Canadian’s and Others’ Convictions to Divine Interventionism… – News Intervention

Posted: October 20, 2019 at 9:13 am


without comments

ByScottDouglas Jacobsen

Around the world, around the world Good Fellas: Say, Hello, to my Little (Scientific) Friend!

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not byfaith, but by verification.

Thomas H. Huxley

Im an atheist, and thats it. I believe theres nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for people.

Katharine Hepburn

How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant? Instead they say, No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way. A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.

Carl Sagan

Im not sure why I enjoy debunking. Part of it surely is amusement over the follies of true believers, and [it is] partly because attacking bogus science is a painless way to learn good science. You have to know something about relativity theory, for example, to know where opponents of Einstein go wrong. . . . Another reason for debunking is that bad science contributes to the steady dumbing down of our nation. Crude beliefs get transmitted to political leaders and the result is considerable damage to society.

MartinGardner

The evidence of evolution pours in, not onlyfrom geology, paleontology, biogeography, and anatomy (Darwins chief sources),but from molecular biology and every other branch of the life sciences. To putit bluntly but fairly, anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on thisplanet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant inexcusablyignorant, in a world where three out of four people have learned to read and write.Doubts about the power of Darwins idea of natural selection to explain thisevolutionary process are still intellectually respectable, however, althoughthe burden of proof for such skepticism has become immense

Daniel Dennett

My fathers family was super Orthodox. They came from a little shtetlsomewhere in Russia. My father told me that they had regressed even beyond amedieval level. You couldnt study Hebrew, you couldnt study Russian.Mathematics was out of the question. We went to see them for the holidays. Mygrandfather had a long beard, I dont think he knew he was in the UnitedStates. He spoke Yiddish and lived in a couple of blocks of his friends. Wewere there on Pesach, and I noticed that he was smoking.

So I asked my father, how could he smoke? Theres a line in the Talmudthat says,aynbein shabbat vyom tov ela binyan achilah. I said, How come hes smoking? He said, Well, he decided thatsmoking is eating. And a sudden flash came to me: Religion is based on theidea that God is an imbecile. He cant figure these things out. If thats whatit is, I dont want anything to do with it.

Noam Chomsky

Young earthcreationism continues apace in Canadian society, and the global community(Canseco, 2018a). Canada outstrips America, and the United Kingdom outstripsCanada, in scientific literacy on this topic of the foundations of thebiological and medical sciences (The Huffington Post Canada, 2012). Here wewill explore a wide variety of facets of Canadian creationism with linkages tothe regional, international, media, journalistic, political, scientific,theological, personality, associational and organizational, and others concernspertinent to the proper education of the young and the cultural health of theconstitutional monarchy and democratic state known as Canada. [Ed. Some partswill remain tediously academic in citation and presentation cautioned.] Letsbegin.

To start ona point of clarification, some, asRobertRowland Smith, seem so unabashed as to proclaim belief in creationism a mentalillness (2010).Canseco (2018b) notes how British Columbia may be leadingthe charge in the fight against scientific denial. The claim of belief increationism as a mental illness seems unfair, uncharitable, and incorrect(Smith, 2010). A belief creationism considered true and justified, whichremains false and unjustified and, therefore, an irrational belief systemdisconnected from the natural world rather than a mental illness. The AmericanPsychiatric Association (2019) characterizes mental illness as Significantchanges in thinking, emotion and/or behavior. Distress and/or problemsfunctioning in social, work or family activities.

A mentalillness can influence someone who believes in creationism or not, but a vastmajority of adherence to creationism seems grounded in sincere beliefs andnormal & healthy social and professional functioning, not mental healthissues. Indeed, it may relate more to personality factors (Pappas, 2014). Othertimes, deliberate misrepresentations of professional opinion exist too (Bazzle,2015). It shows in the numbers. Douglas Todd remarks on hundreds of millions ofChristians and Muslims who reject evolution and believe in creationism aroundthe world (2014), e.g., Safar Al-Hawali, Abdul Majid al-Zindani, Muqbil binHadi al-Wadi`i and others in the Muslim intellectual communities alone.

