of humanity. And so ar the so-called Christians. They don't give a hoot about anything except their theocracy.

This means that those who have a future oriented outlook will always be on the other side of the divide. Hard times and fear tend to make people retreat fromt he future and look to more static roles and a more static, paternalistic society. The brand anme doesn't matter. Religion, once again, has nothing to do with it, except as a self-righteous justification for retreat from teh future and from progress, back to the womb of certainty and static (controlled) society.

For a very nice insight into this, read Robert Heilbroner's Visions of the Future. This nice, small text captures the essence of the problems we have with teh fight against modernity.

by Carol on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 04:01:23 PM EST

Re: "I have to wonder, (none / 0)

even beyond conservatives, how well will "reality based" arguments really work in our electorate?"

I asked this very question in our discussion of Philip E. Agre's, What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

As this poll (along with other evidence) suggests, Americans are shunning critical thinking and logic for pseodoscience and mass hysteria. "Reality based" arguements will not work with them, because of their built-in confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance.

We must target those who embrace logic (even those that are religious), and begin teaching critical thinking in our public schools. This is the only way that we can devlop a forward-thinking, progressive population ready to take on the challenges of the future.

by dwckabal on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 04:44:31 PM EST

The Republicans used to be reality-based (none / 0)

but then they decided to win. Remember when the Republicans were warning people about the excesses of the welfare state? Remember the 1980 GOP primary when Bush Sr. was talking about balancing the budget and Reagan's voodoo economics? Those sentiments could never win any votes! They realized that they would be popular with the people if they cut taxes AND raised spending! You know what, it works!

I agree that the opposition should not pour gasoline onto the fire, but I fear that they will. I think some posters on this board have a false view of the virtues of the average man. I would suggest that democracy and human rights were expanded in the hopes that the people would "grow into" their central role in society. They did not.

by Paul Goodman on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 07:58:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It should be noted... (none / 0)

...That this poll was conducted almost 14 years ago. I'm not saying things have changed much, but just wanted to point that out since your story didn't mention it.

Also, wording is a major factor in polling results. If you look at the wording of the evolution question, it says, "In your opinion, how true is this? ...Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..". It could be possible that people just don't know this...? I may be grasping at straws here, but a large section of our population is ill-educated and may not know that this is what evolution really means at its heart. Valiantly trying to save face for the American people...

by asearchforreason on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 04:50:02 PM EST

Why Versus How (none / 0)

The big questions are not fit to be answered by science. Evolution is the process of how life evolves, not an answer to why it would even want to exist in the first place. This enigma could not be deduced through logic and the scientific process. Politics is policy making, period. It doesn't need to mingle with questions outside the realm of science. The theocracy of our fascist enemy is not a design we want, nor need, to emulate.

J.H. Grimson

by JHGrimson on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 12:13:52 AM EST

Consistency of methodology (none / 0)

I think post-modernists are correct in challenging the so-called "objective" foundation of modern science. But that critique means we must also challenge the scientific paradigm in all walks of life - the technologies of production, consumption, etc. The problem with creationism is that nearly all of its adherents claim that scientific principles apply in most areas of their lives, but arbitrarily select certain regimes where scientific principles do not apply. So, the belief in Biblical Creation (7 days is 7 days) requires a rejection of all scientific inquiry into whether that was even possible. It's a waste for Creationists to try to challenge evolution at the margins of empirical validity because success there only leads to a more sophisticated reading of how species change over millions of years, and not to a scientific proof that the Earth was created in 7 days as spelled out in Genesis. In other words, the Creationist position is, by definition, anti-scientific. It is a dogmatic position - every bit as dogmatic as science, I might add - that the Earth was created a certain way BECAUSE it was written in the Bible and the believer swears full allegiance to that text based on non-rational grounds of faith. There is, of course, nothing wrong with swearing full belief to a text, but one cannot ignore the epistomelogical consequences of that act. By denying that science has ANY role to play in establishing the origins of man, creationists must either reject science in all facets of life, or fall into the circular trap of saying that they reject science only when their faith tells them to, which would mean that science isn't really an epistemological principle in the end at all, just a mode of convenience when the Bible doesn't "fill in the blanks".

by elrod on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 01:33:42 AM EST

Two things to remember: (none / 0)

Evolution and Creation are not conflicting "theories" or anything else. Evolution says nothing about creation...other than to assume that it happened...starting with the obvious fact that it occurred, evolution attempts to determine what happened next. Creation "science" concerns how it happened but doesn't go any further. They have nothing to do with each other.
"For a true believer, no proof is necessary. For a non-believer, no proof is sufficient."

by Hex on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:02:19 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.