How Colleges Create Creationists

[Buster's Uncle]

How Colleges Create Creationists
The Daily Beast
By Karl W. Giberson  14 hours ago






As a Christian science professor who has tangled with evangelical institutions over evolution, I am often invited to don the mantle of “heretic.” The invitation typically comes in the form of an interview in which I am asked to respond to questions that will identify me as a liberal-throw-the-bible-under-the-bus lost soul who has no business calling himself a Christian.

I recently received two such requests in a week. One email came from a sophomore at Liberty University, as part of an assignment for the course “Creation Studies 290: History of Life.” Founded by Jerry Fallwell in 1971, Liberty is the largest evangelical university in the world if you include its large population of online students, and America’s largest nonprofit university. “Creation Studies 209” is required of all of Liberty’s 100,000-plus students and claims to provide a “thorough understanding of the creation-evolution controversy,” and “draws upon knowledge from religion, science, philosophy and history.”

Creation Studies is taught in Liberty’s Center for Creation Studies, described on their website as “a dynamic, teaching-based academic center.” The center’s purpose is to “research, promote, and communicate a robust young-Earth creationist view of Earth history,” with the goal of equipping “students to defend their faith in the creation account in Genesis using science, reason and the Scriptures.” Students in the Creation Studies class are assigned a “scientist contrast interview, where we are required to interview several scientists on both sides of the origins debate.”

The course is taught by the well-qualified creationist biologist Dr. David A. Dewitt. DeWitt has a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University and has co-authored many research articles in thoroughly legitimate scientific journals like Cellular Molecular Bioengineering and the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. He has also worked with the Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis. Like the scientists Ken Ham introduced in his debate with Bill Nye, DeWitt demonstrates that being a young earth creationist is not incompatible with being a productive member of the scientific community. (DeWitt did not respond to my request for comment on this article.)

Programs like those at Liberty—and a handful of other colleges and universities with similar commitments to creationism—do an excellent job of creating committed creationists because they train them to see the world in a certain way that makes their creationism—despite its profound incompatibility with science—almost immune to criticism.

I agreed to don the heretic mantle and answer the questions from the Liberty student, which I have reproduced below along with my answers and an additional notes (labeled “gloss”) that say more about the carefully contrived structure of the questions.

1. What do you see as the one or two strongest pieces of evidence for your position on the origins of the universe and life?

The Big Bang theory is a near universally accepted explanation for the origins of our universe. It is supported by multiple lines of evidence, including red shifts, stellar evolution, the universal background radiation, and the convergence of several dating methods on an age of around 14 billion years. The Big Bang, of course, presupposes some kind of pre-existing structure out of which it emerged, and scientists are working to figure out what that might have been. In contrast, science does not have a widely accepted explanation for the origins of life. There are several independent research programs but the origin of life does not have a satisfactory explanation at present. The fact that all life-forms use essentially the same genetic code suggests that life originated just once and evolved from there, but how that happened is not clear.

Gloss: Note that this question asks a scientist to take a “position” on the “origins of the universe.” Accepting the Big Bang is thus comparable to holding one of several views on, say, politics. We acknowledge that people can hold different “positions” on immigration or the minimum wage, with the preferred choice being driven by subjective factors, not by questions of evidence. In the same manner students are being told that the Big Bang is a “position” that some people hold.

2. Do you believe creationism/intelligent design stands on equal footing with the theory of evolution as a model for the origins of life? Why or why not?

The theory of evolution is strongly supported by multiple independent lines of evidence, which all have literally thousands of significant observations supporting them. Intelligent design (ID) and creationism lack this broad-based evidentiary support. ID is supported by little more than a collection of puzzles that have not yet been solved by the theory of evolution.  Close to 100 percent of ID’s claims are of the form “Here is something with more design than natural selection can account for. Therefore we posit a designer.” The arguments are all arguments from ignorance. Creationism is often referred to as “Biblical creationism,” making clear that it comes first from the Bible, not the observation of the natural world, and contrary observations are either rejected or “explained away” to make things fit the Biblical interpretation. It is significant that neither creationism nor ID have contributed anything to our knowledge of the natural world, in contrast to evolution.

