From: jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker)
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center - Greenbelt, MD USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 15:24:48 GMT

Broughton, Wayne Jeremy (waynebro@juliet.caltech.edu) wrote:
: Assuming the point of view that the standard Creationist position is
: bunk, what do you think is the destiny of the Creationist movement in
: both the near and distant future?  Taking the long historical view, one
: hopes our current era represents only a brief reaction against evolution
: science similar to initial reactions against Copernican theory.  

	I'll try to be brief -- I think that in the U.S. there is a
general waning of educational standards, and with this, an ignorance that
leads to acceptance of current Creationism preachings.  This may change
with the new administration -- the previous Republican administrations
were anti-intellectual, and Falwell and Robertson have made no bones
about their distrust of "liberal" scientists.  Thus, I don't see the
current era as a brief reaction against evolution science -- I see the
ICR and fundamentalist hype as a deliberate attempt to mislead the
unschooled masses, and rally them to the cause of a Judeao-Christian
state.  The ICR, the Right-to-Life movement, and those who support prayer
in schools are all trying to legislate their own view of morality.  It's
not a conspiracy -- it's what they want!  They've said so.

: into the high-school science curriculum.  I mean a religiously-motivated
: denial of evolutionary theory and belief in supernatural creation, often
: associated with a mistrust of science.  This would include both Bible-
: based and Veda-based creationism.

	Exactly.   How prevalent?  I don't have numbers.

: also the Bible a lot better than the usual ICR line.  I suspect that
: this doctrine could become more prevalent and eventually displace the
: "Young Earth" model, as people start to face up to the geological and
: astronomical evidence.  Even the ICR seem to hedge their bets more than
: usual on the issue of the age of the Earth/universe, pointing out that
: their "model" does not *require* a young world necessarily.

	I see the problem as people not having the intellectual resources
to understand the geological and astronomical evidence.  As long as
educational standards slip, these philosophies will be a threat.

: If so, this could represent an important step in the eventual general 
: acceptance of evolutionary theory and the reduction of Creationism to
: the status of today's Flat Earth Society.  I would be willing to guess
: that this state of affairs might be reached in the next 30-80 years.
: Any detractors?

	Well, I guess I just detracted.  I would hope so -- but they
most rapidly growing segment of the Church has been the right-wing
fundamental side, pulling people away from the liberal Protestant side.
And Robertson is organizing at the grass-roots level.  Watch the
school board elections!  (I sound like Dan Aykroyd in "Sneakers".)


============================================================
|  James G. Acker                       Occasional Genius  |
|  jgacker@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov        Regular Swimmer    |
|                                                          |
|  "Animal-based research in this field ignores the fact   |
|  that in humans much sexual behavior has little to do    |
|  with reproduction both psychologically and physio-      |
|  logically..."                                           |
============================================================
Newsgroups: talk.origins