In the last couple years there has been much talk about abolishing creationism. In some countries various bills have been presented that would do just this. In this post I want to argue against such an undertaking.
- Many people are under the impression any talk of creation will ruin the American economy. Any criticism of evolutionary theory will destroy all science and technology. (General Electric will be ruined.) Any teaching of ID will destroy the minds of young children. And on and on it goes. Medicine will be destroyed. The American empire will collapse. The moon will fall. Witches will be burnt. The stock market will crash. (As foreign investors flee a country gone mad.) Tenure will be abolished. Although I agree that these are worthy concerns, I do think they've been exaggerated. It's true that the stock of GE might fall, but the company won't be ruined. We need to keep our wits about us, and not become paranoid.
- forgive my levity, but I do think some of these fears are exaggerated.
- I want to argue against this proposal as I said, and so I'm going to give some reasons for voting against such propositions. Not everyone will agree with all of my arguments, but I hope enough of them will be persuasive enough that I will make my case to the satisfaction of most.
1. What would our sophisticated tv hosts have to mock if we were to abolish creation in the nation? Might they not find other more sacred things to attack? certain government policies perhaps? racial quota systems? the glorious welfare state? the American empire? fast foods? even Wall Street itself, the stock market, or even (dare I even mention it) the free market itself? No, let us not take this risk. Let's keep creationism around for our great wits to kick around.... let's give them some trivial thing to busy themselves with. It's the prudent course. Let's not risk some revolution, let's not go the way of the Russian czar.
2. Surely we don't want to take the risk of having people like Richard Dawkins (Ken Miller, Stephen Pinker, Sam Harris, William Irvine, etc.) attacking the State itself? These are men of fierce disposition and sharp tongue. We don't want to have them attacking truly sacred things. No, better not to outlaw creationism. I realize that many people are bound to ban it completely, but I fear this is a grave mistake. Let our wits and sophisticates exhaust their high spirits on banal and trivial things; like pro sports, church steeples, and creationism. To ban these things (as several senators are wont to do) would give these people nothing to fight against, and they would come looking for new targets. Their opposition to creation (McDonald's, etc.) is based on personal psychology. These are put who must condemn and denounce; it's necessary to their constitutions. They need to feel superior to the masses. This is the basis of their great loathing for creation.
3. It's not a matter of creation being true or false. (Though any college educated teacher of kindergarten knows how obviously false it is.) It's rather a matter of needing something for people to fight against. All societies need scape goats, and they need internal enemies. The educated elite need something to fight against as well. The ridiculous doctrine of creationism gives people all this and more. Let's not destroy a good thing.
4. Since the liberal members of the church appear to be too busy to object to this proposal I've taken it upon myself to do so. I apologize for this, as I'm well aware I cannot do the fine job they would no doubt be able to do. I realize they're probably busy with more import issues (one immediately thinks of the Ethanol concerns and the necessity of getting gay materials into the kindergartens) but I really do think someone should address this issue. (When a better defense than mine appears I will withdraw this feeble effort from the site.)
- One of my main concerns was to address the issue before some bible thumper took up the cause. If we allow them to argue against this proposed bill I'm afraid we don't have a chance of defeating it. These people bring out a great hate in our sophisticates, and I'm afraid they will pass the bill out of some unreflective impulse. I repeat myself, but I believe it's in our best interest to keep creationism around. I hope I've been persuasive in my arguments; but I fear I haven't been.
Addendum; further arguments made to bolster what I fear is a weak case.
5. Some have suggested that we need to go further than banning creationism in the schools and in the public square, that we need to ban it in the churches as well. They say that bible classes that are now beings spent talking about creation should be spent talking about science. And while one wishes this were the case I really doubt if it would be successful in most cases. We need to accept the fact that there's just so much the befuddled minds of the masses can take in in a week. I believe they need a day of rest to allow their over worked minds time to relax, the better to absorb the great ideas of science afresh on a Monday morning.
- No one regrets the time wasted on creation sermons more than I do, but I think it's best to let sleeping dogs lie in most cases. If we destroy creationism in the church it will be hard to keep it alive among the general public. After all; if we're going to have it around as a safety valve and scapegoat someone has to believe in it. So I think this suggestion (noble as it is in motivation) is ill advised, and I caution against it.
7. One of the great advantages of keeping creationism around is that it provides people with a continual example of how silly and backward fundamentalist Christianity is. Surely we don't want to lose this great resource? Think of all the converts it gains liberal religion on a weekly basis. No, no; we mustn't kill the goose that daily lays a golden egg. If the Fundies were to abandon 6 day creationism they'd immediately gain in respectability and have to be taken a lot more seriously. Let's not be rash here. We've got a great thing going, let's not wreck it.
