[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

...3. What is at issue here is not "religion" but "creationism," which is a narrower subset of belief. Evolution and creationism are only at odds where creationism seeks to make predictions about the empirical universe that turn out to be wrong. This is an important point. If "creationism" made correct predictions, or if it were scientific, there would be no conflict--it would merely cause a reconsideration of existing paradigms to account for the novel data. The conflict only arises because people insist on believing this stuff in spite of the fact that the evidence contradicts them...

Perhaps to put a finer point on this—at least in a North American and a Western context—Creationism is not, and never was, about "science". Creationism is not, and never was, ultimately concerned with knowing about biology, abiogenesis, or even cosmology.

Creationism is about the Bible.

Virtually every so-called "creation scientist" is wholly and solely committed to manipulating scientific training, method and language in an effort to provide an apologetic for the Bible. Six-day, young earth creationism is but the most extreme example of how Christian apologetics operate, and maybe it is because most of those engaged in such discussions and debates present their ideas with a greater degree of subtlety that we ought to be deeply concerned.

By way of example, I am presently reviewing a new book that is being used in confessional universities and colleges around the country to teach concepts of a "Christian worldview" Here is a sampling from a chapter outlining the authors' vision of European history entitled "The Western Story: The Growth of Modernity":

"Science has played a central role in the development of the Western worldview that [Lesslie] Newbigen refers to as the 'modern scientific world-view.' Science (both as a body of knowledge and as a methodology by which to gain knowledge) is a powerful instrument, a good gift from God that can be directed according to either a Christian or a humanist vision of life..."

The authors define "humanism" rather arbitrarily as "confessional humanism": "A belief system in which human beings have replaced God as Creator, Ruler, and Savior". It seems that the "goal" for every humanist is material prosperity and comfort, which they might achieve through advances in science and technology, or through the conquest or "domination" of nature. The "Christian" vision or "worldview" is loosely defined according to a very narrow reading of the "Bible" as a single, structured and organized narrative. The basic premise is that God created everything, and it was good. He installed humankind as caretakers of this "good creation", but that humankind was corrupted by sin (It is never explicitly stated, but it seems that the authors actually believe that this "sin" was actually the result of eating an actual "fruit" from the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". One of the authors teaches at the same school I do, and in his classes jokes that he believes it was a mango). This "sin" resulted in a distortion of the good creation, and it is the ultimate goal of the creator to restore it. It is the task of Christendom and the "Church" to demonstrate what the restoration looks like: the Kingdom of God in which there is perfect justice, peace, intellectual, physical and spiritual well-being.

The authors rarely (if ever) speak specifically about science, or scientific breakthroughs and discoveries. They never define science, nor do they seem to have a firm grasp on what science is, yet it is somehow to remain in subordination to this view of the world. Consider what they write in the following:

"Both the Christian worldview and its humanist offspring in the Renaissance contributed views that would serve to remove medieval obstacles to the advancement of science. In biblical perspective, human beings are creatures uniquely created by God to explore and care for the good creation, and science can provide the means to do both well. In the humanist vision, the concept of stewardship can become skewed so that it seems the right of autonomous humankind to dominate and exploit the creation for its own social purposes. Science in the Western world of the Renaissance (and after) offered both the tools and the tradition by which humanity could come to understand the laws of nature. With such knowledge would come remarkable power, as nature itself could be harnessed to do the bidding of humankind. Thus the new science had the potential to advance either Christian stewardship or the confessional humanist domination of nature."

As if "Christian stewardship" and the "confessional humanist domination of nature" were the only two prevailing ideologies worth discussion. The authors have maintained the neutrality of "science" (despite the fact that they never attempt to define what it is), but have implied that unless proponents are firmly grounded in what they construe as "the Christian worldview" (again, as if there was only one!), this thing called "science" can be very dangerous and meet with disastrous results.

Humanism—and their employment of science and technology to "acheive" utopian sort of human autonomy—bears the brunt of blame for all the ills of the present world: poverty, environmental degradation, proliferation of weapons, psychological problems, and social and ecomonic problems. But in their estimation:

"It could have been different. Science could have equipped humankind for their proper role of caring for and developing the creation in a stewardly way. How, then, did science become so thoroughly co-opted by confessional humanism?"

The authors answer this question by blaming the Church for first, rejecting the "new science" of the Renaissance period, and second, by the splintering that resulted from the Protestant Reformation.

I'm about half finished the book, but I have so far noticed a couple of very disturbing trends: First, is an inordinate deification of the Bible and what the authors call the "biblical story." The basic premise of the book seems to be Bible = good / "pagan" "confessional" humanism = bad. Second, the authors appear to have constructed a straw-man to argue for this very narrow Christian worldview in their presentation of "confessional humanism." The Renaissance and the Enlightenment are rewritten as deplorable periods of human history which severely undermined their unilateral (and wrong) picture of "Christianity". They continue to speak about the religious and spiritual connotations of "humanism", but never offer any definition of religion, nor do they describe why humanism is religious outside of the fact that humanists are guided by a comprehensive ideology. Fourth, they have presented science and reason as value-laden endeavors. Here is where I find the greatest problem with the book: by never defining "science" or "religion", and by never writing explicitly about how science has been corrupted, or about how humanism is religious, they are attempting to manipulate their audience into seeing these things as interchangable. "Science" and "reason" are descibed as a part of "God's good creation", much in the same way as a tree or an individual culture might be considered as part of the creation. In so doing they have relegated EVERYTHING that is outside of their "biblical worldview" of God as an equal partner in the created order; science; religion; apples; marriage; automobiles; family; money; government; sex; technology are somehow all neutral. They obtain value, however, in how they are employed in the service of—or against—God. This not only implies, but encourages that an agenda underlie every human endeavor.

So, these authors are not necessarily "anti-science", but they are so "pro-Bible" as to obscure the real issues. I fear that the less erudite readers are prone to employ this fearful dichotomy between "God" and "EVERYTHING else" in such a way that they become cosmological dualists, envisioning all human (and natural) enterprises as either "good" or "evil".