Creationists’ Real Fear

In “discussing” evolution with creationist advocates, it has become apparent to me what their true agenda really is. Honestly I don’t believe for a second that it is “old-Earth” vs. “young-Earth” ideology, since often, in the face of the evidence, they will abandon that distinction. Nor can it truly be evolution as a process, since they seem to concede the point about what they term “micro-evolution” all the time (a pose, of course, to seem reasonable and scientific while actually being neither).

Most creationists are not truly disturbed by the idea that viruses and bacteria evolve before our eyes, or that, for example, the mice that were brought to the Faroe Islands are undergoing a speciation event in the last 500 years or so; their issue is one that, they believe, cuts to the heart of their beliefs; Original Sin.

If humans are just another evolved animal, then the most important aspect of the Genesis story, to their eyes, becomes meaningless, namely the Fall. If the Fall is meaningless, then Christ’s sacrifice is meaningless, and by extension, their whole religion is meaningless. This is their true fear about evolution, and all the peripheral issues they have with it are a smokescreen, whether conscious or not, to try and discredit the theory that seems to undermine their whole belief system.

But is it really the case?

In the debate I had with the Jehovah’s Witnesses I mentioned yesterday, this issue was finally revealed explicitly to me, and that is when I realized what the crux of their long-standing objection has always been. And a counterargument immediately came to mind.

The whole problem seems to me to be an artificial distinction between what I would term Conceptual Original Sin and The Original Sin. Fundamentalist literalist thought emphasizes The Original Sin, because it is a visceral example that appeals to a simplistic worldview, in which all answers can be found simply by referencing chapter and verse. But it also makes God out to be just a tad unreasonable, since He condemns Mankind to the burden of original sin simply because of the actions of the first humans. Considering the alleged philosophy of love and forgiveness, a “divine attribute”, according to all Christian faiths, it’s incredibly harsh punishment for a relatively minor transgression. Even Cain was not punished as badly for the crime of murder, which was explicitly forbidden in the 10 Commandments.

However, Conceptual Original Sin is a stronger concept in every respect; “COS” refers not to a specific event, but rather to the innate sinful nature of man; it is an attribute that we are all born with. God did not need to “punish” us with it, and Christ’s sacrifice stands against it.  If you must have an event, then why is Adam and Eve eating an apple in a garden 6000 years ago so much stronger an example than the first hominid with a hazy idea of “right and wrong” actively doing something wrong, and knowing it to be wrong, on an African plain a million years ago?

So how did the JWs respond? They claimed that Adam was perfect and then he fell, and Christ, being perfect, was the only being capable of redeeming that fall from perfection, in a like for like ransom. But Genesis does not say that Adam and Eve were perfect, simply that they were made in God’s Image, which generations of scholars have determined does not mean anything as silly as physically resembling God; if God is perfection, then he must be physically perfect, too. Since “God’s Image” cannot be a reference to physical being, then the “perfection” of Adam and Eve cannot be demonstrated scripturally by interpretation, and it is certainly never referred to specifically. Indeed, the other Literalist ideas about death being introduced after the Fall and so forth stretch the words of Genesis to breaking point as well; there is simply no primary Scriptural basis for it.  New Testament writers who refer to it at all are not primary sources and are themselves involved in interpretation of Scripture.

In other words, the Literalists explicitly go beyond Scripture to explain their adherence to literalism. When I point out the contradiction inherent in that position, they getrather irate. But the fact is that the Fall itself is proof of their imperfection, and therefore Christ’s sacrifice cannot be a like-for-like transaction. In the case of Conceptual Original Sin, however, Christ’s sacrifice is actually returned to its Scriptural basis; the sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, for all time, not simply those of Adam and Eve. Christ’s perfection is not, and never has been the issue. Once more, it is a smokescreen erected by Literalists to protect an inherently untenable interpretation.

So, as I see it, that’s the problem, but in reality, if these people were a little more honest and intellectually rigorous, they would see that there is no problem. Evolution only says how we got here; it says nothing of our nature, or our propensity for “sin” (wrongdoing, whatever you want to call it), nor does it render meaningless any religious viewpoint except for hollow literalism, which should be abandoned for reasons far deeper and more important (on a human level, at least) than the fact that it flies in the face of the evidence.

Finally, a question for Literalists; do you still refuse to wear cotton and wool within the same garment? It’s a sin, you know, according to Leviticus.

PS: I do not assert that this is “the Truth” in any regard; it is a logical argument that I find appealing, and to which, as far as I know, no serious objection has yet been raised. I in no way claiming any form of religious superiority, either, my claim yesterday that I belong to an “enlightened religion” notwithstanding; I continue to put these articles out because I find the arguments interesting, and believe that they can be used by believers and atheists.  As far as I’m concerned, the act of simply examining your beliefs is a vital one, and can only result in good. I don’t consider myself in any way to be a religious authority or religious writer. I am simply a writer, and that’s all there is to it!

