The REAL issue behind creationism and evolution

[freedom_to_read]

... it's not God per se; it's the Aristotelian ladder. The biblical view of Creation, as espoused in Gen. 1:1-2:4 reserves the pride of place for humankind. Man ('enosh/adaam) is commanded to go out and subdue the world.

In the traditional Christian (and for that matter Jewish and Muslim -- let's just call it the monotheistic tradition) cosmology, humans occupy a special place, one step down from the angels, but above all other creatures on the earth.

One of the major "prooftexts" for this anthropology is of course the Tanakh (or as Christians call it "The Old Testament"):

Gen. 1:28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 1:29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 1:30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, every green herb for food.' And it was so.

The idea(s) behind evolution and natural selection do not speak one way or another to the existence of God. As a matter of fact, science by its very definition can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a divine intelligence. The existence or non-existence of God is something that must be accepted as an article of faith by each of us. However, what the theory of evolution DOES do -- and what has I believe been stuck in the craw of conservative Christians since Darwin -- is remove mankind from the center of the natural world. The world did not come into existence so that humans could rule it. Humans are simply one among millions of successful species.

If this is accepted, then we must accept a very different view of our role in the natural world. Suddenly rather than rulers, or even in a more positive sense, caretakers of the world, we see ourselves as a highly developed "weed" that has taken root in almost every habitat imaginable and threatened or destroyed the local inhabitants, and contributed to a considerable reduction of global biodiversity.

I for one do not believe that the monotheist tradition is completely incompatible with this view. BUT it does require a radical reimagination of the relationship between humans, God, and the natural world. Conservatives and reactionaries of all stripes would rather just push the threat of change to the margins.

[unblock]

1. this is not the case

i know plenty of people who believe that god created man by means of evolution and that the entire goal of this evolution was to create man as the top species in the world, distinct from and superior to all the others.

not inconsistent at all.

[Selwynn]

9. I think it is the case for many people, though I too know ...

..the kinds of people you gave examples of.

[klook]

14. Stephen Jay Gould said it best

From an interview on PBS:

STEPHEN JAY GOULD, Author, Full House: The conventional view is more a result of what western culture makes us want to think and what actually happened in the history of life. Darwin’s theory in natural selection doesn’t make any reference to any notion of progress, or development or increasing complexity. It’s only a theory about adaptation to changing environments. There are as many ways to adapt to local environments by becoming less complex is by getting more complex, but for reasons of our history and our biases and our preferences, we very much want to spin doctor that theory and make it appear as though the history of life is a predictable rise to increasing complexity and progress I think so that we can validate ourselves as the crown of creation.

[ewagner]

2. Subtle distinction too

that Man has "dominion" over the earth as opposed to being a "steward" of the earth.....

[Vincardog]

6. Dominion is what the fundies are after. They want to use up the earth and

bring on rapture. I think they should drink the cool aid and leave the rest of us to suffer on without them.

[indigobusiness]

13. Exactly. Forgotten is the implicit "RESPONSIBILITY".

Will somebody please bang the gong? For crying out loud, who the fuck are we, anyway? Crown of Creation, my ass.

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. i like what you said about the weed

that's a great point - thanks for posting

[immoderate]

4. Do you think the fundies think this deeply?

Bosh!

--IMM

[indigobusiness]

7. That's the real issue: Shallow, superficial, lazy...feelgoodism.

Is there an acceptable word for it?

[damntexdem]

18. Most just swallow the nonsense; ...

but there is big money that has bought smart people to generate and propagate it.

[kayell]

24. No, but it's a good analysis of what they mean by their usual response

to discussion of evolution.

"I ain't descended from no monkey!" Said while leaning forward, with a snarl and fists bunched at sides. Kind of like this:

[freedom_to_read]

26. Sure, not explicitly

I admit I am interpreting their response, trying to find the underlying reasons for it. I am provided an "etic" (external) explanation, not an "emic" (internal) one.

[immoderate]

31. They need the book of rules.

God is secondary. They want a clear, and final arbiter of all discussion. Which, by the way, they don't really read. It's all dished out.

Science changes, so that's no good.

They don't even care that the "perfect being" is neurotic.

--IMM

[jjmalonejr]

5. Evolution need not threaten our "special place"

Man's ability to reason and his ability to understand the difference between good and evil (even when his animal nature urges him towards behavior that we would deem evil), DOES distinguish us from animals.

We may have come from the same place as animals, but we are indeed unique in these ways.

