Scott W Roby writes: Seriously, I get the impression that both sides in this debate are di
Scott W Roby writes:
>Seriously, I get the impression that both sides in this
>debate are discussing only ONE theory -- the pros and
>cons of the theory of evolution. Is the creation theory
>so unworthy of discussion?
There is no theory of creation! That is, there is
no elaboration of the effects of Creation in the real world.
There is only the assertion that things were created and a
bunch of other ad hoc assertions why evolution didn't happen
and that what we see happened all at once. Why is this?
The reason is, I think, that Creation has no other
use than to justify the belief that "the moral authority of
the Bible," or other scripture used in an authoritarian
fashion, is trancendant, that is, that it is beyond the
scrutany of normal analysis and examination. As such, the
history of the earth has nothing to do with the goal of
Creationists, except to remove the nasty thorn of Evolution
from their beliefs. Evolution is despised, not on rational
scientific or even sound theological grounds, but because
it calls into question the whole scheme of authoritarian
religion, Christianity based on unquestioned Biblical
authority, by simply providing an alternative story of
how life, ourselves, and our social nature, including
moral codes came to be.
>Would Bob Bales or some other creationalist please outline
>the theory of creation (what specific processes are
>hypothesized, what specific observations prompted these
>hypotheses, what specific predictions have been made,
>which predictions have been successfully tested, etc.)?
Bales, and the like, will assert that they have
been providing such "evidance" all along. In fact, they
have at best only raised negatives about evolution which
leave the creation alternative by default. What else is
there? They dare not construct a positive argument for
Creation for that would reveal the religious agenda of the
whole enterprize, and they want you to believe that they
have a legitimate science, in creationism, which is
untainted by what they happen to believe about religion.
They are lying and don't believe this. Their predictions
are about as good as some shaman in a primative culture
asserting that the drought eneded because the rain god
answered his prayers. There is an alternative explaination.
The whole point is that the Creationists want you to believe
that there is no alternative to their belief, when there is.
>I think it would make for an interesting change in
>reading. Thank you.
But it has already happened. Nothing will change
here until the mythology at stake behind Creationism is
divulged, made into tangable assertions. I have tried
to do this in the past. Most of the apologists for creationism
in this group will not own up to them, though.
>Oh yes, since the theory of evolution can be outlined
>without reference to other theories, I assume that the
>theory of creation can be outlined and discussed without
>reference to evolution. (I.E., I think it would be
>refreshing to see pro-creation arguments that DO NOT
>depend on anti-evolution arguments.)
Go read Genesis, or any other Creation myth. Go study Mythology.
Go read Campbell's "Masks of God". Ask yourself what is at
stake in having people accept a 4,000 year old cosmology as
literal? Why should a 20th century Russian invent this
Rube Goldburg scheme of celestial billiards just to make
the mythical symbols of the Old Testement look like
reasonable natural events? The reason is that we have confused
the message with the messenger. Lots of people think that to
say that the Bible is a myth means that none of it can be
accepted or used, and the protectors of this tradition overreact
not because they are interested in theories of how we got here
but because they have already invested the whole justification
of what they believe in the literal meaning of the myth. They
are spiritually and intellectually impoverished, and dead
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank