The first time the belief system and epistemology that I held to and lived by was questioned was in my plant biology class during my sophomore year in college. One might be perplexed as to how a class on plants might call into question my world view. As a matter of fact you may never look at the Quercus albus (white oak) quite the same way after reading this (not really)! Anyways, I digress.
In this class my professor, Dr. Paul Rothrock,--eventually my favorite professor in college--began the semester discussing evolution, the formation of the earth, space, time, etc. He did this in the context of a book entitled Biology through the Eyes of Faith, a book by Richard T. Wright (Not the same as the author of Black Boy) as part of the Christian College Coalition series. He and other students in the class began talking about evolution and an old earth as real possibilities that also made the understanding of plant biology and many other areas of biology more clear. I was astounded. How could this be. I was at a Christian school, wasn't I?. Christians don't hold to these ideas, do they? I was nonplussed. How do I deal with these opposing ideas? I was full of rage. I was confused. I didn't know how to talk because, to be honest, I had no idea what I was talking about in regard to these issues or even where to start. I resolved to read the book.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You layed out your heart.
Thanks for letting me in there.
Cappy
Paul,
Does this mean that you had a creationist view of the earth (~4000 years old) prior to taking this class? I know you're a science teacher now and can not ignore the large body of evidence that the earth is much older.
I will eventually have a separate blog entry over the separation of church and state to prevent literal interpretists (see prior blog entry on this topic) from dumbing down America. If you don't think this is possible and a potential problem we face, consider the following two news links:
News Link 1
News Link 2
My head almost imploded when I read these.
Yes, I did have a creationist view of the earth--by default--for that is all I knew to be reasonable for a believer at the time.
I definitely feel like this topic is appropriate for posting on this blog. As a matter of fact, I encourage it.
Having said that, I do request that you stick to the blog guidelines including discussing and focusing on what you believe, not what you find unbelievable. The line can be fine but try to stay on the side of that line which aligns with the spirit of this blog.
I do understand that the temptation to use words like "dumbing down America" is very great, but I exhort you and others not to minimize so easily the faith and views that others have to a lack of intelligence. The issuse is much deeper than that.
I believe that when trying to spread a message or to inform others, such damning and harsh language becomes ammunition against the message itself(even though not valid as ammunition). I believe that if the message holds value people should be allowed to process it without the trappings of emotional and personal bias towards that message. I believe this tactic, although incredibly difficult as it requires such patience, facilitates positive progress rather than further division.
I will check out the links when we get a chance.
I wanted to clarify the fist statement in my last comment. I am a creationist. I am not a big fan of labels as they are not typically used as they are intended but are extrapolated out beyond reason.
Having said that I am what some would label as a theistic evolutionist. I believe the word "creation" or "creationist" should not be reserved for those who believe in the 6 day creation of the earth and universe.
The main reason I have difficulty with this "copyrighting", if you will, of "creation" language by 6 day creation believers is that it creates a conversation where evolutionists cannot be described as believing in creation, and that evolution cannot be perceived as an act or the product of an act of creation.
This language bifurcates beliefs into 1)you believe in 6-day creation and are a Christian or 2)You don't believe in God and therefore accept that what we see today in nature is formed randomly, purely by chance, over--what appears from our point of view--an extremely long period of time.
I appologize for my word choice. "dumbing down America" was, indeed, judgemental. The two news links about the US Parks service information it distributes to Grand Canyon visitors on the age of the Grand Canyon might fit into any of the following scenarios:
* Republican administration cow towing to the literal creationist segment of their 'base'.
* Political appointee using their position to foist their literal creationist view on Grand Canyon visitors.
* Political Correctness rearing its ugly head to avoid offending ANYONE.
* Attempt to hide scientific facts or views from visitors (for what ever reasons). This action would result in a less-educated Grand Canyon (GC) visitor populace. This is probably the source of my word choice.
==============================
One of my favorite uncles taught me a lesson about the difference between ignorance and stupidity. It has served me well, but the differences seem to blur a little in this context. If GC visitors are not given accurate information about the geologic age of the GC, they are ignorant and not entirely responsible for their decisions since these desicions are based on incomplete knowledge. If the Parks service has information, but does not use that information to educate GC visitors, they are actively contributing to ignorance amongst the visitor populace. This seems to be an act of stupidity (in this context).
==============================
I'm not sure the language bifurcates, as I have another (third) belief about creation and there are still other views.
What I Believe:
Since the Old Testament was created from oral history, the book of Genesis creation story reflects several important things:
1. People thought about creation prior to the advent of writing.
2. The stories reflect that some parts of the world had to exist prior to others.
3. The stories seem to reflect an innate understanding of biological complexity and hierarchy.
4. The stories reflect a passage of time (days) that could be understood by all people.
5. The story tellers had no way to accurately measure geologic passages of time.
Note: Most people have a difficult time comprehending geologic time periods, inter-stellar distances, very large numbers, very small distances.
Since I've already blogged about the folly of literal interpretation of biblical text, I have no problem reading about the world being created in six days and understanding that the 'days' were not 24-hour solar days, but understandable periods of creation activity.
The bifurcation of which I speak is not one that I believe is fair or real but rather erroneously fabricated and present in many Christian communities of which I have been part.
I personally believe the discussion should not be staged this way; nevertheless, I believe that many discussions start with this premise and end very shortly after because there is no where to go.
I believe that the Genesis account is not a scientific account of how the universe formed in space and time; nor was it intended as such. I don't believe it is even conceivable that a scientific account would have been comprehensible to a group of people who did not even understand that other planets existed or that they existed in an organized movement through time or that the earth moved around the sun.
You have peaked my interest with the Grand Canyon story.
I have read these articles, and I have to admit that I get a sense of conspiracy theory here. I get an intuitive feel of spin and that the story is being presented in a way that doesn't work itself out very well.
You are right to be worried about the language used. We've seen an escallation of the use of language to demonize (politicians, parties, points of view, media, and the messengers, etc.). I hope that our blogging will continue and further communication, not bring it to a screeching halt as you've experience before.
The Grand Canyon story is but one instance of US policy decisions being set (or heavily influenced) by literal interpretists (dominated by conservative Christian movement and evangelicals). For instance, an HPV vaccine was recently developed. Adding this vaccine to all young girls (pre-pubescent) would offer a lifetime protection against a leading cause of ovarian cancer. Rather than add this to the current vaccine regimen for children, some groups have lobbied against the HPV vaccine's introduction, stating that HPV protection would result in greater sexual promiscuity.
Note: If young boys were immunized with the HPV vaccine as well as girls, the population's protection rate would rise to about 95%.
Post a Comment