Gloss: Once again we see the discussion being set up as one with “positions.”  I suspect  that the “positions” in the discussion at Liberty are young-earth creationism, intelligent design, and theistic evolution, with the former being presented as the only one appropriate for Christians. (The student did not respond to my request to tell me who else he was contacting.)

3. Did you watch the recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on evolution versus creationism? If so, what were your impressions?

I watched this with great interest and have published responses to it. While the debate was entertaining, it was not helpful to the conversation, since it suggested that there was a “Christian” view and a “scientific” view, and these were mutually exclusive options. Many trained biblical scholars with strong Christian commitments completely reject the approach to the Bible taken by Ken Ham and his Answers in Genesis organization. Ham’s hyperliteralism is not the way Christians have approached Genesis over the centuries and everyone from Augustine in the 5th century to B. B. Warfield (one of the founders of fundamentalism) in the 19th century have pointed out that a literalist reading is not a required or even a defensible approach to Genesis. There is no problem believing that God is the creator and that natural processes are his chosen mode of creation.

Gloss: The Ham-Nye debate plays into the rhetorical strategy that has proven so effective for the creationists—associating evolution with atheism. By cleverly locating evolution within an atheist worldview, many Christians end up believing that they can only accept evolution if they reject Christianity. (I analyze this strategy further in my book Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution.)

4. Some have argued that the debate over origins is a battle of conflicting presuppositions, which when brought to bear on the existing evidence, lead to different conclusions. What is your opinion of this view?

There is certainly some truth to this, but not in the way usually assumed by creationists. There is little evidence to support the notion that evolution is the result of an assumption of atheism. Darwin was a Christian believer through much of his career and came to evolution by wrestling with observations, not looking for a theory of origins with no God. The same is true for 18th century geologists—almost all of them Christians—who discovered that the earth was old and that Noah’s Flood could not have been worldwide. The key presupposition of the scientist is not “There is no God” but rather “The world speaks truthfully of its nature.” I would contrast this with the view of, say Ken Ham, who starts with a large number of far more questionable presuppositions, including the following: The Bible is inerrant in all details; The Bible must be read literally; the creation story in Genesis—rather than Job or the Psalms— is the only one that matters; the evidence that Genesis 1 was written as a “hymn” does not mean we can read it poetically; and so on. If one presupposes all these things—which most Christians do not—then young-earth creationism has to follow. But this then leads to the conclusion that “The world that God created does not speak truthfully of its nature,” since that world is clearly very old and contains evidence that life evolved.

Gloss: The rhetorical structure employed by the creationists here is quite clever.  They claim, correctly, that observations don’t interpret themselves. Aristotle and Galileo looked up at the same lights in the night sky. Aristotle saw a universe with a stationary earth at the center and Galileo saw a universe with the earth in motion about the sun. In the 17th century the evidence was inadequate to resolve the dispute and each viewpoint had credible defenders.  Applied to evolution, this strategy translates into the following widely-used argument: consider the simple observation that humans have five fingers on each hand, cats have five toes on each foot, and bats have five elongated bones inside each wing. Evolutionists interpret this shared feature as evidence for a common ancestor; creationists interpret it as evidence for a common designer, who applied sensible patterns in different contexts.

Finding the flaw in arguments like this is a challenging exercise in the philosophy of science and, as my physics texts would often say, will be left as an exercise for the reader.

5. What would you describe as the two or three broader impacts of your theory for origins? In other words, what does it imply?

If I place my scientific ideas in the larger context of my own worldview, which includes the belief that God is the creator, I would say my position implies that God works through the laws of nature, and not in contradiction of them. I would say that God is clearly interested in more than the activities of my own species. And I would say that God did not provide any information in the Bible about how things originated.

