Friday, December 17, 2004
Out of the Mouths of Babes
When I was a kid, I never believed in the literal six-day creation of the world, but I wasn't willing (at that age, anyhow) to cut God out of the picture entirely. So at some point during a discussion of the creation (either in Sunday school or at home, I forget which), I asked why couldn't God have created the world slowly, over millions of years, through the processes taught to us in science class about the ways that life began. Nobody ever told me it was impossible. Well, it turns out that there is a school of scientific/religious thought that accepts this very premise: It's called theistic evolution. And it is, as the linked article says, "the only form of creationism which is 100% fully consistent with modern science."
The advantages of theistic evolution for putting God back into the creation story seem pretty obvious. It's more sophisticated than intelligent design, the current theory-of-choice among those who think no science class should come without a sermon. ID merely dresses up old creationist tenets in more educated language. Sooner or later, if you're going to buy ID, you will be asked to buy the off-the-charts silly idea that the Hebrew God created the Earth 6,000 years ago. Theistic evolution doesn't require you to sign on to the specifics of the Old Testament Judeo-Christian philosophical model at all if you don't want to. And it's close to the model of God as America's deistic Founders saw him--as a prime mover or first cause. So as creationist models go, it's as scientifically, politically, and historically correct as such models are likely to get.
But that's the very fact that makes theistic evolution less useful to today's Christian crusaders than intelligent design. Theistic evolution doesn't further a specific flavor of religious dogma. And because its time scales are in the millions of years, its god is most likely uninterested in daily intervention in people's lives. He's unlikely to be the activist GOP god, opposed to Democrats and Desperate Housewives. As such, he's not much use in bludgeoning political opponents, or in forcing fundie religion on other people's kids--which is what the creation-versus-evolution debate ultimately shakes down to.
Personally, I don't need to know why the Earth was created, and who or what is responsible--I've got enough to worry about now that I'm here. But it seems to me that theists are missing a bet by ignoring the attractiveness of theistic evolution--especially if even hellbound atheist pukes can find nice things to say about it.
More Quotes of the Day: Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles Times, writing about Martin Feldstein, the economist responsible for Bush's tax policy: "Imagine if one man had designed the Titanic and the Hindenburg, and then was put in charge of the space program."
Bill Moyers, who signs off from PBS tonight, accepting an award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard recently:
When I was a kid, I never believed in the literal six-day creation of the world, but I wasn't willing (at that age, anyhow) to cut God out of the picture entirely. So at some point during a discussion of the creation (either in Sunday school or at home, I forget which), I asked why couldn't God have created the world slowly, over millions of years, through the processes taught to us in science class about the ways that life began. Nobody ever told me it was impossible. Well, it turns out that there is a school of scientific/religious thought that accepts this very premise: It's called theistic evolution. And it is, as the linked article says, "the only form of creationism which is 100% fully consistent with modern science."
The advantages of theistic evolution for putting God back into the creation story seem pretty obvious. It's more sophisticated than intelligent design, the current theory-of-choice among those who think no science class should come without a sermon. ID merely dresses up old creationist tenets in more educated language. Sooner or later, if you're going to buy ID, you will be asked to buy the off-the-charts silly idea that the Hebrew God created the Earth 6,000 years ago. Theistic evolution doesn't require you to sign on to the specifics of the Old Testament Judeo-Christian philosophical model at all if you don't want to. And it's close to the model of God as America's deistic Founders saw him--as a prime mover or first cause. So as creationist models go, it's as scientifically, politically, and historically correct as such models are likely to get.
But that's the very fact that makes theistic evolution less useful to today's Christian crusaders than intelligent design. Theistic evolution doesn't further a specific flavor of religious dogma. And because its time scales are in the millions of years, its god is most likely uninterested in daily intervention in people's lives. He's unlikely to be the activist GOP god, opposed to Democrats and Desperate Housewives. As such, he's not much use in bludgeoning political opponents, or in forcing fundie religion on other people's kids--which is what the creation-versus-evolution debate ultimately shakes down to.
Personally, I don't need to know why the Earth was created, and who or what is responsible--I've got enough to worry about now that I'm here. But it seems to me that theists are missing a bet by ignoring the attractiveness of theistic evolution--especially if even hellbound atheist pukes can find nice things to say about it.
More Quotes of the Day: Jonathan Chait in the Los Angeles Times, writing about Martin Feldstein, the economist responsible for Bush's tax policy: "Imagine if one man had designed the Titanic and the Hindenburg, and then was put in charge of the space program."
Bill Moyers, who signs off from PBS tonight, accepting an award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard recently:
One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington. Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a world view despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.Hard to pick which one's better.
