Kind of a confession. I have been battling over this creation v. evolution debate for a while. I realized something today. I reacted at first because I took it personal. I am not an evolutionary biologist (though my neighbors are, fwiw), but I am a historian. I think my reaction was sympathetic personal attack syndrome.
I get annoyed when people reject my historical interpretation. Not that I am always right, but I wonder when people reject it without any basis. They haven't read widely on the subject--have not studied history in depth, etc., but can so easily dismiss the interpretation of someone with a doctorate in the subject. So when I read people dismissing evolution, but then restating evolution in a way that makes it clear that they don't have a clue what evolution is--that bugs me. It bugs me when people demonstrate that they really don't understand what a scientific theory is.
But I realized I don't have to take it personally. I have a habit of taking things personally that aren't intended that way. It isn't good for me, and I know that. But in this case, it is really irrelevant.
As I have written lately, the issue is not about what I think or the nature of my expertise--or the expertise of my neighbors. It is about how knowledge is gained and evaluated. The problem with the Christian nation crowd is not mine, it is with people who know next to nothing about history but have heard an explanation that they "like," or that they "feel is right," or that they "believe," or they "buy."
But who cares what any of us "feel" about knowledge? Facts are facts--evidence is evidence. Feeling is not the issue. And neither is my "feeling" of being disrespected. Not relevant.
I hope that proponents of creationism and the Christian Nation idea learn a little more about how knowledge is understood and evaluated. Especially when they make decisions in voting booths about how both are taught to the next generations of kids. But I won't hold my breath. The power of "knowledge" that is self-affirming is too addictive.
But it isn't about me.
4 comments:
I agree. I harp all the time about the influence of power on most of these type issues, and I think it comes to play here AGAIN. Possession of the Bible, God, and creation is an incredible amount of power and influence over the sheep. These guys' view of God is so limited that they are intimidated by any science or history that challenges that view.
There is definitely a 'marketplace' element to all of this in which some clearly feel free to choose whatever makes them most comfortable. In a sense, it is a form of intellectual capitalism through which ideas such as 'Creationism' are repackaged as 'Intelligent Design' in order to prevail based on an appeal to consumer identity, bandwagon elements, and celebrity endorsement.
Looks like the Tucker (not Tucker the dick but Tucker the car dude) or the Betamax all over again. Or Wal-Mart or something.
I have no problem with someone still believing the world is flat, or that it sits on the back of a huge turtle. I have a problem when they want to put their faith into a science book and treat it as reality. Science is the persuit of knowlege for the sake of finding it. Technology is the practical application of that knowlege. Faith is the dead end of knowlege. Faith says I don't need to find out anything new, it's all been revealed. What's wrong with intellegent design, we would still be riding in horse and buggies, using outhouses, and dying of old age at forty.
so sorry Streak, won't do it again... ;-)
greek shadow, if you are asking what's wrong with intelligent design, the answer is simple; its not science. People make ID sound like some new scientific advance that scientists are rejecting out of petty religious bigotry. Not so. Its like acting wronged when they won't let you ride your pig in the Kentucky Derby. Only in this case, there are legions of pundits to continue harping on a dead issue.
Post a Comment