Gloss: The issue of the “impact” of a theory is significant for Christians, who often interpret the world in terms of spiritual warfare—God versus Satan. When something goes terribly wrong, Satan is implicated as a cause. This argument is alive and well in the anti-evolutionary literature where we find claims that evolution is responsible for abortion, pornography, the break-up of the family, gay marriage, racism and a host of other social catastrophes. Entire books have been written by reputable historians blaming Darwin for the Holocaust.

Students graduating from Liberty receive a carefully constructed and effective presentation of America’s origins controversy, one that provides tools to defend their beliefs against many of the challenges with which science will confront them. Headlines announcing new fossil finds supporting evolution can be dismissed as “interpretations of data based on questionable presuppositions.” Perceived social problems will be interpreted as the consequence of marginalizing belief in God as creator. Ongoing opposition to evolution will support the notion that there are viable alternatives—“positions” that one can choose on origins.

And America’s public schools will remain a battlefield.


http://news.yahoo.com/colleges-create-creationists-062415803--politics.html

...

gwilly, I thought enough of this one to email it to Buster's Daddy, (the Reverend Buster's Daddy, soon to become the Reverend Doctor Buster's Daddy, and a pretty scientific guy).  Whadda you think?

[gwillybj]

I've plainly stated that I am a creationist. I am not a young-earth creationist. That is just not supported by the facts in evidence.

This is a well-written article. I take the Genesis account as truth, mostly as described by the author in his response to question 3. He makes it clear that Mr. Ham's view is not the one taken by the vast majority of creationists. Genesis 1:1 says simply: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." The account continues with telling the order in which he created things -- which is basically the same order in which evolutionists have things develop.

The use of the word "day" in Genesis is valid as a means to separate the steps: We use the term "back in my day" to describe events that obviously did not occur within a span of 24 hours. It is understood to cover several days, even months or years.

I agree with the author's response to question 5: "If I place my scientific ideas in the larger context of my own worldview, which includes the belief that God is the creator, I would say my position implies that God works through the laws of nature, and not in contradiction of them. I would say that God is clearly interested in more than the activities of my own species. And I would say that God did not provide any information in the Bible about how things originated." I would say that God worked so well with the laws of nature simply because he decreed then in the first place.

[Buster's Uncle]

I regret if it sounded like I was challenging you; the author states the faith-based case for natural law as God's tools for creation beautifully, and I thought you might enjoy.

[gwillybj]

A good read, thanks. I took it as an invitation, not a challenge. I read it twice and have a copy printed to read again. It's nice to have people with solid convictions on both sides to be recognized by their peers as intelligent. It's sad that other people have to make the situation worse for us with such silly notions as Mr. Ham's and be unwilling (or unable?) to think before they speak.

[Buster's Uncle]

So, to clarify - I'm gathering that you're a creationist in a sorta "evolution was God's design" sorta way?

[gwillybj]

Without evolution: Genesis states each thing was created by God "according to its kind," or "after its species." Grass and other vegetation, and the trees; water-dwelling animals, and the birds; land animals of all kinds domestic and wild; and the first man, formed individually from dust from the ground. Each thing was created deliberately, not leaving things to chance, but orderly.

[JarlWolf]

Out of curiosity, as I am man who believes in evolutionary principles;

how would you explain the changing of or adaption creatures undergo under a period of time? (which has been irrefutably proven species can and do indeed change; maybe not in a linear fashion of course, and they go into their own respective branches, but even so.) Would you as a creationist (with more scientific minded perspective of course) state that such an occurrence is an act of the will of your god? That he deliberately changes and adapts a creature/species to suit its environment more? Or is there a different belief/concept to that?

Mind, I am not attempting to shoot down your choice in belief when it comes to matters like that, more of curiosity as to what your viewpoint is -I was never brought up with a concept or notion of a god, at least not in any serious matter- and never found reason for belief in one. Though I can understand the conviction behind faiths... but it still leaves me wondering how those who are more accepting of scientific practices view things that occur in the natural and physical world. It's something that where I've encountered mixed opinions, some religious people feel those who do sell out on their faiths to further back down from their beliefs; while others deviate from their faith entirely. Whats your stance on the matter?

