Who's Responsible for the Evolution/Creation Controversy?

[cbayer]

It's Not As Simple as Some Would Have You Believe
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/whos-responsible-for-the-evolution-creation-controversy-its-not-simple_b_1657926.html

Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.
Founder, The Clergy Letter Project

Posted: 07/10/2012 7:35 am


As the latest legislative season wound down with a large number of creationist bills introduced around the country and as the latest Gallup poll came out showing that creationism continues to enthrall many Americans, there were a flurry of articles discussing how to apportion blame for this sorry state of affairs. Oddly enough all seem to have missed some critically important aspect and thus the explanations offered explain very little.

The discourse began with a piece in The Atlantic by Robert Wright. His hypothesis is as simple as it is wrong! He argues that creationists and scientists agreed to a détente two decades ago and all was well until the "new atheists" came along to upset the status quo.

A few decades ago, Darwinians and creationists had a de facto nonaggression pact: Creationists would let Darwinians reign in biology class, and otherwise Darwinians would leave creationists alone. The deal worked. ... A few years ago, such biologists as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers started violating the nonaggression pact. ... I don't just mean they professed atheism -- many Darwinians had long done that; I mean they started proselytizing, ridiculing the faithful, and talking as if religion was an inherently pernicious thing. They not only highlighted the previously subdued tension between Darwinism and creationism but depicted Darwinism as the enemy of religion more broadly.

Jerry Coyne, in his blog, "Why Evolution is True," rightfully took him to task for this position asking, among other things,

Is Wright unaware of the many court cases in which creationists didn't let Darwinians reign in biology class? The National Center for Science Education lists ten major court cases in which creationists tried to insinuate their filthy camel noses into the public-school tent. All of those took place between 1968 and 2005.

more at link

[Moonwalk]

1. It still blames the "New Atheists" for creating fundies...which I think is a bit short-sighted....

The fundies created the new atheists. When pamphlets put out by the government (during Bush's time) offer a Noah's Ark explanation for the Grand Canyon, that's when you get New Atheists. Because anything less militant is getting squashed--and the clergy that is now berating the New Atheists for being so strident are the same ones that didn't put up any kind of fight against the militant fundies who put creationists on the school boards and voted climate deniers into congress.

There comes a point where people get tired of watching fundies being allowed to bully and shout down those who disagree with them. Like when science teachers have to put up with little kids quoting the bible to them when they try to explain dinosaurs--which their religious teachers and parents told them to do (really happened!), and school boards command them to tell lies to their students rather than the facts...at that point, is it any surprise if those on the side of the science teachers start to push back? And with an equal amount of force? What else is going to put a stop to such bullying? Or do we wait till they're rounding up the unbelievers and marching them to a death camp before we say, "Maybe we should fight back?"

[cbayer]

2. I read it as putting the responsibility on both theists and atheists.

[eqfan592]

9. Which would be wrong.

Sometimes there are not two sides of equal value to every story. The evolution vs creationism debate is one of those.

[cbayer]

11. I am sorry - I was not clear.

Of course there is only one valid side to the evolution vs creation debate. What the article speaks to is how both progressive theists and atheists have contributed to the problem of creationism still being believed by so many in this country.

[struggle4progress]

3. Personally, I blame loudmouths, blowhards, and attention whores

working hand-in-hand with the corporate media to replace any intelligent conversation by noisy idiotic emotional-kneejerk controversy-by-soundbite

[cbayer]

4. LOL. Good point.

[skepticscott]

5. Good grief, what a steaming pile of crap

His whole argument for blaming "new atheists" for the creation/evolution "controversy" (which is no controversy at all-his first turd) boils down to saying that a lot of (supposedly) well educated members of the clergy (and his numbers here are also fishy) have decided to resist accepting a position supported by overwhelming scientific evidence, developed by literally thousands of scientists (most of whom have no interest in addressing religion publicly in any way) because that position also happens to be shared and touted by a literal handful of people who make fun of their faith. And this right in the face of his repeated admonitions that science should stay science and religion should stay religion!

You want to assign blame here, Dr. Zimmerman? Look to your own addle-brained colleagues and tell them to take your advice to heart.

I guess there are no depths of the nonsensical that religion writers at HuffPo won't plumb.

[rrneck]

6. Blame disaster capitalism.

There's a lot of money to be made in ideological strife.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. WTF?

Three times in the past three years fundaloons have attempted to push school systems in our area into creationist idiocy. Detente? WHAT THE FUCK?

I declare derp.

[Aero]

10. A Third Way: Creationist Evolution.

I believe in evolution. I believe in the Big Bang.

Genesis appears be a reasonable reflection of a Bronze-Age society in a small corner of the Middle East, but nothing more. I stopped being a creationist before I got to middle-school.

Now for something completely different. I propose embracing Creationism but with a twist.

First, I believe evolution is an operational theory; it describes how things operate, not what they were or are or why things have developed as they have done. It doesn't matter whether the earth started 4 billion years ago or 4 thousand; evolution can work the same way.

Second, the Creationists already assume that God is the Celestial Merry Prankster. For example built the world with fossils distributed through the geological strata just to test our faith. (I fail.)

So, let's combine these two ideas: (1) accepting that evolution works today say nothing about how life or the world began and (2) "God's design" at creation can be interpreted as evidence of a design for evolution. For example, a Creationist "paleontology" can give "evidence" of God's simulation of evolution just as easily as it can be interpreted as evidence that the Flood dropped sediment with bones in such neat layers.

My purpose is simple: I want to get Creationists to accept the fundamental idea of evolution as an operational theory seen today, and leave the larger implications until tomorrow.

This sounds like microevolution, but it differs in an important way; it includes the belief that God designed the world to mimic evolutionary development. This takes evolution out of conflict with the Creation story and arguments over the origin of life.

I don't think the world developed this way, I believe in the Big Bang and a several billion year development of life, but that's not my argument. My goals are resolve the Creationist conflation of the Theory of Evolution and the origin of life and to convince some Creationists that evolution as an operational theory can be consistent with their their fundamental beliefs. Once they do that we can move on to the next step.

[cbayer]

12. Welcome to DU and to the religion group, Aero.

I think what you are expressing is pretty consistent with the author's position and the organization he heads up.

[Aero]

13. Creationist Evolution and the Clergy Letter Project

cbayer,

Thanks for your response. I like where I think the Author is trying to go but I believe that the Author and I differ in one major respect: the Author proposes a passive strategy while I propose an active one. He wants to increase the amity with which we treat Creationists; I propose to seduce them.

[cbayer]

14. What is your game plan in terms of activating this?

Do you have any kind of organization or are you working on your own?

In terms of seducing them, I am not sure they have yet recovered from being seduced by the neo-cons and might be a bit skittish.