From: hamilton@hydra.cs.gmr.com (William E. Hamilton CS50 CS/50)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Future evolution of Creationism
Date: 7 Jan 93 18:21:50 GMT
Reply-To: hamilton@gmr.com
Organization: G.M. Research Laboratories

In article <1993Jan7.152448.8339@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> jgacker@news.gsfc.nasa.gov (James G. Acker) writes:
>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 is part of it.  Another part comes from the tendency of many 
fundamentalists to shy away from putting the kind of effort into 
understanding the Bible that their high school English teachers should
have taught them to put into understanding, say Shakespeare.  This 
is near-eastern literature, written 2000 or more years ago. It's full
of poetry, uses allegory and hyperbole.  It's not the kind of literature
a 20th century American should expect to just dive into and immediately 
understand. This is not to say that you have to have a degree in near eastern
literature and read Greek and Hebrew to understand it - I do believe
it's the word of God, and I don't believe God would make it inaccessible
to all but a few highly educated people.  But you have to be willing to
do some work to understand it, and no matter how much work you do,
you won't understand all of it.

>This may change
>with the new administration 

I hope you're right, but I think the new administration is going to have
to worry about quite a few other things before they have time to
worry about improving the intellectual climate 

-- the previous Republican administrations
>were anti-intellectual, and Falwell and Robertson have made no bones
>about their distrust of "liberal" scientists.  

In spite of the fact that I am a conservative Republican, I have to agree. 
But I think education and intellectual progress are too important to
entrust to the government.
 
>Thus, I don't see the
>current era as a brief reaction against evolution science 

Curious question: How long did the reaction against Copernicus and Gallileo
continue? A couple hundred years? It probably seemed like a long time to
the people who lived during that era.

-- 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.  

Unfortunately, that's what I see too. Christ commissioned the church to
preach the Gospel.  He also taught (at least we Calvinists believe He did)
that the church is to take back territory won by Satan.  That will happen
naturally if the church preaches the gospel - but it takes time. Some
(maybe most) of the efforts of Christians who are active in trying to change
the laws seem to be aimed at trying to change behavior without necessarily 
changing people's minds. In other words they seem to be trying to take
a shortcut to a society which has some of the outward characteristics
of the society they want.  I'd like to see a society that better reflects
Christian values too, but the only way to do that is to convince more
people to embrace Christianity.

>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.

As I said above - the legislative shortcut to a society that *superficially
resembles* their vision of the ideal society.  

>
>	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.

And (harp mode on) not having the intellectual resources to deal with
literature which uses poetry, hyperbole and allegory to relate truth.

>
>: 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".)
>

I don't think the situation is that bleak, Jim.  I've just come across 
a couple of recent Bible studies on Revelation by evangelicals which
show considerable appreciation for the symbolism of the OT prophets and 
Revelation. If they can come to terms with symbolism on one end of history 
perhaps they can with the other end also. I certainly would agree 
with your concern about school board elections - but I tell my evangelical
Christian brothers that too. They don't watch the school board elections -
or anything else - like they should :-).

Bill Hamilton 
GM Research (formerly GM Research and Environment Staff (formerly
GM Research Labs))