On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 09:33:51 -0600, Susan Brassfield wrote:
[...]
>>SB>:-) I've frequently heard views like that expressed on talk.origins. It's
>>>the general consensus that if all the evidence for creationism was presented
>>>it would take up about an hour or so (How long does it take to read Genesis
>>>I and II?) and then you'd be free to present the evidence for evolution for
>>>the rest of the year.
>AC>>Interesting. I wonder, then why there is so much resistence to this idea
>>from evolutionists.
SB>well, it might have something to do with the fact that it would amount to
>teaching Christian (but not Zuni or Hindu or ancient Greek) mythology in a
>science class.
Susan is here getting mixed up with creation as Special Revelation (ie. as
taught in the Bible) and creation as General Revelation (ie. as a philosophical
theistic general theory of creation based on inferences from nature).
In a multi-cultural, secular society it would probably not be possible, or
even desirable, to teach the Judeo-Christian doctrine of creation in public
schools, except maybe to briefly touch on it compared to other creation stories
(eg. Hindu, etc).
But it certainly would be possible to teach creation as *philosophical theism*,
compared with its counterpart philosophical materialism-naturalism, which
underlies the modern Neo-Darwinist theory of evolution. There are some
very strong philosophical arguments available to theists these days, especially
since the discovery of the Big Bang and the fantastic degree of fine-
tunedness of the universe.
I think this is what the leading evolutionists are *really* afraid of. They
know that if they allowed creation to be taught in schools, but tried to
limit it to the literalist interpretation of Genesis 1-2 (as opposed to the
three or four other systems of interpretation), they would not be able to
prevent other, broader models of creation from gaining a hearing.
Considering that the majority of the population of the USA are already
philosophical theists of one sort or another, despite decades of materialist-
naturalist indoctrination in the name of evolution, the evolutionists know
that if creation as philosophical theism was ever allowed on the table for
serious discussion, their own materialist-naturalist creation stories wouldn't
stand a chance!
This is why the materialist-naturalists are so panicky about the ID
movement. It is basing its case on philosophical theism, in particular the
argument from design, not on Genesis.
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Today, our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a
simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly
unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the
weaknesses of the interpretations and extrapolations that theoreticians put
forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes
unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their
sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the
inadequacies and the falsity of their beliefs." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of
Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation",
Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p8)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------