In keeping with some other responses, I point out that “Darwinism” has become an ideologically loaded term, well beyond even what the term “Mendelism” meant a century ago. Probably this has something to do with Charles Hodge’s very negative answer to his famous book, “What Is Darwinism?” from the 1870s.
The Dawkins crowd, the Discovery folks, and Ham’s people all have one thing in common: they fail to recognize that science doesn’t equate with metaphysics. It’s one thing to study evolution at the level of the observations, mathematical theory, and experiments (and yes, there are experiments bearing on it); it’s another thing to extrapolate that science into a worldview of nihilism and anti-religion, and then glibly to preach those views with claimed “scientific” support. The ID folks love the lablel, “Darwinism,” but they often mean larger worldview claims rather than Darwin’s theory itself, though sometimes they do mean aspects of the theory. This should be a big problem for them: they are collapsing Dawkins into Darwin, yet Darwin would have rejected that association. They should know better than to do this; thus, I sense political motivations rather than a wish to be more helpful to people who don’t have the same level of understanding as the experts.
Paul, as you can see from the responses, you’ve ‘poked the bear’ as I have a number of times in this forum. Good for you!
The movie ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ documents in some detail the extreme culture of intimidation in the scientific academic community.
Personally, I’ve noticed it from my high school and college days in the 1980’s. I went to a large public high school and large state university in NJ, and it was clear to me in science classes that the last thing desired was to question majority theory, or frankly, to question anything. Seemed odd to me for educational institutions.
Early in my reading on the debates on origins, I was counseled that in virtually every Darwinist’s mind is the mindset from the movie ‘Inherit the Wind’, which is quite loosely based on the Scopes Trial of 1925. It is a classic piece of propaganda, and it has ingrained in the minds of many that to question Darwinism is to place you in the category of an ignorant hick.
I have found that spirit to be alive and well here among many professing Christians who are EC.
Keep questioning, and keep learning!
Mark
“Great are the works of the LORD; They are studied by all who delight in them.” (Psalms 111:2)
I agree with you, Mark, that we should question things in general. I think our schools tend to repress open discussion of serious subjects. Secular schools tend to do in primarily in the area of politics, and some Christian schools are notorious for doing it in areas of dogma and evolution. Certainly good ideas should be able to withstand scrutiny, but that is not always afforded.
In the case of evolution, the bottom line is that there is healthy debate on the details, but the framework is well established. If good arguments existed with data to back them up, I bet they would be welcomed.
Interesting take. I’ve never seen the movie. My mindset is based much more on dealing with critics of evolution for several decades. In that time I’ve seen a great many question evolution. At least 95% of those questioning it had virtually no understanding of the subject and a similar number had no interest in having their questions answered. There have certainly been exceptions, which is one reason I generally try to answer people as if they were sincerely wanted to learn about evolution rather than merely trying to poke holes in it.
I’ve never seen the movie. I came to accept evolutionary biology after running into problems in science and history that made the YEC model not make sense. I first looked to YEC resources to explain things, and when those explanations didn’t satisfy, I looked to mainstream explanations. Once I learned what modern science actually says (not the strawman version presented by the YEC resources), everything made so much more sense, AND I developed more of an awe for how God works.
It was the actual evidence that convinced me, not intimidation, not worrying about being thought of as a hick. And seeing a lot of dishonesty in some of the top “creation science” books and articles just sealed the deal. I couldn’t trust what they were saying when I could so clearly see that they were misrepresenting scientific papers, saying things about rock formations that I could clearly see in pictures were not true, etc. I realized their arguments were all just attempts to poke holes in existing well established theories (scientific definition) while not providing any positive evidence of what they were claiming. For example, what measurement gives us evidence of a 6000 year old earth? The rocks, the solar system, the genetic evidence… all of them point to an old earth/universe WITH a history (so appearance of age argument doesn’t work).
Has nothing to do with propaganda or intimidation. It’s looking at the evidence right in front of me. I think that’s the case for most Christians who accept evolutionary biology, despite what the YEC propaganda tries to tell you.
Good topic Paul. I think we could turn your original question around, and it would be interesting to look at:
Has Darwinism succeeded scientifically but not socially?
It seems that (more broadly stated) evolutionary theory has succeeded remarkably well scientifically, but socially has not been accepted at least in the USA conservative religious subculture. Why is that? Is it purely due to Biblical interpretation, or are there other factors that make those interpretations attractive to a subset? Is it more related to power structures? Appeal to pride that we are made of special organic gluten free non GMO dirt?