Belief in science need not replace belief in God or belief in the uniqueness of man. Science doesn't answer these questions, they are simply matters of faith.

What is the big deal?

[gWbush is Mabus]

8. the big deal is that religion/ republicansim today

is bringing us back to these base animal instincts

dumbing us down so we can't tell the difference between good and evil anymore

[sui generis]

10. I disagree on the pretext of evil being animal nature

animals aren't evil - that's a purely human construct.

Animals, particularly mammals, don't kill when they're not hungry, and don't kill for sport. They don't torture other animals for the sake of torture (even a cat is "practicing" hunting when they toy with prey, not being evil).

Of course, "evil" is relative. Even Mother Theresa was evil if you asked the cows and chickens she ate.

[indigobusiness]

16. Evolution ensures, sanctifies and ratifies our "special place".

God, etc is mere conceptualizing what IS in manageable human context.

There is no conflict between Science and Religion. Only between the misunderstanding of Science and Religion.

[Imperialism Inc.]

22. I'm not so sure about that.

Evolution doesn't claim we are any end result or that getting to us is what evolution is for.
In fact evolution claims quite the opposite. We are no better or worse than any other animal alive today or any that have existed in the past. We are the product of natural selection acting on random mutations. We are well adapted to a specific environment and if that environment were different we would be too. We are not likely to last forever and may indeed die off some day. Not to be replaced by something "better" in an absolute sense but merely something better adpated to the environment that will exist in the future.

[indigobusiness]

29. Evolution makes no claim about anything.

It is merely a mechanism within the natural engine.

[indigobusiness]

33. Evolution ultimately serves a self-realizing system.

Of which, we are the eyes and analyst.

[Viking12]

36. You're imposing teleological ends on evolution

where no such end exists in the science.

But you sem to retreat from that position in your later posts, so now I am confused on your position. Clarification please? What do you mean by, "Evolution ensures, sanctifies and ratifies our "special place"."

[indigobusiness]

38. If we do indeed occupy a special place

it has been achieved by virtue of evolution.

[freedom_to_read]

27. That is certainly one possible angle

... that our consciousness, and our conscience, is a "godlike" spark that separates us from the rest of the natural world. That brings us closer to the 2nd creation account in Genesis, where God forms Adam out of clay and blows his spirit (nefesh) into the vessel, rendering it human.

I'm not so certain, however, that human consciousness is something truly "unique" in the world, or just a matter of degree. Certainly animals possess varying degrees of self-awareness.

Furthermore, I can see some good arguments for human consciousness as an evolutionary adaptation, not something granted by God.

Myself, I'm not sure.

[jjmalonejr]

32. Fair enough

You may be right about human consciousness, but these are still philosophical considerations, not scientific ones.

My point was that evolution and a belief in the "specialness" of mankind are not mutually exclusive.

[freedom_to_read]

35. of course they are not mutually exclusive

"Unique" is a difficult word. When you think about it, every species is "unique" (that's what makes it a species).

My point is NOT that a belief in evolution necessarily precludes a belief in humankind as a special species. But as I said in my original post (perhaps not clearly enough, I'll admit) the issue is that the theory of evolution does not provide a "narrative" that places humanity at the center of the natural world.

We can still assert that humanity is a special case, even while holding that humanity evolved from earlier forms through a process of natural selection. Maybe rather than focusing on consciousness which, as you say, bring philosophical difficulties, the distinction between humans and other species is to be located in the realm of culture. Highly-developed language, technology (above chimp-manufactured anthill sticks): humans have developed extra-somatically in way that no other species has managed to.

However we want to cut it, the "scientific" view will still emphasize the continuity between humans and other species; the biblical view emphasizes the disjunction.

I am not, to be clear, trying to advocate against a belief in God, or even for that matter against a belief in God that takes the Bible seriously. I AM trying to argue against a belief in God that asks us to stop asking questions about ourselves and the world around us, and a belief that encourages us to ignore the fact that our fate is intimately tied up with the fate of the rest of the natural world.

[jjmalonejr]

43. We are on the same page

My original response to your post was intended to be additive, not a refutation of the points you were making.

I know many Christians, and I understand how painful it may be to have their faith challenged by science. What I try to demonstrate to them is that faith and science need not be in conflict.

[indigobusiness]

40. It seems to me you are onto something...

by I can't see philosophy existing entirely outside of science, or science existing entirely outside of philosophy.

[indigobusiness]

42. Wait. Why couldn't it be granted by God

via evolutionary adaptation?

[bloom]

11. People who believe the Bible is literal make this claim:

Danger No. 10 - Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:

1.

