From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: The Historical Jesus I:  Introduction
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 21:16:51 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Keywords: historical jesus, creation/evolution debate

In article <22687@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, sichase@csa1.lbl.gov (SCOTT I CHASE) writes:
|> In article <mstjkta@lynx.unm.edu>, rsquires@cyclops.eece.unm.edu (Roger Squires) writes...
|> 
|> >The second is to point out to Evolutionists an important line of argument
|> >that perhaps is underestimated.  Creationists are always on the offensive
|> >in arguing against the validity of evolution.  Evolutionists should also
|> >carry the battle into the enemy's camp by attacking the literal interpretation
|> >of the Bible by Creationists, citing not only the inerrencies of and historical
|> >questions about the OT, but also that of the New Testament, which the Xtians
|> >claim as their very own.  And they can do it by utilizing modern biblical
|> >textual/form/source/critical/redaction/archaeological research.
|> 
|> NO!  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  Evolutionists  (read: rational, committed to scientific
|> fact over religious dogma, etc...)  should never debate the credibility of 
|> the Bible, in any interpretation.  This is (a) completely beside the point in 
|> arguing for the evidence in favor of the fact of evolution and the importance
|> of various mechanisms for it, and (b) playing right into the hands of those
|> people who want you to acknowledge that the Bible might potentially contain the 
|> disproof of evolution.  

If it were just an argument about the data and observed fact, and theory built
on fact, that would be one thing.  However, there is an agenda being presented
by one of the parties that is a real participant in the debate.  As such, it is
something that should be subjectable to critical analysis in an open forum.  In
this sense, it isn't an issue of playing into anybodies hands... its just
examining what people are using for criterea of acceptability.

If the debate is just about evolution, then you'd be correct about point a). 
However, the debate also has to do with the general debate of cosmology, and
whether the description is not only theist, but also matches a sort of mish-mash
of Babylonian, Persian, Canaanite, Assyrian, and other sources that ultimately
colored what has come to be the Bible's creation tradition.

There's another facet to this debate, as well.  If the world view implied by a
cosmology were challenged by later discoveries - if a new form of physics emerged
that toppled quantum mechanics for instance - it wouldn't really challenge most
physicists' world views.  If the cosmological picture of creationists were
really toppled, then it would probably have a harder impact on them since it has
to do with their faith, and ultimately their sense of identity.  The expectation
of science, what science means, how that's interpreted in the context of
scripture, and how scripture itself is treated are all integral parts of
creationist doctrine ('doctrine' is an interesting word; there is no real
counterpart in the broad application of the scientific method).  This is also a
part of the undercurrents to this debate.


Another facet to the problem of creationism is that of politics... should
creationism be taught in schools?  If so, what should constitute the curriculum?
I'll tell you right now that if it came down to teaching creationist doctrine to
my kids, I'd want them to see Biblical criticism right along with it... making
it a part of the curriculum.

Dan