8. We are told that abolishing creationism will reduce social tension in our society; that this horrible conflict between the sane defenders of evolution and the irrational defenders of creation. I won't deny that, but it misses the point. People love to separate themselves into factions; it's the great passion of the human heart. Whatever we think of it, it's simply human nature to do so. To abolish creationism would simply move this conflict to another area. Order is best maintained by having people divide up over trivial issues. If they don't have trivial issues to separate over they will separate over serious ones. It's far better to have people in conflict over creationism than over far more important issues; like the place of race, the nature of the state, and so on. Here conflicts can escalate into violence and even war. No imagines this will happen over Darwin. People can get themselves all wound up over Darwin, but I doubt anyone will go to war over him. No; it's essential for maintaining the status quo that we get people to fight over trivial matters. (We especially don't want intelligent people getting involved in fighting over serious matters.)
9. Some have suggested creationists be required to wear special ribbons or badges [with Noah's ark on them perhaps] to mark them out. Again I would caution against such a plan. (I know that people maintain this would solely have the purpose of protecting children from people out to destroy them.) As I've said too many times already (or so I fear) we don't want to lose this great social resource. If we went with the ribbon proposal creationists would be afraid to defend creationism and so it would quickly die out and become useless to us.
10. Those who favor abolishing creationism (as most intelligent people do) claim that it's utterly useless in science and in the lab so we must get rid of it. It hampers and limits true science they say; it would even destroy science if given a chance. I don't like to say it but I think this verges on hysteria. I really do. Not one in a hundred Christians believes creationism has any place in the lab or in the world of commerce. But I think all this misses the point. I think science needs creationism. Why do I speak such a heresy? I'll tell you. The Fundie doctrine of creation daily shows the world how great science is and how dumb bible religion is. This alone is reason to vote against the bill. (I plead with people to think seriously on this.) We need creationism around to show people the superiority of reason. (After all, its clear to even a child that Noah never invented any technologies. All this primitive had was a raft of some sort. If he'd known science he'd have built himself a space ship to escape the flood with. Forgive the levity; but it's a serious point.)
- it's clear to anyone that even such a great man (supposedly) as Abraham never even had a refrigerator. And why? Because he was a creationist, instead of being a scientist. Let's not be rash. Let's not be hasty. If you're winning a war you don't switch tactics. Let's not get impatient. Let's not get drunk on success and make a serious blunder.
11. For those who would abolish creationism (to save the economy, to save the nation from some dark age to come) I would say that we should keep it for the sake of teaching evolution. In this this isn't obvious to some of you let me make the case. The public finds e. a hard concept to comprehend. (We need to admit this.) The great advantage of having creationism around is that we have something to compare e. to. By comparing it to creationism the student can more easily see how e. must be true. He sees the absurdity of the creationist position, and then reasons, 'well if c. is false, e. must be true.' This is really the best we can hope for in most cases. Without creationism around I suggest that it would be almost impossible to convince people of evolution.
12. Some who want to abolish creationism say we must do so as to prevent it being taught to the young. Again I disagree. (I worry about disagreeing so many times with accepted wisdom. Can I really be disagree so often and be right?) I say let the Fundamentalists teach creation to their children. I recommend it highly, and love to see them buying these creationist books for the kiddies. Why? Years later when they come to college (or even earlier for the intelligent) we can show them how absurd this creationism is, and by doing so utterly ruin their simple faith in the bible. (What a joy it is to disillusion one of these kids.)
13. To those who want to abolish creationism (for the best of all reasons, for wanting to defend the young and the ignorant, etc.) I say do we? do we really want to lose this great source of fun? Let's admit it gentlemen (and gentle women... if there are any) don't we enjoy demolishing the silly arguments put forward by the creationists? Is there a better sport available to some of us? (Would we really want to see that ridiculous museum closed down?) And the added bonus is that by demolishing these arguments we strike a blow against Book religion.
14. Beating up on creationists is a kind of rough sport for nerds if you will. It takes the place among them of football or ice hockey. Better they carve up creationists than our esteemed political leaders. Better that they be anti-creationists than anti-socialists. (I fear the appeal of Libertarianism to our young.) And think of the increased self-esteem they get in the bargain.
15. Although abolishing creationism is considered a most wise proposition by most intelligent people I think we should reconsider. Think of what might happen. As things stand now, evolutionists are united in their opposition to creationism. What will happen without this buffer? Will evolutionists fall to fighting amongst themselves and so damage the image of the theory in the public eye? I fear this might well happen; human nature being such a contrary thing. (How this contrary spirit could have evolved I'm not quite sure... but obviously it must have.) Will the fight become so unrestrained that people will deliver themselves of the critiques of the theory that at present they are with holding? Will some devastating critique emerge? Can we take the chance? No; keep c. around to keep us all together. Better to fight creationists than to fight each other.
Notes;
1. With apologies to Jonathan Swift.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
