Scott W Roby writes: Seriously, I get the impression that both sides in this debate are di

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

Scott W Roby writes: >Seriously, I get the impression that both sides in this >debate are discussing only ONE theory -- the pros and >cons of the theory of evolution. Is the creation theory >so unworthy of discussion? There is no theory of creation! That is, there is no elaboration of the effects of Creation in the real world. There is only the assertion that things were created and a bunch of other ad hoc assertions why evolution didn't happen and that what we see happened all at once. Why is this? The reason is, I think, that Creation has no other use than to justify the belief that "the moral authority of the Bible," or other scripture used in an authoritarian fashion, is trancendant, that is, that it is beyond the scrutany of normal analysis and examination. As such, the history of the earth has nothing to do with the goal of Creationists, except to remove the nasty thorn of Evolution from their beliefs. Evolution is despised, not on rational scientific or even sound theological grounds, but because it calls into question the whole scheme of authoritarian religion, Christianity based on unquestioned Biblical authority, by simply providing an alternative story of how life, ourselves, and our social nature, including moral codes came to be. >Would Bob Bales or some other creationalist please outline >the theory of creation (what specific processes are >hypothesized, what specific observations prompted these >hypotheses, what specific predictions have been made, >which predictions have been successfully tested, etc.)? Bales, and the like, will assert that they have been providing such "evidance" all along. In fact, they have at best only raised negatives about evolution which leave the creation alternative by default. What else is there? They dare not construct a positive argument for Creation for that would reveal the religious agenda of the whole enterprize, and they want you to believe that they have a legitimate science, in creationism, which is untainted by what they happen to believe about religion. They are lying and don't believe this. Their predictions are about as good as some shaman in a primative culture asserting that the drought eneded because the rain god answered his prayers. There is an alternative explaination. The whole point is that the Creationists want you to believe that there is no alternative to their belief, when there is. >I think it would make for an interesting change in >reading. Thank you. But it has already happened. Nothing will change here until the mythology at stake behind Creationism is divulged, made into tangable assertions. I have tried to do this in the past. Most of the apologists for creationism in this group will not own up to them, though. >Oh yes, since the theory of evolution can be outlined >without reference to other theories, I assume that the >theory of creation can be outlined and discussed without >reference to evolution. (I.E., I think it would be >refreshing to see pro-creation arguments that DO NOT >depend on anti-evolution arguments.) Go read Genesis, or any other Creation myth. Go study Mythology. Go read Campbell's "Masks of God". Ask yourself what is at stake in having people accept a 4,000 year old cosmology as literal? Why should a 20th century Russian invent this Rube Goldburg scheme of celestial billiards just to make the mythical symbols of the Old Testement look like reasonable natural events? The reason is that we have confused the message with the messenger. Lots of people think that to say that the Bible is a myth means that none of it can be accepted or used, and the protectors of this tradition overreact not because they are interested in theories of how we got here but because they have already invested the whole justification of what they believe in the literal meaning of the myth. They are spiritually and intellectually impoverished, and dead wrong. Bruce Salem

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank