Architecture cannot be removed from the realm of communication. As such, portfolios become a necessary tool in the dissemination of our ideas. Communicating and processing learning can also be disseminated in portfolios. As such, reflecting on this class has allowed me to more fully engage the subject. This extra layer of understanding is why course portfolios are a good tool in the education world. The communication benefits aside, portfolios help create a record of progress.
>04.27.2008 Reflection: Value of Evolution vs Creation on Education
This course, I believe, is an essential force in understanding and respecting the realm of science and religion. I think this course should also give credit for religion classes because it focuses on the purposes of religion. I personally feel more informed on the nuances of the debate between religion and science. Because I am more educated, I think I can become more of a force in allowing evolution to remain in classrooms. As a lover of religion, I despise extremist points of view. I think with my religion back ground (minor) and with this class I can effectively communicate with antagonists on both sides of the issue.
>04.25.2008 Reflection: Final Paper
One of my favorite bands is the Talking Heads. I enjoy their title just as much as their music- a commentary on media influence and consumer culture. I think America is particularly influenced by these talking heads, these people that feed opinion in the guise of news. In this culture public opinion can be analyzed through their influences, through the talking heads. My paper attempts to survey these forces. I think I accomplished my goal of demonstrating the potential problems in the area of evolution and religion. For me, it is the perception of “clout” the gravitas of the source.
>04.24.2008:Left, Right, Slight Left, Slight Right, Middle and Me: A Sampling of Experts/Final 2
Robbie Eleazer
04/24/2008
Dr. Waldvogel
Bio 210 Evolution and Creationism
Left, Right, Slight Left, Slight Right, Middle and Me: A Sampling of Experts
The myriad of views encircling the theory of evolution attests to evolution’s importance and universal impact on how humans view the world. From the fundamentalist preacher to the hardnosed scientist, everyone seems to battle with the implications of this powerful biological theory. To understand the controversy between creationists and evolutionists one must inherently understand the views of each proponent. These experts, Kenneth Alfred Ham, William Dembski, Kenneth R. Miller, Mary Schweitzer, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, range the gamut from expert biologist to young earth creationist and those who squirm in between labels to embrace the realities and purpose of science and religion. These proponents have each fought their way into my mind, persuading and educating me. Some of these figures embody a latent sinister purpose, while I believe others are simply misguided. Each offers a new perspective to a multidimensional topic. Somewhere in the fray, I find myself struggling with such comfort that it shocks me- where before this seminar I felt alone with my views of science and religion, I now feel at ease with my perspective.
For me the gradient begins with those who feel that religion cannot be reconciled with science. Kenneth Ham and William Dembski approach this perspective in different manners, yet with the same mindset.
Ken Ham is the most brash and unabashed with his views. Ken Ham supports the idea that evolution is destroying religion (Ham 2000). Because of this belief, he is on the constant attack of evolutionary science. Kenneth ham is particularly dangerous because I view him as a master of rhetoric. Ham is the founder of the international movement Answers in Genesis. Through this venue, Ham is disseminating his ideas through any means necessary. His rhetorical assault on science begins with a series of books A is for Adam which seeks to prove to children that genesis holds all of the necessary information to view the world (Ken and Mally Ham 1995). By targeting children with colorful picture of Dinosaurs and people Ham clearly seeks to further the rift between science and religion. Even the logo for the AIG website flaunts a graphic 1:1 a subtle message that what you see is what you get in the Bible (www.answersingenesis.com). I believe that books contain a certain clout to the everyday person-authorship holds with it a certain authority. I do not think Ham is targeting particularly intelligent people with his barrage of rhetorical assaults but rather the everyday Christian who wants the simple answers. Through his constant publishing of books, Ham has established a written authority in his area of belief. Books such as The Lie: Evolution (1989), What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs (1990), A is for Adam (1995), Refuting Evolution (1999) embody his caustic view. His use and manipulation of media tactics are furthered by his radio show Answers with Ken Ham (www.Wikipedia.com). Most recently Ham has helped found the Creation Museum. If books are not enough to convey authority to your view, then certainly a museum is the next step. It does not take much analysis to see how scary the concept for a Creation Museum can be, an institution which seeks to parallel the Smithsonian museum of Natural History. In fact, on my road trip to Cincinnati I passed by several billboards for the museum. The graphic savvy, the authentic wording, all of the images needed to convince people of a legitimate museum-perfectly in line with Ken Ham’s strategies. Ken Ham has effectively used media to establish his views. Through websites, books, radio shows, and even a museum, Ham has been able to creatively speak to the masses-spreading the seeds of scientific doubt.
William Dembski advocates Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. For all of the media tactics of Ham, Dembski enters the arena with “science”. His position seeks to use Intelligent Design as the alternate model for science education-fighting science with religion pretending to be science. However, while Ham has produced small easily accessible books, Dembski’s publications are much more intelligent-the audiences are clearly different. Dembski is part of the core of Intelligent Design proponents, a part of the “round table” Phillip Johnson gathered in 1993 (Regal 2008). Johnson, a lawyer by training knew he himself did not have the biological training to critique evolution. William Dembski becomes that person, well versed in philosophy, theology, science and mathematics. When Dembski speaks, he does not orate like his fellow Ham, he uses logic and evidence. Dembski becomes the soldier in the enemy’s territory, a stark believer in Christianity who understands how science reacts to evidence. Dembski uses mathematics to calculate the probability of complex biological systems developing by chance. He then proposes that this number indicates an impossible chance. From here he declares that there must be a moving force behind these systems, an Intelligent Designer (Regal 2008). Books by Dembski such as No Free Lunch contain hard science and research. A 400 page megalith, with twenty pages of references, No Free Lunch crafts the scientific base for intelligent design. Dembski even eloquently describes that “The universe will experience heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet” (Dembski 2002). Whether or not Dembski crafts supported arguments for design in No Free Lunch, Debating Design, or Mere Creation cannot be the point. Even as lay as I am in science I can still see the sole flaw in all of the Intelligent Design research- the in ability to test for a designer. Science cannot default to higher powers when the numbers point to improbability.
With Ham and Dembski at the forefront, both public opinion and Science will be continually attacked with religious motives. Ham will continue to simplify the issue by declaring that the bible is infallible and therefore science is wrong. Dembski will continue to craft intelligent research, convincing scientific books as to how complex biological systems were designed by “intelligence”. However, these views are so far right that they will never be accepted fully. For every soul won by Ham, there will be two who will be disgusted by the simplicity.
Continuing through the color wheel are those who defy labels. Scientists with deep faiths even people of faith who trust the rigor of science. Kenneth R. Miller and Mary Shweitzer embody the middle ground, those who can reconcile faith and science.
Kenneth R. Miller removes all doubt of evolution in his book Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution. Miller becomes the foil to Dembski’s line of reasoning, sticking strictly to science and inserting God into the process seamlessly. Chapter three, God as Charlatan, allows Miller to accept Genesis as an accurate book containing truth-it can remain myth and still hold universal truths that do not affect science (Miller1999). Miller’s way of thinking drastically alters Ham’s world view, while also scientifically remaining consistent which Dembski cannot accomplish. So it seems that Miller’s part of the debate is much more rooted in reconciliation rather than division. Miller is the olive branch between science and religion without compromising the tenants of either world.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer has added to the controversy through an accidental discovery without the motivation driving Ham and Dembski. Schweitzer is at once a paleontologist and an evangelical Christian (Yeoman, 2006). Upon discovering tissue in a T-Rex femur bone Dr. Schweitzer has found herself at the fulcrum of controversy between scientist and creationist. Professor at Montana State University and curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies Jack Horner describes Schweitzer as a scientist who thinks differently, allowing her to accept things based on the evidence and not preconceived notions. This quote reveals her ability to cope with the standard that the tissue she found should not have been there. The accepted view of fossilization states that soft tissues will not survive after about 10,000 yrs. For Schweitzer it is clear that the tissue is there and that the fossil is much older than 10,000yrs instead of dismissing the evidence. Why does this matter? Young earth creationists are championing here discovery as proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Meanwhile scientists dismiss her discovery because of their previously accepted knowledge of fossilization. Yet, Schweitzer holds true to her discovery and reconciles the facts with her religious views-"That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."-Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Though Dr. Schweitzer chooses to remove herself from the debacle between science and religion, it is clear that she embraces both science and religion as modes of viewing the world that are separate and equal.
The power of Miller and Schweitzer is their ability to unite, on a universal and personal scale. Miller for me becomes the champion of the middle, an active academic and theistic voice. Schweitzer, however, becomes the epitome of self exploration. Schweitzer removes the debate from the clutches of the media, and demonstrates how for most this is a personal struggle.
Finally, we end on the other end of the spectrum, where scientists themselves seek division. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett represent the folly of explaining away religion. Much like Ham and Dembski seek to alter science through religion, Dawkins and Dennett seek to alter religion with science. Division is sure to follow.
Richard Dawkins is perfectly allowed to research an evolutionary need to believe in God. In fact, I tend to find his book The God Delusion quite comprehensive in describing our need to believe in God. However, for me Dawkins is such a disconcerting figure for his brash disregard for religion. He is the Ham of Science. He uses his position and research as a method for division. More specifically his involvement in aggressive atheist groups which promote the dismemberment of organized religion is very similar to Dembski’s involvement in the Discovery Institute (www.wikipedia.com). My critique for Dawkins has very little to do with his research and writing. Where Ham’s writing is for rhetoric only, I believe Dawkins writes in the interest of good science. However, Dawkins should realize how his attitude toward religion further drives the wedge between religion and science-an ironic reality in the light of Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document.
In a similar fashion Daniel Dennett studies how our minds evolved to show an advantage for belief in a God (Dennett 2006). Again, there is the same pattern of science trying to discount religion. However, Dennett is not as brash as Dawkins. In a PBS interview Dennett says “I think a lot of people prefer the traditional idea that we get our purpose from on high, somehow. I think that the important idea here is that you want there to be something more important than you are, to give you meaning and to make you happy. My advice if you want to be happy is, find something more important than you are and work for it.”
This Statement contains many of the claims of Dawkins, however put in a much more humble manner. The meaning is clear however, if religion makes you happy, it is your prerogative to enjoy this delusion.
The Dawkins and Dennett duo represent that which we all fear-the ability for science to explain things we think exist in the realm of personality or super reality. For science to seek to think through consciousness, and inherently religion, division will be created especially if division is sought.
The wheel turns. We have gone left, right, slight left, slight right, middle with those who embody the evolution and creation/religion debate. It leaves me baffled that all of these intelligent people (even Ken Ham) tackle this issue with such conviction and knowledge. For me, this becomes personal. I believe in God. I believe in Science. Is that too simple? Genesis can’t be wrong, but surely God did not poof us out at once. However, can nature be soulless? Is there nothing there if we can’t test it? I doubt it. In a way I become Ken Ham, loving the simple explanations. I am Dr. Schweitzer celebrating the complexities and intricacies. I also find myself a Dawkins, skeptical and almost atheistic. Yet, these conflicting internal forces keep me from simplifying the issue-able to nimbly respect those around me, always learning.
Works Cited
Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.Viking. 2006.
Dembski, William. No Free Lunch. Rowman & Littlefield. 2002.
Dembski, William. Debating Design. Cambridge Press. 2004.
Dembski, William. Mere Creation. Intervarsity Press.1998.
Ham, Kenneth. A is for Adam. Master Books. 1996.
Ham, Kenneth. The Lie:Evolution. Master Books. 1989.
Ham, Kenneth. Refuting Evolution. Master Books.1999.
Regal, Brian. Icons of Evolution Vol 2.Green Wood press. 2008.
WWW.Wikipedia.com
WWW.answersingenesis.com
Alda, Allan.PBS.http://www.pbs.org/saf/1103/features/dennett3.htm
Yeoman, Barry. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna. 2006.
04/24/2008
Dr. Waldvogel
Bio 210 Evolution and Creationism
Left, Right, Slight Left, Slight Right, Middle and Me: A Sampling of Experts
The myriad of views encircling the theory of evolution attests to evolution’s importance and universal impact on how humans view the world. From the fundamentalist preacher to the hardnosed scientist, everyone seems to battle with the implications of this powerful biological theory. To understand the controversy between creationists and evolutionists one must inherently understand the views of each proponent. These experts, Kenneth Alfred Ham, William Dembski, Kenneth R. Miller, Mary Schweitzer, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, range the gamut from expert biologist to young earth creationist and those who squirm in between labels to embrace the realities and purpose of science and religion. These proponents have each fought their way into my mind, persuading and educating me. Some of these figures embody a latent sinister purpose, while I believe others are simply misguided. Each offers a new perspective to a multidimensional topic. Somewhere in the fray, I find myself struggling with such comfort that it shocks me- where before this seminar I felt alone with my views of science and religion, I now feel at ease with my perspective.
For me the gradient begins with those who feel that religion cannot be reconciled with science. Kenneth Ham and William Dembski approach this perspective in different manners, yet with the same mindset.
Ken Ham is the most brash and unabashed with his views. Ken Ham supports the idea that evolution is destroying religion (Ham 2000). Because of this belief, he is on the constant attack of evolutionary science. Kenneth ham is particularly dangerous because I view him as a master of rhetoric. Ham is the founder of the international movement Answers in Genesis. Through this venue, Ham is disseminating his ideas through any means necessary. His rhetorical assault on science begins with a series of books A is for Adam which seeks to prove to children that genesis holds all of the necessary information to view the world (Ken and Mally Ham 1995). By targeting children with colorful picture of Dinosaurs and people Ham clearly seeks to further the rift between science and religion. Even the logo for the AIG website flaunts a graphic 1:1 a subtle message that what you see is what you get in the Bible (www.answersingenesis.com). I believe that books contain a certain clout to the everyday person-authorship holds with it a certain authority. I do not think Ham is targeting particularly intelligent people with his barrage of rhetorical assaults but rather the everyday Christian who wants the simple answers. Through his constant publishing of books, Ham has established a written authority in his area of belief. Books such as The Lie: Evolution (1989), What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs (1990), A is for Adam (1995), Refuting Evolution (1999) embody his caustic view. His use and manipulation of media tactics are furthered by his radio show Answers with Ken Ham (www.Wikipedia.com). Most recently Ham has helped found the Creation Museum. If books are not enough to convey authority to your view, then certainly a museum is the next step. It does not take much analysis to see how scary the concept for a Creation Museum can be, an institution which seeks to parallel the Smithsonian museum of Natural History. In fact, on my road trip to Cincinnati I passed by several billboards for the museum. The graphic savvy, the authentic wording, all of the images needed to convince people of a legitimate museum-perfectly in line with Ken Ham’s strategies. Ken Ham has effectively used media to establish his views. Through websites, books, radio shows, and even a museum, Ham has been able to creatively speak to the masses-spreading the seeds of scientific doubt.
William Dembski advocates Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. For all of the media tactics of Ham, Dembski enters the arena with “science”. His position seeks to use Intelligent Design as the alternate model for science education-fighting science with religion pretending to be science. However, while Ham has produced small easily accessible books, Dembski’s publications are much more intelligent-the audiences are clearly different. Dembski is part of the core of Intelligent Design proponents, a part of the “round table” Phillip Johnson gathered in 1993 (Regal 2008). Johnson, a lawyer by training knew he himself did not have the biological training to critique evolution. William Dembski becomes that person, well versed in philosophy, theology, science and mathematics. When Dembski speaks, he does not orate like his fellow Ham, he uses logic and evidence. Dembski becomes the soldier in the enemy’s territory, a stark believer in Christianity who understands how science reacts to evidence. Dembski uses mathematics to calculate the probability of complex biological systems developing by chance. He then proposes that this number indicates an impossible chance. From here he declares that there must be a moving force behind these systems, an Intelligent Designer (Regal 2008). Books by Dembski such as No Free Lunch contain hard science and research. A 400 page megalith, with twenty pages of references, No Free Lunch crafts the scientific base for intelligent design. Dembski even eloquently describes that “The universe will experience heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet” (Dembski 2002). Whether or not Dembski crafts supported arguments for design in No Free Lunch, Debating Design, or Mere Creation cannot be the point. Even as lay as I am in science I can still see the sole flaw in all of the Intelligent Design research- the in ability to test for a designer. Science cannot default to higher powers when the numbers point to improbability.
With Ham and Dembski at the forefront, both public opinion and Science will be continually attacked with religious motives. Ham will continue to simplify the issue by declaring that the bible is infallible and therefore science is wrong. Dembski will continue to craft intelligent research, convincing scientific books as to how complex biological systems were designed by “intelligence”. However, these views are so far right that they will never be accepted fully. For every soul won by Ham, there will be two who will be disgusted by the simplicity.
Continuing through the color wheel are those who defy labels. Scientists with deep faiths even people of faith who trust the rigor of science. Kenneth R. Miller and Mary Shweitzer embody the middle ground, those who can reconcile faith and science.
Kenneth R. Miller removes all doubt of evolution in his book Finding Darwin's God: a scientist's search for common ground between God and evolution. Miller becomes the foil to Dembski’s line of reasoning, sticking strictly to science and inserting God into the process seamlessly. Chapter three, God as Charlatan, allows Miller to accept Genesis as an accurate book containing truth-it can remain myth and still hold universal truths that do not affect science (Miller1999). Miller’s way of thinking drastically alters Ham’s world view, while also scientifically remaining consistent which Dembski cannot accomplish. So it seems that Miller’s part of the debate is much more rooted in reconciliation rather than division. Miller is the olive branch between science and religion without compromising the tenants of either world.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer has added to the controversy through an accidental discovery without the motivation driving Ham and Dembski. Schweitzer is at once a paleontologist and an evangelical Christian (Yeoman, 2006). Upon discovering tissue in a T-Rex femur bone Dr. Schweitzer has found herself at the fulcrum of controversy between scientist and creationist. Professor at Montana State University and curator of paleontology at the Museum of the Rockies Jack Horner describes Schweitzer as a scientist who thinks differently, allowing her to accept things based on the evidence and not preconceived notions. This quote reveals her ability to cope with the standard that the tissue she found should not have been there. The accepted view of fossilization states that soft tissues will not survive after about 10,000 yrs. For Schweitzer it is clear that the tissue is there and that the fossil is much older than 10,000yrs instead of dismissing the evidence. Why does this matter? Young earth creationists are championing here discovery as proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Meanwhile scientists dismiss her discovery because of their previously accepted knowledge of fossilization. Yet, Schweitzer holds true to her discovery and reconciles the facts with her religious views-"That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."-Dr. Mary Schweitzer. Though Dr. Schweitzer chooses to remove herself from the debacle between science and religion, it is clear that she embraces both science and religion as modes of viewing the world that are separate and equal.
The power of Miller and Schweitzer is their ability to unite, on a universal and personal scale. Miller for me becomes the champion of the middle, an active academic and theistic voice. Schweitzer, however, becomes the epitome of self exploration. Schweitzer removes the debate from the clutches of the media, and demonstrates how for most this is a personal struggle.
Finally, we end on the other end of the spectrum, where scientists themselves seek division. Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett represent the folly of explaining away religion. Much like Ham and Dembski seek to alter science through religion, Dawkins and Dennett seek to alter religion with science. Division is sure to follow.
Richard Dawkins is perfectly allowed to research an evolutionary need to believe in God. In fact, I tend to find his book The God Delusion quite comprehensive in describing our need to believe in God. However, for me Dawkins is such a disconcerting figure for his brash disregard for religion. He is the Ham of Science. He uses his position and research as a method for division. More specifically his involvement in aggressive atheist groups which promote the dismemberment of organized religion is very similar to Dembski’s involvement in the Discovery Institute (www.wikipedia.com). My critique for Dawkins has very little to do with his research and writing. Where Ham’s writing is for rhetoric only, I believe Dawkins writes in the interest of good science. However, Dawkins should realize how his attitude toward religion further drives the wedge between religion and science-an ironic reality in the light of Discovery Institute’s Wedge Document.
In a similar fashion Daniel Dennett studies how our minds evolved to show an advantage for belief in a God (Dennett 2006). Again, there is the same pattern of science trying to discount religion. However, Dennett is not as brash as Dawkins. In a PBS interview Dennett says “I think a lot of people prefer the traditional idea that we get our purpose from on high, somehow. I think that the important idea here is that you want there to be something more important than you are, to give you meaning and to make you happy. My advice if you want to be happy is, find something more important than you are and work for it.”
This Statement contains many of the claims of Dawkins, however put in a much more humble manner. The meaning is clear however, if religion makes you happy, it is your prerogative to enjoy this delusion.
The Dawkins and Dennett duo represent that which we all fear-the ability for science to explain things we think exist in the realm of personality or super reality. For science to seek to think through consciousness, and inherently religion, division will be created especially if division is sought.