Thomism

Well, here’s another rant that’s been bubbling away since last week, when I caught the tail end of a program called Creatures That Defy Evolution which made me laugh, then become angry. It happens like that.

Let me start off by saying I’m Catholic. I have nothing against religion, and nothing against what anyone chooses to believe. But I do have a problem with stupidity. Ignorance is okay; a lot of people are ignorant. Amazon Indians are “ignorant” of the internet. Pacific Islanders are “ignorant” of snow. Ignorance is fine. Stupidity, especially that which is cleaved to by people who should know better, is not. Now, I’m not going to list all the evidence for evolution; I may one day, but this is a far more elegant solution than to write a long, long, long list…

As a Catholic, of course, I have the advantage of belonging to a relatively enlightened Church. I know, you’re all going to start yelling about a sexist priesthood, a backwards view on birth control and AIDS, homosexuality and so on and so forth, but they’re matters of catechism; I’m referring to the Catholic Church’s relatively recent embracing of real science, and it’s all due to a remarkable man who lived in the 13th Century.

Thomas Aquinas was really a philosopher’s philosopher; he basically understood that in your head, nothing was really off-limits, and you could think about anything you wanted, whatever anyone said about it. But he was also rigorous and thorough, checking his beliefs against reality at every step. And that’s what brought him to a realization that (eventually, after about 600 years) revolutionized the Church. By rights, it should revolutionize every faith, especially the more fundamentalist ones, but I don’t see that happening for a while. The following may irritate non-believers, but I don’t mean to force any religion down your throats; rather I wish to illustrate a fine piece of philosophy that should appeal to everyone, and give you a good talking point next time the Jehovah’s come to your door.

In the 13th Century, the Church was pretty Fundamentalist itself; the Bible was inerrant, the Earth was created in 4000BC, everything was exactly as laid out in Genesis and so forth. Then Thomas had a revelation (pardon the unintentional religious pun). He realized there were two paths to Truth; God’s Word, and God’s Work. The Word, the Bible, was predicated solely upon Man’s understanding of it, and by definition (and as explicitly stated several times within it) that understanding is limited and imperfect. The Work (i.e. the Universe) is by definition Perfect, being the work of God, and thus the evidence, whether we fully understand it or not, is Truth.

Thomas realized that in studying the Universe, we could come to a better understanding of God; he also understood that if the evidence we gleaned from that study brought us into conflict with the Word, then it was not the evidence that was at fault, but rather our understanding of the Word. Therefore, if evidence seemed to disprove the Bible, we would have to change our understanding of the Bible, since the evidence that led to that conflict could not be in error. Our understanding of that evidence may be in error, but even in the 13th Century, it was pretty well known that evidence was empirical, and interpretation was not; Thomas was talking about empirical evidence, not the interpretation of said evidence.

Now, remember, this was 800 years ago, and this man, who knew nothing of radiometric dating, evolution or cosmology essentially laid the groundwork for what would become the Church’s reaction to these discoveries centuries later. Eventually, he was rewarded by being named the Patron Saint of Education and Learning, and that is why there are so many St Thomas Aquinas Schools around the world.

So what does all this mean? Well, it gives you a very useful tool to use against anyone who claims Biblical inerrancy. The argument is very simple.

God created the universe, according to the Bible, and thus it must, by definition, be a perfect work. Therefore all it’s evidence is equally perfect and true. And yet that evidence screams that the Universe is 12.5 billion years old, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, Evolution occurs and the world is essentially nothing like the Bible suggests. Given that Biblical inerrancy is fact, that leads to some very disturbing conclusions.

1. The Universe is NOT inerrant in its truth, and therefore cannot be the creation of a perfect being. This flatly contradicts the Biblical account, so therefore cannot be true.

2. The Devil is altering all the evidence, everywhere. This means the Devil is omnipresent, since apparently he is jostling the elbow of every geologist, every paleontologist, every anthropologist, every biologist and geneticist in the world all at once, planting evidence everywhere. This is not suggested by a literal reading of the Bible either, and certainly suggests that God’s power to counter the Devil is limited, and so therefore contradicts, once again, Biblical inerrancy, so cannot be true.

3. God made the Universe solely to deceive, planting the evidence of great age, evolution and the like, to mislead us. This does not contradict a literal reading of the Bible, oddly enough. But it does somewhat fly in the face of every major religion on the planet…

I’ve used these arguments very successfully against Jehovah’s Witnesses in the past; by “successfully”, I mean that after about five minutes of trying to counter them, and failing, they suddenly had to leave, tried to hit me up for a “donation”, and have left me alone for about two years now.
So even if that’s all you get out of this post, I think it’s worth it. Unless you are a JW, in which case, read it again and try to counter the argument. Trust me, it’s fun and entertaining, and as long as you’re actually thinking critically, I’m happy for you, even if I don’t change your mind.

Toodles for now!