On the matter ofif this particular belief increases mental health problems or mental illness,it would seem an open and empirical question because of the complicated natureof mental illness, and mental health for that matter, in the first place. Existentialanxiety or outright death anxiety may amount to a non-trivial factor of beliefin intelligent design and/or creationism over evolution via natural selection(UBC, 2011; Tracy, Hart, & Martens, 2011). On the factual and theoreticalmatters, several mechanisms and evidencessubstantiate evolution via natural selection and common descent, includingcomparative genomics, homeobox genes, the fossil record, common structures,distributions of species, similarities in development, molecular biology, andtransitional fossils (Long, 2014; National Human Genome Institute, 2019;University of California, Berkeley, n.d.; Rennie, 2002; Hordijk, 2017; NationalAcademy of Sciences, 1999). Some (Krattenmaker, 2017) point to historic lows ofthe religious belief in creationism.

Notto worry, though, comedic counter-movements emerge with the Pastafarians fromthe Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Josh Elliott (2014) stated, The Churchof the Flying Spaghetti Monster was founded in 2005 as a response to Christianperspectives on creationism and intelligent design. It allegedly sprang from atongue-in-cheek open letter to the Kansas School Board, which mocked educatorsfor teaching intelligent design in schools. The most distinguished scientistsin Britain have been well ahead of other places in stating unequivocally theinappropriate nature of the attempts to place creationism in the scienceclassrooms as a religious belief structure (MacLeod, 2006). Not only in law, thereare creationist science fairs for the next generations (Paley, 2001).

Politics, science,and religion become inextricably linked in Canadian culture and society becauseof the integration of some political bases with religion and some religiousdenominations with theological views masquerading as scientific theories, asseen with Charles McVety and Doug Ford (Press Progress, 2018a). Religiousgroups and other political organizations, periodically, show true colors(Ibid.). Some educators and researchers may learn the hard way about theimpacts on professional trajectory if they decline to pursue the overarchingtheoretical foundations in biological and medical sciences life sciences;some may be seen as attempting to bring intelligent design creationism into theclassroom through funding council applications (Hoag, 2006; Government ofCanada, 2006; Bauslaugh, 2008).

It can be seen asa threat to geoscience education too (Wiles, 2006). According to Montgomery (2015),the newer forms of young earth creationists with a core focus on the biblicalaccounts alone rather than a joint consideration with the world around us takea side step from the current history. For the first thousand years ofChristianity, the church considered literal interpretations of the stories inGenesis to be overly simplistic interpretations that missed deeper meaning,Montgomery stated, Influential thinkers like Saint Augustine and Saint ThomasAquinas held that what we could learn from studying the book of nature couldnot conflict with the Bible because they shared the same author (Ibid.).Besides, the evidence can be in the granite too (Plait, 2008).

There does appeara significant decline in the theological and religious disciplines over time(McKnight, 2019). Khan (2010) notes the ways in which different groups believein evolution or not. In fact, he (Ibid.) provides an index to analyze thedegree to which belief groups accept evolution or believe in creationism. Thesebeliefs exist in a weave alongside antivaccination at times (oracknows, 2016).Even for foundational questions of life and its origin, we come to theproposals reported by and found within modern science (Schuster, 2018). Therecontinue to exist devoted podcasts (Ruba, 2019) to the idea of a legitimate falsely, so-called conversations about creationism.

Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist (2018d) reflected onthe frustration of dealing with dishonest or credulous readings of thebiological and geological record by young earth creationists in which only some,and in already confirming-biases, evidence gets considered for the reportagewithin the young earth creationist communities by the young earth creationistjournalists or leadership. Live Science(2005) may have produced the most apt title on the entire affair withcreationism as a title category unto itself with the description of anAmbiguous Assault on Evolution by creationism. There continue to be bookreviews often negative of the productions of some theorists in thecreationist and the intelligent design camps (Cook, 2013; Collins, 2006; Asher,2014). Others praise books not in favour of creationism or intelligent design(Maier, 2009).

