Evolution and Creation, Fit the First

Pilgrim writes a well researched and well argued blog and I heartily recommend it even though I disagree with almost everything he writes!  Imagine how delighted I was to see his latest post Creationists akin to Holocaust deniers in Dawkins brave new world.  This post comments on an article by Dawkins in The Times, Creationists, now they’re coming for your children. 

I will try to spare you another long article and make one single point about this frustrating debate (although I'm afraid it will take some development).  Both Dawkins and creationists are making a basic error of logical typing.  In plain English, they are not comparing like with like.  Reductionism is a good example of an error in logical typing.  To assert, for example, that human behaviour can be explained solely in terms of chemical reactions in the brain, makes the erroneous assumption that chemical reactions and human social interactions are the same kind of thing.

So, the debates about evolution and creationism are not comparing like with like.  We are comparing science with theology.  Creationism is a fundamental error not because it is bad science but because it is bad theology.  This means it is impossible to disprove creationism using science, it is for theologians to demonstrate that creationists are in error.

So, the idea that creationism should be taught as science is absurd.  It is not science.  To do so would be to misinform children about the nature of science.  There are scientific controversies about evolution and these should be taught in science lessons, as they would demonstrate how truth is arrived at using scientific methodologies.

Of course, some creationists have recognised this and have developed a creation science.  Note creation science came after creationism.  What they are doing is confusing a theological statement with an objective scientific truth.  So, is there no place for creation science in school?  If there is I would place it in religious studies and indeed science as a whole can be studied as a belief system.  I am not convinced I would want to give creationism that much prominence, simply because I think there are more important issues but them I don't set the syllabus.

Karen Armstrong has written about the distinction between logos (scientific truth) and mythos (religious truth) for many years.  A good example is her recent book, The Case for God, details can be found in 'Featured Books' in the left hand column of my other blog.  For hundreds of years, this clear distinction has been recognised.  It has only been with the rise of modern science, in a mistaken search for the reassurance of objective truth, that fundamentalists have perversely claimed mythos as logos.

Here are a few examples of theological arguments against creationism:

1. It replaces faith in Jesus Christ with faith in scientific or objective truth. 
2. It is a form of idolatry, raising a particular interpretation of scripture to become an essential element of Christian faith.  Are creationists really saying belief in creationism is essential for salvation?
3. Pilgrim is wrong, if I've understood him correctly, when he says it is inconsistent to draw ethical or theological truths from a story not understood to be literally true.  The distorted interpretation of the creationists distracts from the truth of scripture.  Whether it really happened in exactly that way is irrelevant and leads to ludicrous interpretations of the text.
4. There are two accounts of creation in the opening chapters of Genesis and others scattered throughout the Bible, eg in Proverbs, Job and John.  Why does Genesis get all the attention?  Because its at the beginning?  No-one seems to have a problem with John's account, for example.  I'm sure Dawkins would find something in it to take exception to. 
5. To idolise scripture is to misinterpret and draw attention away from the figure of Jesus into attempting to prove a whole raft of unprovable things.  This is not part of the mission of the church but a distraction from it.

I'm sure there are other arguments and would welcome suggestions.  If you are interested in this topic I have written at length about evolution in my other blog.  Start here and work forwards until you can't take it any more.

Comments

[Chris Pritchard]

Hi Chris
Just found the stuff you have written on evolution. Pity I didn't find it earlier really.

Two things that strike me.
1 I am fed up with christians who see the bible as a scientific book. The word of God is the word of God it is about God not science. The Genesis Creation stories were not told to help us to understand how God create but they tell us a great deal about our relationship to God and God's relationship to planet earth.

2 I have started thinking more about the idea of God as an artist rather than a Scientific designer. I particularly like the ideas of W H Vanstone in love's endevour loves expense where he talks about the risk of the artist takes in creating art works. Perhaps this is something to explore further. Another thought is that engineering is often seen as sit down do a design and build but often it is a much more fluid cycle you sit down do a design create then improve/alter/correct and the cycle continues. Is this away of seeing God in action, is god really an engineer.

[Chris Sissons]

Hello Chris, I have written extensively about evolution in my other blog. Your first sentence implies you've seen it. If not, go to http://chrississons.typepad.co.uk/exploring_ecumenism/ and then look under the category 'science'.

1. This is precisely the point Armstrong makes about confusion of mythos and logos. Dawkins does it when he attacks creationism with science. Creationists do it when they attack evolution with theology. Creationism is bad theology. It's not bad science; it isn't science.

2. I'm not sure how risky art is but I take your point. I think I've expressed it as a conversation where a new reality emerges. I certainly agree that 'design' implies God had a blueprint and then things went wrong (sin). (See http://chrississons.typepad.co.uk/exploring_ecumenism/2009/05/god-does-not-design-things.html). But this fixes God in one correct way from the start of time.

Freedom and pain go together. God is not a God of wrath but suffering with creation as God and creation participate in what's coming next. I think this is Wesley's view, ie God's plan will be revealed at the end. Creationists are trying to showhorn God's plan into reality rather than trusting in God that all work out in the best of all possible worlds. Is God really an engineer? Well possibly, but beware of the temptation to create God in your own image!