Bullying and Intimidation at the hands of other Christians?

I want to raise a serious issue here, and it is this; why do some Christians who in many ways seem tolerant and respectful to others think it acceptable to bully and intimidate Christians who are creationists ?

Stephen Tomkins of ShipofFools website (and deputy editor of Third Way magazine) writes that 'Civility Works - mostly'. Although he calls for civil discourse he argues that "we also at other times need to give vent to anger at ugly and harmful ideas. At times we need to bolster and unify the opposition of right-thinking people to them. At times we need every rhetorical trick up our mucky sleeves to convince waverers that horrid and stupid ideas are horrid and stupid." He is here referring to creationists because he first writes that he thinks creationism is "a bottomless pit of deliberate stupidity."

But why is it acceptable to use 'rhetorical tricks' to 'bolster and unify right thinking people' and so silence those who hold to ideas that are "horrid and stupid" ? If people are right thinking won't they accept an idea on the basis of reason alone? There are of course some beliefs that will look odd to outsiders, such as the Hindu belief in reincarnation, but our response should be one of respectful dialogue.

There are other occasions I have found when admission that I am a creationist attracts accusations of being stupid and a deliberate liar. But what does this really reveal? That perhaps some Christians are cowardly and unable to stand out from the crowd in support of ideas that are not mainstream. Perhaps it is thought that being cool, or a joker, or fitting with the 'in crowd' will somehow lead people to Christ?

In fact if I wasn't a creationist I think I would become one just to expose the weakness of character that such attacks reveal. Such comments I believe reflect the attitude of the playground bully and need to be challenged. Surely we can extend respect to those who hold ideas that may differ from our own.

Andrew Sibley

The British Humanist Association and their Fundamentalism

The British Humanist Association has been hard at work writing to the Government seeking to deny religious groups a voice in education, while pretending to be a voice of reason. This is hypocritical

The BHA has lobbied the Education Secretary Michael Gove and reports suggest that the policy developed will seek to exclude 'extremist groups' from taking over schools, and furthermore there would be no creationism taught in science classes.

Andrew Copson of the BHA is concerned about the 'dangers of the influences of fundamentalist groups in our school system.' Presumably he doesn't mean to imply that the BHA owns the school system by use of the word ‘our’, but the faux pas is evident nonetheless. He is perhaps too blinkered to know that true pluralism must respect those who have different religious beliefs to his own and allow them to have an equal voice in education.

The BHA wants us to believe that secular humanism is religiously neutral, but it is not. It is instead biased in favour of atheism. So the claim of the BHA that it seeks to develop 'totally inclusive schools for children of all faiths and none' is entirely bogus. The BHA wants atheistic humanism to have a dominant position in schools and by its actions wishes to treat those who have religious and scientific convictions about creation as second-class citizens.

It would be a tragedy if the new coalition Government were to listen to the BHA and allow restrictions to freedom and human rights in schools and so deny children their freedom of conscience, and to prevent the opportunity for children to learn skills in the critical analysis of complex arguments and data; skills that are the hallmarks of true education. We would ask that children and students be allowed to learn skills in critical thinking within the science class and be allowed to question the problems with evolution while respecting their faith. Anything less is not science, but humanistic, religious dogma of a fundamentalist nature.

Andrew Halloway has written a more extensive piece here

Doubting Darwin

Theos have now published their final report on Darwinism in 2009. The report Doubting Darwin - Can be read here. It investigates the thinking of creationists and evolution sceptics in the UK, and is suprisingly balanced in its approach, although a bit dry at times.

There is also an interesting debate here Have we misunderstood Creationism

Paul Bickley writes; "The first myth is that there is such a thing as a movement which we can legitimately call ‘creationism’." Undoubtedly that is correct, although there are as many views amongst those who hold to evolution. Undoubtedly also there is some bitter disputes, but I would suggest mainly at the fringes. Most creationists I know seek dialogue in a respectful manner.

"The second myth is that evolution sceptics are, in the words of Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society, “…anti-science…" Again quite right, most creationists are not anti-science, as even Ron Numbers has pointed out.

"The third myth is that the way to take the wind out of creationist sails is fierce rebuttal and public derision in the mode of Richard Dawkins or Harry Kroto. On the contrary, if evolution scepticism could ever be moulded into a movement, it would be due in no small measure to the galvanising effects of Dawkins’ rhetoric:" Again a good point, although the report does note that many creationists feel like a minority under attack.

"Bickley finishes with this useful statement,"If the public debate on faith and evolution is to move beyond its stale polarities, we could do worse than starting with rigorous analyses of the protagonists’ respective positions. The evolution-sceptical community is not really what reputation would make it. Listening carefully – knowing who ‘creationists’ really are and what they really think – is a first step to understanding the roots of their antagonism. In time, this understanding could undergird strategies which improve public engagement with science."

Did Darwin Kill God?

Professor Steve Fuller offers a very useful review of the recent BBC 2 programme 'Did Darwin kill God?' by Coner Cunningham shown 31st March 2009 Review: Did Darwin Kill God? Uncommon Descent Cunningham, it would seem, is involved with a theological movement known as ‘Radical Orthodoxy.’ An attempt apparently to recover a pre modern view of the world.

Here is my own review - The latest programme in the BBC’s pro Darwin propaganda series for the birthday celebrations was Did Darwin Kill God? Shown 31st March on BBC2 7pm, presented by Coner Cunningham. I found this programme to be very disappointing indeed.

Cunningham, who wanted us to know that he was a Christian who accepted Darwin’s findings, tried to make the case that the orthodox Christian view was that of acceptance of evolution, with the literal interpretation of Genesis considered un-orthodox and only a twentieth century invention by extreme fundamentalists. In order to make this point Cunningham used evidence very selectively, citing Philo and Augustine to make his case, ignoring the words of Jesus and the apostles writing, or biblical literalists such as St Basil. Philo though was Jewish with an interest in the works of Greek philosophers, hardly an example for orthodox Christianity. The other person he cited was Augustine, who was a convert from neo-Platonism. Even so Augustine gradually weeded the Platonism out of his theology by the time he wrote his third commentary on Genesis, considering that a literal reading should be accepted from day 4 of the creation week.

Peter Harrison, an Oxford Professor of theology, has also argued that the Protestant commitment to reading scripture literally actually enabled science to get going because the reformers then read creation literally, and not symbolically as had been the case in the past. Cunningham failed to mention this evidence, nor those Christians such as the Wesley’s and Luther who argued for a literal interpretation of Genesis in history.

Then we were told that young earth creationism was merely a twentieth century invention ignoring the hundreds of gentlemen scientists who were young earth creationists in British Victorian society, including the captain of the Beagle Robert FitzRoy. The founders of the Victoria Institute for instance were young earth creationists as were the nineteenth century scriptural geologists. Although Terry Mortenson of Answers in Genesis was interviewed his research on the scriptural geologists was ignored. Instead we were led to believe that most Christians merely caved in and accepted Darwinism within a few decades. For many years afterwards though Darwin’s claims were not widely accepted because the influential Lord Kelvin had given Darwin far too short a time span for his theory to work.

The funniest point was that we were then told that William Jennings Bryan was both a right wing Republican and a socialist! Yes Bryan was motivated to counter social Darwinism in America, and therefore he supported creationism of an old earth variety, but his politics looks decidedly mainstream being a conservative Christian with a social conscience, hardly the extremist that Cunningham was looking for.

A note about the programme from non-executive producer Jean Claude Bragard on the BBC website, comments that the producers wanted to explore how Christians harmonise Darwinism with their faith and Cunningham was asked to be involved and present the programme. Sadly, an accurate reflection of history was lacking, and we won’t hold our breath waiting for a more balanced approach that deals with the issues accurately. Instead, in this programme we were fed another set of Darwin myths that failed to get to the historical truth.

Andrew Sibley

Creationism and Intelligent Design in science classes

According to the Guardian twenty-nine per cent of teachers believe that creationism and intelligent design should be taught as science. This figure comes from an online survey of attitudes to teaching evolution in the UK conducted by Teachers TV. Nearly half of the respondents said they believed that excluding alternatives to evolution was counter-productive and would alienate pupils from science.

Read the Guardian article - Creationism should be taught as science, say 29% of teachers

Professor Reiss and teaching creationism in schools

Professor Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, has again argued that science teachers should allow discussions about creationism and intelligent design in schools. Banning such teaching he argued is counterproductive and alienates children from science.

"My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science…"

Reiss is also an ordained Church of England minister. Speaking at the British Association, Festival of Science in Liverpool he commented that science teachers should consider creationism as an alternative world view, and not see it as a "misconception." He commented that good teaching is about respecting the students' views. "I do believe in taking seriously and respectfully the concerns of students who do not accept the theory of evolution while still introducing them to it."

Prof John Bryant, who is a retired professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Exeter, agreed that alternatives could be admissible for discussion in science classes. "If the class is mature enough and time permits, one might have a discussion on the alternative viewpoints [to evolution]." (Although he doesn't think intelligent design or creationism should be placed on an equal footing).

Reiss was also critical of Prof Richard Dawkins for saying that teaching creationism is akin to child abuse. "This is an inappropriate and insulting use of the phrase child abuse as anybody who has ever worked [in this area] knows."

Professor Reiss is not a creationist, but a one-time 'evangelist' for Darwinism who now recognises that respectful dialogue is the way forward with the present impasse between evolution and creation. I think this is a welcome development that can only increase understanding of the complexity of biological life for both sides.

Read the articles in the press

Daily Telegraph article
Times online article
Reiss - Guardian science blog
Guardian article

Andrew S

What does Denis Alexander know?

Denis Alexander has a letter in the New Scientist (3oth July 08) 'Advertising Ethics' in which he carefully equates the claims of creationism with astrology as being equally unscientific.

Alexander comments that we 'know from science itself [that the claims of creationism and astrology] are not true.' A strong statement to make. He then comments that 'Science continually throws up big questions, not least ethical questions, which science itself cannot answer.'

Presumably though the origin of life question is a 'big question' also. So some 'big questions' about unrepeatable events in the past have known answers in science, while other 'big questions' cannot be answered by science. I would gently suggest there is an inconsistency there Denis.

Interestingly Steve Fuller, in his latest book, 'Dissent over Descent' compares Darwinism to astrology. According to Fuller, astrology claims causality at a spatial distance, while evolution claims causality at a temporal distance. But I think the problem for Alexander is that he has the wrong view of science. Science is a process of investigation where findings are held provisionally, but Alexander is blinded by science as offering objective, absolute knowledge. Science becomes another word for truth. I would suggest that repeatable science comes close to this, but even here results have to be interpreted within a theoretical framework that is presuppositional, but when dealing with origin science the grounds are far less certain because of the non repeatability of the problem. All scientists can do is make inferences based on probability. So where does Denis get his certainty from to make such a statement about origins when his claims are not testable in science? I would suggest he is engaged in a rhetorical argument to hold together a paradigm that he is emotionally attached to.

Andrew S.