Tags
Andrew Maxwell, BBC, Christian, Conspiracy, Creationism, Don Prothero, Gerry Coyne, Muslim, road trip, Tim White, YEC, young earth
For those of you who missed this show, you can fix that for a limited time only. The premise consisted of 5 young earth creationists on a televised road trip through the United States. The presenter, Irish comedian Andrew Maxwell, introduced them to a variety of scientists who explained their field and interviewed them afterward to see if the experience had influenced their outlook in any way.
Of course the show suffered from reality tv syndrome: a condition brought on by selection committees that choose participants based on the potential for drama (read “salacious gladiatorial entertainment”). Out of five people with a common belief, one was Muslim, one was a single mum with a gay child. There was bound to be fireworks. By the end the united front of five people had quickly deteriorated into 3 camps, with Jojo and Bronwyn in one, Phil and Sam in another, an Abdul representing his own. It is easy to see why there are so many denominations and I think the BBC set that up to make that very point.
The expert that really struck me was Professor Tim White of Berkeley, who introduced the group to hominid remains from a 1km thick section of Africa: he got one of the creationists to correctly sort them by their features into the same sequence they are found in the rocks, based on their morphology. He got one of the girls so agitated that she more-or-less said that the only reason she couldn’t accept the evidence presented to her was because she would then have to concede that everything else she believes is rubbish.
The other experts made good points: Professor Don Prothero made the case for the Horseshoe Canyon not being caused by the flood because flood water drains off to form straight lines; Professor Gerry Coyne pointed out that wooden boats of ark-like proportions (140m x 23m x 40m) are not made because the resulting craft would be too unstable. Their points were no more or less true than Dr. Tim’s, so why did he yield results where the others yielded hostility and argument?
It may be that Dr. Tim achieved these results by being one of the last people they met – that the young woman’s reaction was like the lid of a pickle jar that has been worked loose by everyone earlier that tried. If this were the case, one might expect Astrophysicist Michael Russell to have yielded the greatest results being the absolute last expert they spoke to, but he did not.
What did Dr. Tim do that the others did not? He greeted the Muslim in the group in Arabic; he presented things in their vernacular, or his rendition of it; he was polite and friendly in the communication of his message and he taught them by helping them discover it for themselves. Compare this to Dr. Gerry Coyne who, when challenged, started a sentence with “any reasonable person who’s not perverse…”
The creationists were reluctant students and perhaps not the easiest people to get along with: who wouldn’t snap when confronted by someone who goes into a dialogue assuming that your life’s passion is part of a centuries-old lie? It takes a very special person to be able to rise above that. The sort-of person who needs to be teaching access courses in under-privileged areas where most teachers would despair of the hostility.
All of the scientists had an interesting perspective on the situation but the way it was delivered made a much bigger impact on whether it was even considered, much less accepted, by the creationists. It may feel like they are being wilfully ignorant. I’m betting they feel the same way about you. It is very tempting to perform for the other audience: the ones who already hold your opinion who may or may not be waiting for you to drop the ball or criticise you for not being tough enough on the “other side”. We’re not here for such self-congratulatory approval, we are here to educate and, no matter how much it may feel like we’re hitting our heads against a brick wall, you’re getting through to someone for better or for worse. These are people who admire patient endurance even when they don’t practice it themselves. Keep enduring their rage and calmly presenting the evidence. The evidence doesn’t need a hot head to fight the good fight, it just needs re-asserting and demonstrating at every turn that it stands alone from agenda.
A wise woman once said: “if you aren’t taking flack you aren’t flying over the target”.
As I said when I texted you last night, the issue for me is twofold:
1. Exceptionally complex issues being presented as though Science is one homogenous entity filled with extremists, and Religion is the other side and equally filled with an homogenous bag of loons.
2. That “Christianity” is yet again presented completely and utterly outside the confines of the only people who have any right to speak for the Christian Faith – Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
It amazes people to hear, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church has produced most of the founders of modern branches of science, has no issue with the theory of evolution, and even has its own deep space observatory run by the beloved Jesuits.
It further amazes people who bother to read (unlike folk like American Baptists and Richard Dawkins), that not only does the Christian belong belong solely to the Roman and Greek Church (the 1.7 BILLION people comprising the largest faith on earth) but that the Roman Church has always, since the very beginning, and at all times condemned the notion of Biblical Fundamentalism. To Catholics of Roman or Greek persuasion, the Bible is **men writing about God**, NOT God writing about men.
What made me particularly irate in watching this drivel was that it totally ignored the likes of Stephen Gould and many many others (not to mention Newton and Einstein) who see a seamless interaction between the Infinite and the Finite; who are intelligent enough to see that there can be a creator without the need to make up some self-serving nonsense about Science v. Religion…as though it were some vast football match between Aristotle, Dawkins, Russell, Origen, Pope Urban IV, and Thomas Aquinas.