Paul, as you can see, the dialogue has confirmed your suspicions and proved my point. Many of the folks chiming in don’t even realize it, the bias runs so deep.
“For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,” (Romans 1:21-22)
To be honest I was never intimidated into evolution, but I was intimidated into YEC when I was at my very Fundamentalist’s Bible college. In a sense I was under peer pressure in that “your not a true Christian if you don’t take everything literal in the Bible.” It took a long time for me to break the ego I built on myself and the fear of intimidation and being wrong to start on the path I am on today.
How do those who question feel intimidated? By the mass of evidence that supports evolutionary theory? By the interpretations of scripture that integrate knowledge of creation with faith? By the willingness of forums like this to allow open discussion rather than deleting posts and reverting questioning faith and spiritual condition rather than looking at whether something is true? By arguments that have data supporting them rather than rhetoric?
Since my last post was blocked by Biologos, I will simply ask that readers evaluate for themselves from the responses here if the intimidation is real.
Hum. It was flagged by several Mark, but not sure why not showing up. Will look at making it visible as it was not that offensive, just imputing motives on the part of others, which not really in line but is sort the topic of the post.
There we go: now visible.
Always a great thing to encourage! I’ve evaluated for myself (though not recently - so feel free to correct me if something has changed…[Okay - now I just did, and see that probably not much has changed]) where the free dialogue is welcomed, tolerated, … or even just allowed at all.
And yet you remain welcome here, Mark. Could I say the same for myself over on Young-Earth creationist web venues (if I could even find any)? I’ve tried, and never found out because I failed to find any place where users could even post or ask questions. Not only do we welcome that here, but we even welcome those who vehemently disagree to come and bring their challenges with them. And Biologos even freely links to these other ostensibly “hostile” web sites (as I just did above), but rarely do we ever see these other web sites link to Biologos. Why is that? Who is afraid of exposure here? There is a very biblical principle involved, and it is one of the reasons that many are seeking (and in many cases finding) answers here.
Now does any of that prove that there is no intimidation or that you are wrong to be concerned about such things? No, it doesn’t - I agree with you there. I don’t doubt intimidation and censorship happens on any side of any big issue. It is good to be aware of those possibilities about one’s own cherished causes. And we strive to be aware so as to not become that way here (or fix it when we do or have). People like you can help hold us to account in that. Of course it is impossible to be perfect, and the line between repeated correction and “intimidation” may often be in the eye of the beholder. But still … we try.
And thank you for your presence here, even as sharply critical of Biologos agendas as you are.
I was happy to flag it as inappropriate. The moderators are free to overrule me, of course, but I have put the standards that you violated in bold type:
Expectations for Gracious Dialogue
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.”-Colossians 4:6
At BioLogos, “gracious dialogue” means demonstrating the grace of Christ as we dialogue together about the tough issues of science and faith. …
Focus on discussing other people’s ideas, not on evaluating their character, faith, communication style, or perceived “tone.” Please avoid attributing beliefs, motivations, or attitudes to others.
Assume legitimate Christian faith on the part of other people, unless they identify otherwise. The purpose of discussions here is not to judge the legitimacy or efficacy of anyone’s faith or lack of faith.
I do that all the time. I enjoy the advantage of knowing what intimidation is, and this is how I know that your accusations are inappropriate. If you, yourself, have experienced intimidation here or elsewhere, I would never question your experience. But in this thread, I see nothing but crude, disrespectful slurs at good people. And that is just a few small steps away from actual intimidation.
From what I evaluate, the only intimidation was from YEC and not the other way around, as I said earlier.
While I’m sure there can be intimidation from both sides no doubt, I notice it’s from the YEC rather then the other way around as groups like AiG try and make it out to be.
And seeing a lot of dishonesty in some of the top “creation science” books and articles just sealed the deal. I couldn’t trust what they were saying when I could so clearly see that they were misrepresenting scientific papers, saying things about rock formations that I could clearly see in pictures were not true, etc. I realized their arguments were all just attempts to poke holes in existing well established theories (scientific definition) while not providing any positive evidence of what they were claiming. For example, what measurement gives us evidence of a 6000 year old earth? The rocks, the solar system, the genetic evidence… all of them point to an old earth/universe WITH a history (so appearance of age argument doesn’t work).