Man is God's purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).
2.

Man is the purpose of God's plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).
3.

Man is the purpose of the mission of God's Son (1 John 4: 9).
4.

We are the purpose of God's inheritance (Titus 3: 7).
5.

Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).


http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp


---

I think it's too bad that they can't let go of this. People might be more gentle with the world if they didn't think it was theirs to ruin.

But it messes with their dream of heaven, also...

[IrateCitizen]

12. It's also the "loose thread in the tapestry"...

Fundamentalist Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Therefore, it is not simply truthful, but the ULTIMATE truth. There is no error in the Bible, in their eyes.

If they accept even the possibility of evolution, then it throws doubt on to all of their other beliefs. Now, many Christians may look at the Genesis story as a parable for God actually creating the universe, being that "something" that caused the big bang. But that's not a literal interpretation of the Bible. Unless the world was created by God in 6 days, unless all people descended from Adam & Eve, unless ALL of it is completely true, then a Fundie's entire universe will collapse.

[klook]

25. God approves of virgins as war booty

according to Numbers 31:17-35. What do the Biblical literalists have to say about that, I wonder?

[indigobusiness]

41. God ain't all bad.

[SaintAnne]

15. religion vs science?

I wonder if religion and science need to be in constant battle with each other. I don't think they do. We can use science to figure out HOW to solve problems. Then we can use religion to figure out WHY we should solve problems. In other words, science solves the problem, religion motivates us.
I do worry about people like ann coulter, who believe the world was given to humans and god said "take it, rape it, it's yours." why are these people against nature and life, (in a sense). They care nothing for the future. I fear they think that the world is going to end (Revelation), and I wish someone would tell them that not everyone thinks like them. That some of us love the world, and some of us know that god loves the world too.

[indigobusiness]

21. It's like rationalizing Santa Claus when you have no chimney...

We'll work this out, somehow, to pacify the children.

[Bridget Burke]

30. Quite a few people can handle religion and science.

They can conceptualize a Creator large enough for this amazing universe & don't think the Bible is literally true. Most "religious" schools (Notre Dame, Baylor, etc.) have science departments.

But a sad few worship a low-rent, cut-rate godlet who needs their "help" in changing the world.

[Imperialism Inc.]

17. Ecclesiastes 3:19

http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/3-19.htm

For that which happens to the sons of men happens to animals. Even one thing happens to them. As the one dies, so the other dies. Yes, they have all one breath; and man has no advantage over the animals: for all is vanity. WEB

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; and man hath no preeminence above the beasts: for all is vanity. ASV

Because the fate of the sons of men and the fate of the beasts is the same. As is the death of one so is the death of the other, and all have one spirit. Man is not higher than the beasts; because all is to no purpose. BBE

For what befalleth the children of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other, and they have all one breath; and man hath no pre-eminence above the beast: for all is vanity. DBY

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. KJV

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yes, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity. WBS

For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that man hath no pre-eminence above a beast; for all is vanity. JPS

For an event 'is to' the sons of man, and an event 'is to' the beasts, even one event 'is' to them; as the death of this, so 'is' the death of that; and one spirit 'is' to all, and the advantage of man above the beast is nothing, for the whole 'is' vanity. YLT

[freedom_to_read]

28. good ol Qoheleth

ever a thorn in the side of the establishment!

of course he's not speaking to the issue of human dominion here, just the fact that humans are, like all creatures, mortal.

[indigobusiness]

34. I would argue the opposite. Statements like "they have all one breath..."

"...they have all one breath; and man has no advantage over the animals"

would seem to imply an interconnectedness, and thus an immortal quality.

[mike_c]

19. they hated Copernicus, too, for much the same reason....

And regarding "Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food"-- the overwhelming majority of plant tissues on Earth are toxic to humans. Most of those "herbs", "fruits", and "seeds" will make us very, very ill. God does have a sense of humor after all. Of course, that toxicity might just be the result of millions of years of natural selection by herbivores-- or maybe God lied about it. Take your pick....

[bloom]

20. I think everything changed

when Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden.

It seems like a fable to explain why God would have created a world that was so difficult to live in. (HE didn't - Blame it on the Women).

[indigobusiness]

23. Myths and Fables are different animals.

Mythology holds basic truths. Fables teach lessons of ethics and morality.

[BonjourUSA]

37. This discussion seems to be surrealistic for us !

I don't understand anything.

[indigobusiness]

39. What's not to like about that?

Look where pretending to understand has gotten us?