The wheel turns. We have gone left, right, slight left, slight right, middle with those who embody the evolution and creation/religion debate. It leaves me baffled that all of these intelligent people (even Ken Ham) tackle this issue with such conviction and knowledge. For me, this becomes personal. I believe in God. I believe in Science. Is that too simple? Genesis can’t be wrong, but surely God did not poof us out at once. However, can nature be soulless? Is there nothing there if we can’t test it? I doubt it. In a way I become Ken Ham, loving the simple explanations. I am Dr. Schweitzer celebrating the complexities and intricacies. I also find myself a Dawkins, skeptical and almost atheistic. Yet, these conflicting internal forces keep me from simplifying the issue-able to nimbly respect those around me, always learning.
Works Cited
Dennett, Daniel. Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.Viking. 2006.
Dembski, William. No Free Lunch. Rowman & Littlefield. 2002.
Dembski, William. Debating Design. Cambridge Press. 2004.
Dembski, William. Mere Creation. Intervarsity Press.1998.
Ham, Kenneth. A is for Adam. Master Books. 1996.
Ham, Kenneth. The Lie:Evolution. Master Books. 1989.
Ham, Kenneth. Refuting Evolution. Master Books.1999.
Regal, Brian. Icons of Evolution Vol 2.Green Wood press. 2008.
WWW.Wikipedia.com
WWW.answersingenesis.com
Alda, Allan.PBS.http://www.pbs.org/saf/1103/features/dennett3.htm
Yeoman, Barry. http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna. 2006.
>04.08.2008 Reflection: Forecasting the Political Future
At this point in the course I feel particularly informed as to how to address the current state of the nation in regards to religion and science. In fact, after this class I am certain that my paper topic will analyze figures in the debate and how they affect the nature of the conversation. My group in particular took the approach of attempting to pole the major voting groups. Our survey addressed: high schoolers, voters 18-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60 and 60+. By targeting the spectrum we could infer which groups will be unchanged in their views and which groups will CHANGE the norm in future years. This activity was very challenging due to the fact that surveys are so scientific.
>02.26.2008 Reflection: Dover PA trial video
For the first half of this course we have been digging into what is the nature of religion and science-how the two operate as modes of understanding. After witnessing the rift between religion and evolution in the PBS Dover trial video I can now begin to see the tactics and motives of both sides of the fence. For me the most shocking elements included the scene where “irreducibly complex systems” where analyzed and shown to be flawed by the example of the mouse trap. Also, understanding the role of school boards also shocked me. The amount of power these people possess is scary. I think after this video I support national mandates on education more then before.
>02.12.2008 Reflection on Paper 1
After taking a few days to reflect on my paper I realize that I understand the words even more. The implications of religion and science still intrigues me. How can science bridge this gap? The comparisons between Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism seems a broad umbrella, I wonder how smaller religions view Evolution? Perhaps for the next paper I will venture out of my religion fascination and focus on a more science oriented paper.
>02.10.2008 Origins: A Problematic Nomenclature/ Paper 1
Robbie Eleazer
February 10, 2008
Bio 210 Dr. Waldvogel
Origins: A problematic nomenclature
Religion inherently determines the fundamental process in which the particular adherent views and accepts the world around him or her. How each individual interacts within society, how the individual views science, even how an individual votes in elections is often shaped by the religion in which they follow. The debate between creationists and evolutionists in America is a prime example of this disconnect between science and religion. The very use of the word origin in the title of Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of Species could be one of the major reasons that different religions accept or reject the ideas the book presents. The connotations of the word origin could be perceived differently from religion to religion, affecting and shaping their stance on evolution. Buddhism, Conservative fundamental Christianity and Hinduism present different creation myths, the nature of these myths provide a critical lens through which these religions view and process their conceptions of origin and innately differentiate their stance on evolution.
Evolution itself has changed from the early conceptions of Charles Darwin, it has been refined and more evidence supporting the theory has arisen. However, at its core, the theory of Evolution does not state, or intend to state how the world began. Evolution or perhaps as stated by Darwin, Natural Selection, simply states that “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic” (Darwin 1859). Though Evolution is silent on how the world began, how the world originates, it is quite clear on how different species originate, including man from lesser evolved species. This notion of change with variation has a dramatic impact on a person of faith, a person who is inherently affected by their religious views, which shapes their view of the world.
