No announcements found.No announcements found.No announcements found.No announcements found.Stanley Hauerwas
The History of Creationism and what it can tell us about science and faith
Angus McLeay
Introduction
On January 27, 2006 in the NSW snowy river town of
Tumut, English backpacker Alex York and Scottish holidaymaker Rudi Boa
went to the local pub for a drink. Rudi, his girlfriend Gillian, and
Alex were neighbours at the local caravan park, and were becoming
friends. Rudi and Alex also both happened to be biomedical students.
Over drinks that night at the pub a sharp argument erupted between Rudi
and Alex. They calmed down but later that night a confrontation ensued
at the caravan park. It turned deadly when York produced a knife. Alex
York was later sentenced to five years for manslaughter. Their
disagreement? Creation versus evolution.
This tragic incident is a real-world illustration of
what historians refer to as the ‘warfare metaphor’ describing the
encounter between religion and modern science. The warfare metaphor
pervades the public discussion, such as through the bestsellers of
Richard Dawkins or resulting from legal battles over the teaching of
evolution in schools in the United States. In recent times the
hostilities have been growing more intense because the movement known
as ‘creationism’ is as vibrant as ever.
It is simply not the case that belief in a Creator disqualifies one’s belief in evolution, let alone in science
A 1991 Gallup Poll on creationist beliefs reported that 47 % of Americans believed ‘God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years’. In 2005 a similar poll reported that two thirds declared ‘creationism’ definitely or probably true. Creationism’s resurgence is illustrated in the story of one of chief contemporary protagonists, an Australian named Ken Ham. In 1987 Ham, a former high school teacher, moved from Queensland to southern California to join a creationist lobby group called Creation Science Foundation (CSF). Like other creationist groups today, CSF argued that a literal interpretation of the bible on life’s origin is also scientifically valid. Based on the first chapter of Genesis, for example, the earth is viewed as six to ten thousand years old; the major ‘kinds’ (by ‘kind’ creationists either mean species or genus) of life are believed to be created in their present form in a six day period. Fossils of extinct species and geological formations such as the Grand Canyon are said to be results of a catastrophic global flood as pictured in chapters 8-10 of Genesis. This depiction of creationism is actually one of several varieties of the movement. For a fuller, but by no means complete, outline of the versions of creationism, refer to the table at the end of the article.
Ken Ham later formed his own creationist organisation, Answers in Genesis (AiG). The group is thriving, with branches in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the UK, Japan and South Africa. It distributes literature in at least 19 languages. But its greatest achievement came on the 27th of May, 2007. On that day in Petersburg, Kentucky, Ham cut the ribbon to open the largest monument to creationism ever seen, the US$27 million dollar Creation Museum. The Museum is one of the largest privately funded science museums in the world. Within five months of opening, more than 250,000 people had been through its doors.
On the eve of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (Origin, published 1859), creationism has developed a significant profile and grassroots support around the world. Creationism also typifies what for many is a stark choice between those ‘of faith’ and those ‘of science’. However the public debate on creationism is beset by parodies and pigeon-holing. The history of creationism shows that the diversity of scientific views of even highly conservative Christians belies popular stereotypes. It is simply not the case that belief in a Creator disqualifies one’s belief in evolution, let alone in science. Indeed the history of creationism shows how the fields of faith and science must relate and talk to each other as they wrestle with the volatile question of life’s origin.
While mainstream science has generally tended to ignore creationism, recently that has changed. In 2006 the academies of science of nearly 70 countries released a joint statement in support of evolution and criticizing creationism and a related movement known as ‘Intelligent Design’ (more on that below). The statement read in part:
We the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have
learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses
taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence,
data and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on
Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not
testable by science.
Leading evolution critic, Phillip Johnson, would view this statement as a prime example of scientists ‘refusing’ to see evidence of design in nature. He argues in his influential 1991 book, Darwin on Trial, that scientists’ ideological belief in ‘naturalism’ (ie. natural forces alone explaining life) prevents them from doing legitimate science. In a similar spirit, but from the opposite side, leading evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins would view the statement as a denunciation of religion, which he describes as ideology believed without evidence. Surprisingly there is striking agreement between the most vehement opponents on both sides of creationism: Either science is wrong (at least in the form practiced by most scientists). Or religion is. But the simple and simplistic choice is not borne out in the history of creationism.
Page 1|2|3|4|5
Comment