[gwillybj]

There is no reasonable argument against the fact that changes and variations have occurred in many plants and animals from the time of their creation.

How many breeds of dog did God make? I surely don't know. The American Kennel Club recognizes 178 distinct breeds of domestic dogs, many of which did not exist 20, 30, 50 years ago. Then there are the many wild varieties. But all are of the family Canidae.

How many different roses did he make? 1? 5? 10? It is estimated that there are about 150 different types of roses; again, many did not exist years ago but have been discovered in the wild or bred to distinction by humans, but all are of the genus rosa.

Ants have swarmed in the thousands of species, within the family Formicidae.

Look at the variety of humans: Sizes, shapes, colors; all from an original pair - one man, one woman. Yet they are all Homo sapiens.

Where is God's hand in all this? In the original creation of many life forms and the establishment of the laws of nature.

I can't use the term "evolution" because it brings to (my) mind a godless universe ever changing from an originally chaotic "Big Bang" to the wondrous order we see all around us (indeed with its pockets of seeming chaos - those things that scientists have not yet defined). Chaos breeds chaos; order, order. I believe things are what they are in the physical universe because God decreed it to be so.

[Yitzi]

The use of the word "day" in Genesis is valid as a means to separate the steps: We use the term "back in my day" to describe events that obviously did not occur within a span of 24 hours. It is understood to cover several days, even months or years.

It's not quite so simple, as if it were purely "to separate the steps" it would make a lot more sense to put dry land with separating the waters in day 2, and not with plants in day 3.  Also, that requires an explanation for what determines how the steps break up.

Personally, I prefer the interpretation by Gerald Schroeder, in which the "days" do refer to days of 24 hours...but from the space-time coordinates of that time rather than adjusting it to match our own space-time coordinates.  (Essentially, don't redshift it the way all the usual calculations do.)

[Geo]

Where is God's hand in all this? In the original creation of many life forms and the establishment of the laws of nature.

I can't use the term "evolution" because it brings to (my) mind a godless universe ever changing from an originally chaotic "Big Bang" to the wondrous order we see all around us (indeed with its pockets of seeming chaos - those things that scientists have not yet defined). Chaos breeds chaos; order, order. I believe things are what they are in the physical universe because God decreed it to be so.

Do I read you right if I say you're of the opinion that God started it all, and let thing's (mostly?) run its course (local evolution after the creation I mean)?
And I don't meant like in a lab experiment.

[Buster's Uncle]

The use of the word "day" in Genesis is valid as a means to separate the steps: We use the term "back in my day" to describe events that obviously did not occur within a span of 24 hours. It is understood to cover several days, even months or years.

It's not quite so simple, as if it were purely "to separate the steps" it would make a lot more sense to put dry land with separating the waters in day 2, and not with plants in day 3.  Also, that requires an explanation for what determines how the steps break up.

Personally, I prefer the interpretation by Gerald Schroeder, in which the "days" do refer to days of 24 hours...but from the space-time coordinates of that time rather than adjusting it to match our own space-time coordinates.  (Essentially, don't redshift it the way all the usual calculations do.)

I'm not sure I follow - the universe was roughly 9,000,000,000 years old when Earth formed - I doubt the condition of spacetime was all that different than now, that far along.

[Yitzi]

The use of the word "day" in Genesis is valid as a means to separate the steps: We use the term "back in my day" to describe events that obviously did not occur within a span of 24 hours. It is understood to cover several days, even months or years.

It's not quite so simple, as if it were purely "to separate the steps" it would make a lot more sense to put dry land with separating the waters in day 2, and not with plants in day 3.  Also, that requires an explanation for what determines how the steps break up.

Personally, I prefer the interpretation by Gerald Schroeder, in which the "days" do refer to days of 24 hours...but from the space-time coordinates of that time rather than adjusting it to match our own space-time coordinates.  (Essentially, don't redshift it the way all the usual calculations do.)