This kind of thing (superbly presented in Dawkins’ books and general demeanour) is beneath adult contemplation and is to be reserved for light brains with little understanding of creation beyond the fact that when they yawn they’re prone to forgetting their own name.
The tragic part, really, is that Andrew Maxwell, the presenter of the show, is clearly an intelligent and generous-natured person with a well-rounded personality. Had he even remotely bothered to look into the profound history of interaction between faith and science he could have nailed those creationist idiots with their own arguments.
The simplest of which is the following:
The Christian Bible belongs to the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church. If you want to talk about Jesus riding into town on a dinosaur then get your own Book and stop stealing the one belonged to the Church. American fundamentalist protestantism has polluted America with an anti-thought agenda which is directly descended from German heretic Luther’s decision to rip up the Bible, reword bits he didn’t like, and destroy the bits that plainly disagreed with him. The basic premise is very simple:
Man Wrote the Bible. It was never supposed to be a Filed Manual For Discussing Iguanadons or gay people or anything else, frankly.
And to those who wish to read it for themselves, go here and see what the Only Faith Jesus Ever Founded has to say about Biblical Fundamentalism: (Point I. F – “Fundamentalist Interpretation”)
http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp-FullText.htm#Sec1
So, dear fundamentalist “young earth” creationist types….please get your own book and stop using mine.
NB – “Christian belong belong solely” should read “Christian Bible belong solely…” &C
For those too lazy to click the link to read what the actual creators and owners of the Christian Bible (The Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Church) have to say about fundamentalist anti-thought protestant fundamentalists, herewith I hereby print point F of section one of the Roman Catholic Church’s condemnation of fundamentalism by people who steal *our* book and rip it to pieces in order to promote idiotic tendencies outside the sanctioned mainstream of western Christian philosophy, science, and theology:
From “Interpretation of the Bible In the Church”, By: The Catholic Church of Rome and Greece (Sole Authors and Owners of the Christian Scriptures Since The Day They Were Written).
My favourite line is the reference, at the end, to “intellectual suicide” – a perfect description of protestant fundamentalism.
Section I, Point F: Fundamentalism and Science:
“Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.
The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.
The actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined “five points of fundamentalism”: the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally “literalist,” in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.
Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.
The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.
Fundamentalism also places undue stress upon the inerrancy of certain details in the biblical texts, especially in what concerns historical events or supposedly scientific truth. It often historicizes material which from the start never claimed to be historical. It considers historical everything that is reported or recounted with verbs in the past tense, failing to take the necessary account of the possibility of symbolic or figurative meaning.
Fundamentalism often shows a tendency to ignore or to deny the problems presented by the biblical text in its original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek form. It is often narrowly bound to one fixed translation, whether old or present-day. By the same token it fails to take account of the “rereadings” (relectures) of certain texts which are found within the Bible itself.
In what concerns the Gospels, fundamentalism does not take into account the development of the Gospel tradition, but naively confuses the final stage of this tradition (what the evangelists have written) with the initial (the words and deeds of the historical Jesus). At the same time fundamentalism neglects an important fact: The way in which the first Christian communities themselves understood the impact produced by Jesus of Nazareth and his message. But it is precisely there that we find a witness to the apostolic origin of the Christian faith and its direct expression. Fundamentalism thus misrepresents the call voiced by the Gospel itself.
Fundamentalism likewise tends to adopt very narrow points of view. It accepts the literal reality of an ancient, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this blocks any dialogue with a broader way of seeing the relationship between culture and faith. Its relying upon a non-critical reading of certain texts of the Bible serves to reinforce political ideas and social attitudes that are marked by prejudices–racism, for example–quite contrary to the Christian Gospel.
Finally, in its attachment to the principle “Scripture alone,” fundamentalism separates the interpretation of the Bible from the tradition, which, guided by the Spirit, has authentically developed in union with Scripture in the heart of the community of faith. It fails to realize that the New Testament took form within the Christian church and that it is the Holy Scripture of this church, the existence of which preceded the composition of the texts. Because of this, fundamentalism is often anti-church, it considers of little importance the creeds, the doctrines and liturgical practices which have become part of church tradition, as well as the teaching function of the church itself. It presents itself as a form of private interpretation which does not acknowledge that the church is founded on the Bible and draws its life and inspiration from Scripture.
The fundamentalist approach is dangerous, for it is attractive to people who look to the Bible for ready answers to the problems of life. It can deceive these people, offering them interpretations that are pious but illusory, instead of telling them that the Bible does not necessarily contain an immediate answer to each and every problem. Without saying as much in so many words, fundamentalism actually invites people to a kind of intellectual suicide. It injects into life a false certitude, for it unwittingly confuses the divine substance of the biblical message with what are in fact its human limitations.”
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.