Mario Canseco in Business in Vancouver noted theacceptance by Canadians of evolution via natural selection and deepbiological-geological time at 68% (2018b). One report stated findings of 40% ofCanadians believing in the creation of the Earth in 6 days (CROP, 2017). Thefoundational problem comes from the meaning of terms in the public and to thecommunity of professional practitioners of science/those with some or more backgroundin the workings of the natural world, and then the representation andmisrepresentation of this to the public. There is work to try violate the AmericanConstitution to enforce the teaching of creationism, which remains an openclaim and known claim by creationist leaders too (American Atheists, 2018).

We can seethis in the public statements of leaders of countries as well, includingAmerica, in which the term theory becomes interpreted as a hunch or guessrather than an empirically well-substantiated hypothesis defined within thesciences. We can find the same with the definitions of terms including fact,hypothesis, and law:

Thishappened with American Vice-President Mike Pence, stating, a theory of theorigin of species which weve come to know as evolution. Charles Darwin neverthought of evolution as anything other than a theory. He hoped that someday itwould be proven by the fossil record but did not live to see that, nor havewe. (Monatanari, 2016). As Braterman (2017) stated or corrected, The usualanswer is that we should teach students the meaning of the word theory asused in science that is, a hypothesis (or idea) that has stood up to repeatedtesting. Pences argument will then be exposed to be what philosophers call anequivocation an argument that only seems to make sense because the same wordis being used in two different senses. Vice-President Mike Pence equivocatedon the word theory.

Some politicians,potentially a harbinger of claims into the future as the young earthcreationist position becomes more marginal, according to ONeil (2015), Lunneytold the House of Commons that millions of Canadians are effectively gaggedas part of a concerted effort by various interests in Canada to underminefreedom of religion. Intriguingly enough, and instructive as always, theNational Center for Science Education (NCSE) conducted Project Steve as aparody and an homage to the late Stephen Jay Gould, in which the creationistsattempt to portray evolution via natural selection as a theory in crisis throughthe gathering of a list of scientists who may disagree with Darwin (n.d.)becomes one methodology to attempt to refute it or to sow doubt in the minds ofthe lay public. One American teacher proclaimed evolution should not be taughtbecause of origination in the 18thcentury (Palma, 2019). Onemay assume for Newtonian Mechanics for the 17thand 18thcenturies.RationalWiki, helpful as always, produced a listing of the creationists inaddition to the formal criteria for inclusion on their listing of creationists(RationalWiki, 2019d), if curious about the public offenders.

Unfortunatefor creationists, and fortunate for us based on the humor of the team at theNCSE, there is a collected list of scientists named Steve who agree with thefindings in support of evolution via natural selection in order to point to thecomical error of reasoning in creationist circles because tens of thousands ofresearchers accept evolution via natural selection and a lot with the nameSteve alone while a select fraction of one percent do not in part or in full(Ibid.). Still, one may find individualsas curators as in the case of Martin Legemaate who maintains Creation ResearchMuseum of Ontario, which hosts creationist or religious views on the nature ofthe world. In the United States, there is significant funding for creationismon public dollars (Simon, 2014). Answers in Genesis intended to expand intoCanada in 2018 (Mehta, 2017a) with Calvin Smith leading the organizationalnational branch (Answers in Genesis, 2019a). Jim McBreen wrote a lettercommenting on personal thoughts about theories and facts, and evolution(McBreen, 2019). Over and over again, around the world, and coming back toCanada, these ideas remain important to citizens.

York(2018) wrote an important article on the link between the teaching ofcreationism in the science classroom and the direct implication of institutesbuilt to set sociopolitical controversy over evolution when zero exists in thebiological scientific community of practicing scientists. Other theoriespropose interdimensional entities in a form of creationism plus evolutionaryvia natural selection to explain life (Raymond, 2019). Singh (n.d.) argues forthe same. This does not amount to a traditional naturalistic extraterrestrialintelligent engineering of life on Earth with occasional interference orscientific intervention, and experimentation, on the human species, or someform of cosmic panspermia.