February 10, 2008
Bio 210 Dr. Waldvogel
Origins: A problematic nomenclature
Religion inherently determines the fundamental process in which the particular adherent views and accepts the world around him or her. How each individual interacts within society, how the individual views science, even how an individual votes in elections is often shaped by the religion in which they follow. The debate between creationists and evolutionists in America is a prime example of this disconnect between science and religion. The very use of the word origin in the title of Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of Species could be one of the major reasons that different religions accept or reject the ideas the book presents. The connotations of the word origin could be perceived differently from religion to religion, affecting and shaping their stance on evolution. Buddhism, Conservative fundamental Christianity and Hinduism present different creation myths, the nature of these myths provide a critical lens through which these religions view and process their conceptions of origin and innately differentiate their stance on evolution.
Evolution itself has changed from the early conceptions of Charles Darwin, it has been refined and more evidence supporting the theory has arisen. However, at its core, the theory of Evolution does not state, or intend to state how the world began. Evolution or perhaps as stated by Darwin, Natural Selection, simply states that “This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection. Variations neither useful nor injurious would not be affected by natural selection, and would be left a fluctuating element, as perhaps we see in the species called polymorphic” (Darwin 1859). Though Evolution is silent on how the world began, how the world originates, it is quite clear on how different species originate, including man from lesser evolved species. This notion of change with variation has a dramatic impact on a person of faith, a person who is inherently affected by their religious views, which shapes their view of the world.
Buddhism is an interesting example of how religion fundamentally shapes the adherents way of life and way of thinking-a religion which does not focus on a divinity but rather on individual efforts in life (Baumann, Martin 2002). While many religions focus on a creation moment or myth, Buddhism relies on a cyclic universe. A universe which has no end and no beginning and a world which is not “real” but merely a transition point from one cycle to the cycle of enlightenment. This lack of an origin presents many of the 400 million modern day Buddhist with a conception of evolution that is positive and accepting. Their conceptions of the world are not changed by science or by evolution. Whether the world has a starting point, whether human kind has an origin is of no importance to a Buddhist. Their religious views, which shape their views of the world, are independent from science. However, I do not believe that this acceptance of evolution is a product of Buddhists being more intelligent or more open minded then other religious peoples- but of a powerful example of how when science does not contradict a religions conceptions of space and time, the adherents have no reason to fear its implications. Simply put, this cyclic universe, this cyclic state of mind is unaffected by Evolutionist’s theory that man had its origin in a lesser evolved species because in the mind of the Buddhist origin is a much more abstract concept which does not equal a creation moment. In the Buddhists quest for ultimate enlightenment evolution is merely a scientific theory which is credible and factual, a theory which does not bear on their conception of the world around them.
Christianity as a whole is an extremely diverse religion which consists of hundreds of segments and offshoots and two main divisions between Catholics and Protestants. Due to this varied and dynamic body of believers there is also a varied and dynamic view toward Evolutionary theory. In order to demonstrate the power of the word origin and its connection between religion and science, fundamental Christianity provides a more tangible outlet to analyze creation and evolution. Genesis 1 provides Fundamental (a term which I will be using for Christians who view the bible as a literal document, i.e. devoid of anything but singular meaning) Christians with a poetic and also concrete view of how the world originates with particular interest in how man is created. The very name “Genesis” means beginning or origin which begins to shape the minds of fundamental Christians from the very first reading of the book’s title (Speiser, E.A 1964). While the title is only a cursory indicator, the first 7 lines of Genesis cement the fundamental Christian’s understanding of the world, and his or her place in that world. Not only does Genesis state the order of creation as a fixed thing over a seven day period, God is even described as stating “I will make man in my image, after my likeness; let him subject the fish of the sea and the birds of the sky, the cattle and all the wild animals, and all creatures that creep on earth”. From a theological stand point, these three lines define man’s purpose on the earth and his relationship with his creator. After reading Genesis it is no stretch to imagine that a Fundamental Christian would be threatened by the theory of evolution. In a religion (rather a segment of the whole) which views their text as authoritative and unchallengeable, the ideas of origin become problematic for someone so defined by their creation. If science and evolution hold true, and humans have evolved through natural selection to our present state, it renders the statements in Genesis as false, toppling the individual’s conceptions of the Bible. Within evolution is the implication that man is not a special creature, not a creature purposefully created in the image of a creator to control the natural world- he becomes nothing more than a blade of grass or a harmless ant. Though evolution describes no creation event, it certainly describes the possible origins of man through evolution. It is this very origin that threatens the faith base of a fundamental Christian. The pair could not be more opposite in world view, the Buddhist and the Fundamental Christian: the Buddhist operates within a cyclic and changing world while the Christian operates in a fixed and defined world were change can be threatening. Clearly the idea and use of the word origin becomes a problematic nomenclature for the fundamental Christian.