I'm not sure I follow - the universe was roughly 9,000,000,000 years old when Earth formed - I doubt the condition of spacetime was all that different than now, that far along.

It wouldn't start counting from the formation of the Earth, but rather from near the beginning of the universe.  Though thinking it over, I'm not sure exactly how his calculations work out...I'm pretty sure they work out better than young-earth creationism, though, and they don't require the "days" to be arbitrary.

[JarlWolf]

Latest scientific calculations; which is determined by astronomical observances+calculations of the furthest we can see, the known "edge" of the universe puts our universe of at least the age of 13.7 billion years old. Its figured out via by the distance light has to travel, and what we are seeing of these very distant stars was the status they were 13.7 billion years ago due to light travel.

Personally speaking, this is only my opinion, if there is a god I am not sure he/she/it is purely Earth or human focused, given we know the Earth is roughly only 4 billion years old.

If a god exists, at least in my eyes, it is much more universal in its views and we'd have to be only one of many creations; otherwise the only other theory would be is that this god got bored/ suddenly decided to change its plan of course; if the universe was formed/started whatever you will it 13.7 billion years ago, we merely being roughly 4 billion, that leaves 9.7 billion years or around of a universe without any form of life, and far far longer without sentient life/humanoid life/ life shaped in "god's image."

Which makes me wonder, on the grounds accepting the possibility of a god, the reliability of the book of genesis and its account.

Just some food for thought; something I wonder.

[Yitzi]

Latest scientific calculations; which is determined by astronomical observances+calculations of the furthest we can see, the known "edge" of the universe puts our universe of at least the age of 13.7 billion years old. Its figured out via by the distance light has to travel, and what we are seeing of these very distant stars was the status they were 13.7 billion years ago due to light travel.

Personally speaking, this is only my opinion, if there is a god I am not sure he/she/it is purely Earth or human focused, given we know the Earth is roughly only 4 billion years old.

Purely?  Perhaps not.  But a god who didn't care about humans at all would be irrelevant.

If a god exists, at least in my eyes, it is much more universal in its views and we'd have to be only one of many creations; otherwise the only other theory would be is that this god got bored/ suddenly decided to change its plan of course; if the universe was formed/started whatever you will it 13.7 billion years ago, we merely being roughly 4 billion, that leaves 9.7 billion years or around of a universe without any form of life, and far far longer without sentient life/humanoid life/ life shaped in "god's image."

Or that God is willing to work through a plan whose fulfillment isn't seen for quite some time.  Which fits well with the Bible's portrayal of God's plan for human history too...

[JarlWolf]

Purely?  Perhaps not.  But a god who didn't care about humans at all would be irrelevant.

I never stated this god would be uncaring, just that it cannot for all intents and purposes in my eyes be human centrist.
Of course, I personally don't believe in a god, but being open to a possibility of one, just my theory on it.

Or that God is willing to work through a plan whose fulfillment isn't seen for quite some time.  Which fits well with the Bible's portrayal of God's plan for human history too...

Perhaps, which would paint this god in a much more patient, long term minded entity- though it is indeed a fair bit different then what we perceived is it's potential plan.


It all comes down to personal belief on this, but in my humble opinion I think if a god exists its both much more grander and enigmatic then previously believed to be, and we are not the center of the universe as we'd like to believe. I think if there is a god of some form, its one that is, sure, benevolent and caring of its creations, if even just as an observer with a paternal outlook; we are not the sole inheritors of its observations and love. While we have not encountered life yet in space it is mathematically inconceivable that we are alone in this universe. Maybe sentient life is not very common- but it exists. And due to that notion I think a god is way more universal and broad in its vision then we could ever imagine.


But that's just me. So far I see no true reason to believe or worship a god- I just tend to what I know, and if said entity makes a clear presence in my life and wishes for my attention, and gives me a clear reason to worship it- then maybe I'll re-consider.

Until then though I hold the belief that we should find out about our universe before making assumptions on who, what or how DEFINITELY created our plane of existence.