Thisseems more akin to intelligent design plus creationism and an assertion of additionalhabitable dimensions and travellers between their dimension and ours. In otherwords, more of the similar without a holy scripture to inculcate it. [Ed. Assome analysis shows later, this may relate to conspiratorial mindsets in orderto fill the gap in knowledge or to provide cognitive closure.] Whethercreationism or intelligent design, as noted by the U.S. National Academy ofSciences (2019a):

Intelligent design creationism is notsupported by scientific evidence. Some members of a newer school ofcreationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solarsystem, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of yearsold. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe andliving things show evidence of intelligent design. They argue thatcertain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolvedthrough processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a conditionthey call irreducible complexity. Echoing theological argumentsthat predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organismsmust be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed thatin order for the device to work properly, all of its components must beavailable simultaneously.

Evolutionarybiologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such asthe clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved fromsimpler precursor systems

In addition to its scientific failings, this andother standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on afalse dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution werecorrect, that would not establish the creationists claims. There may bealternative explanations

Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in theconcept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider otherpossibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science

The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin withan explanation that they are unwilling to alter that supernatural forces haveshaped biological or Earth systems rejecting the basic requirements ofscience that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations.Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means andthus cannot be a part of the processes of science.

Disagreementsexist between the various camps of creationism too. These ideas spread all overthe world from the North American context, even into secular Europe (Blancke,& Kjrgaard, 2016). Canada remains guilty as charged and the media continuein complicity at times. Pritchard (2014) correctly notes the importance ofreligious views and the teaching of religion, but not in the science classroom.Godbout (2018) made the political comparison between anti-SOGI positions andanti-evolution/creationist points of view. This reflects the political realityof alignment between several marginally scientific and non-scientific views, whichtend to coalesce in political party platforms or opinions.

Copeland (2015)mused, and warned in a way, the possibility of the continual attacks onempirical findings, on retention of scientists, on scientific institutes andresearch, reducing the status of Canada. This seems correct to me. He said:

To an Americancontext, this can reflect a general occurrence in North America in which theAmericans remain bound to the same forms of problems. The attempts to enterinto the educational system by non-standard and illegitimate means continues asa problem for the North Americans with an appearance of banal and benignconferences with intentional purposes of evangelization. One wants to assumegood will. However, the work for implicit evangelizations seems unethical whilethe eventual open statements of the intent for Christian outreach in particularseems moral as it does not put a false front forward. Indeed, some creationistsmanaged to construct and host a conference at MichiganState University (MSU) in East Lansing (Callier, 2014). It was entitled TheOrigin Summit with superordinate support by the Creation Summit (Ibid.)Creation Summit states:

Creation Summit: confronting evolution whereit thrives the most, at universities and seminaries!

We may have been banned from the classroom,but banned does not mean silenced. By booking the speakers and renting thefacilities on or near college campuses, we can and still do have an impact forproclaiming the truth of science and the Bible.

Creation Summit is visiting college and universitycampuses through-out the country, bringing world renowned scientists before thestudents. Modern sciences from astronomy to genetics have shown that Darwinsstory is no longer even a feasible theory. It just does not work. It is only amatter of getting the word out to the next generation. So we work with localCreation groups and schedule a seminar with highly qualified scientists withtangible evidence as speakers. Many of these scientists were once evolutionbelievers, but their own research convinced them that evolution is not viable.Students, many for the first time ever, are discovering that the Bible is true that science and Genesis are in total agreement. And, if Genesis 1:1 can betrusted, so can John 3:16. (Creation Summit, 2019)

A partisan grouphosting a partisan and religious conference with the explicit purpose ofreducing the quality of cultural knowledge, of science, on campuses, as theybring scientists [who] were once evolution believers, but their own researchconvinced them that evolution is not viable (Ibid.). Mike Smith, the executivedirector of the student group at MSU, at the time stated, the summit is not overtly evangelistic we hope to pave the way forevangelism (for the other campus ministries) by presenting the scientificevidence for intelligent design. Once students realize theyre created beings,and not the product of natural selection, theyre much more open to the Gospel,to the message of Gods love & forgiveness (Ibid.).