The three religions of Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism (which itself is a problematic nomenclature, but another paper) provide an elegant comparison. Buddhism is essentially devoid of deities and therefore lacks a proper creation, leading to a more accepting view of science and of evolution. Christianity (fundamental) has a clear and specific creation of humans and the world providing a difficult acceptance of evolution. Hinduism is the final example specifically because it contains deities and a creation myth yet surprisingly generally accepts the notion of evolution.
The way in which a Hindu perceives the notion of evolution relates not only to the cultural notions of origin but also the concept of change within the religion. The religion is extremely varied from believer to believer in a much more fluid way then perhaps from a Catholic to a Protestant. Hindu deities are often “chosen” or followed based on family history or other regional forces creating a dynamic and meltingpot-esque religion. This variance allows Hinduism to be dynamic but without the inherent contradiction that usually accompanies change among sects. This condition is important to note because suddenly, even the very concept of origin is dynamic within one religion based on the deities in which the believer adheres. The Gods Brahma and Vishnu could be seen as creators-Brahma in a calm creation and Vishnu in a chaotic creation dance. Two Hindus could view the beginning of the world and human kind from very different strata. I believe that this dynamic yet fluid conception of the world is a prime example of how the religion of the individual not only affects its world view but also the acceptance of science. In the Hindu mind there does not seem to be an inherent contradiction between humans evolving or humans being created in a fixed point in time. On a more abstract spiritual level, Hindus believe in the evolution of humans to deities. This evolution of the spirit states that humans can achieve deity by being reborn into higher and higher beings, ultimately becoming divine (Baumann, Martin 2002). This evolution of the soul is almost perfectly in line with the theory of evolution, change over time. The 750 million Hindus represent 1/6th of the world’s population, yet the numbers are deceiving if Hinduism is viewed not as a solid system, but as a multifaceted system of deities and individuals.
Origin become a problematic nomenclature, loaded with double meanings and earth shattering possibilities depending on the religion you adhere. Following the major world traditions of Buddhism, Fundamental Christianity and Hinduism, origins can be perceived in very different manners. Evolutionary theory may never be accepted by some groups who link the creation of man with the purpose of an omnipotent creator. These groups cannot accept the theory if they intend to maintain their strict beliefs, such as those of the fundamental Christian. Yet, for others of equal fervor, evolution presents no problematic conception of origin because the very nature of origin is in a constant state of flux. The Buddhist can very well cycle through life both an individual on the path to enlightenment and an individual embracing evolutionary science. While still others find themselves with a rich and colorful tradition that tends to embrace “all truths”. A tradition that is not burdened by science but able to incorporate scientific progress seamlessly into their lives. The Buddhist, the Fundamental Christian, the Hindu cannot escape the way in which their religions shape the way they view the world. Because of this condition the scientific realm of Evolution, the concept of Origins has a profound implication on both the evolutionist and the religious believer.
Baumann, Martin. Religions of the World Volume 1 and 2. Santa Barbara, California. 2002
Speiser, E.A. The Anchor Bible Genesis.Garden City, NY.1964
>01.29.2008 Reflection on Class Activity 1
We investegated the text of Genesis in a more critical fashion. Questions such as what is scientific about Genesis? What is obviously implausible about Genesis? were directed toward the creation myth put forth in chapter 1. My partner and I agreed that Genesis does not provide scientific views of the world and should not be an option for public schools. However, we both agreed that the story could be problematic for more conservative Christians with how they view the world. From this lecture I formulated some seed for the first paper of the class-why and how could religion shape a person's understanding of Evolution?
>01.10.2008 Course Description/ Self Description
Evolution vs Creation is an in depth course which investigates the relationship between science as a way to view the world and religion. The class is structured to provide a back and forth relationship between creation and evolution-the structure itself provides a fair and almost scientifc way to view the material.
I am currently a graduating senior at Clemson University majoring in Architecture. I am from the upstate of South Carolina and look forward to moving to L.A. California for graduate school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)