There canbe inflammatory comparisons, as in the white nationalist and teaching &creationism and teaching example of Robins-Early (2019). This comes in a timeof the rise of ethnic nationalism, often from the European heritage portions ofthe population, but also in other nation-states with religion andultra-nationalism connected to them. Creationists see evolution asintrinsically atheistic and, therefore, a problem as taught in a standardscience classroom. Beverly (2018) provided an update to the Christiancommunities in how to deal with the problem from Beverlys view and othersperspectives of atheistic evolution. Beverley stated, The battle line thatemerged at the conference is the same one that surfaced in 1859 when CharlesDarwin released his famous On the Origin of Species. Then and now Christiansseparate into two camps those who believe God used macroevolution (yes,Virginia, we descended from an ape ancestor about 7 million years ago), andthose who abhor that theory (no, Virginia, God brought us here through specialcreation) Leaders in all Christian camps agree that one of the main threats tofaith in our day is the pervasiveness of atheistic evolution. (Ibid.).

Their main problem comes from the evolution via naturalselection implications of non-divine interventionism in the development of lifewithin the context of the fundamental beliefs asserted since childhood andoft-repeated into theological schools, right into the pulpits. The samephenomenon happened with the prominent and intelligent, and hardy for goodreason, Rev. Gretta Vosper or Minister Gretta Vosper (Jacobsen, 2018m;Jacobsen, 2018n; Jacobsen, 2018o; Jacobsen, 2019n; Jacobsen, 2019o; Jacobsen,2019q; Jacobsen, 2019r).

One can seethe rapid growth in the religious groups, even in secular and progressiveBritish Columbia with Mark Clark of Village Church (Johnston, 2017). Some notethe lower education levels of the literalists, the fundamentalists andcreationists, into the present, which seems more of a positive sign on thesurface (Khan, 2010). Although, other trends continue with supernatural beliefsextant in areas where creationism diminishes. Supernaturalism seems inherent inthe beliefs of the religious. Some 13% of American high school students acceptcreationism (Welsh, 2011). Khan (2010) notes the same about Alabama andcreationism, in which the majority does not mean correct. Although, someAmericans find an easier time to mix personal religious philosophy with modernscientific findings (Green, 2014). Christopher Gregory Weber (n.d.) and PhilSenter (2011) provide thorough rejections of the common presentations of aflood geology and intelligent design.

Garner reported inthe Independent on the importance ofthe prevention of the teaching of creationism as a form of indoctrination inthe schools, as this religious philosophy or theological view amounts to onewith attempted enforcement by religious groups, organizations, and leaders,often men into the curricula or the standard educational provisions of acountry (2014). Professor Alice Roberts (Ibid.) stated, People who believe increationism say that by teaching evolution, you are indoctrinating them withscience but I just dont agree with that. Science is about questioning things.Its about teaching people to say I dont believe it until we have very strongevidence.

Vanessa Wamsley(2015) provided a great introduction to the ideal of a teacher in the biologyclassroom with education on the science without theist evangelization ornon-theist assumptions:

Terry Wortman was my science teacher from mysophomore through senior years, and he is still teaching in my hometown, atHayes Center Public High School in Hayes Center, Nebraska. He stilloccasionally hears the question I asked 16 years ago, and he has a standardresponse. I dont want to interfere with a kids belief system, he says. ButI tell them, Im going to teach you the science. Im going to tell you whatall respected science says.

Randerson(2008) provides an article from over a decade ago of the need to improve educationalcurricula on theoretical foundations to all of the life science. As MichaelReiss, director of education at the Royal Society circa 2008, said, Irealised that simply banging on about evolution and natural selection didntlead some pupils to change their minds at all. Now I would be more contentsimply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe(Ibid.).

Indeed,some state, strongly, as Michael Stone from TheProgressive Secular Humanist, the abuse of children inherent in teachingthem known wrong or factually incorrect ideas, failed hypotheses, and wrongtheories about the nature of nature in addition to the enforcement of areligious philosophy in a natural philosophy/science classroom (2018). In anycase, creationism isnt about proper science education (Zimmerman, 2013).

CreationMinistries International a major creationist organization characterizescreationism and evolution as in a debate, not true (Funk, 2017). Pierce (2006),akin to Creation Ministries International, tries to provide an account of theworld from 4,004 BC. People can change, young and old alike. Luke Douglas in ablog platform by Linda LaScola, from The Clergy Project, described a story ofbeing a young earth creationist at age 15 and then became a science enthusiastat age 23 (2018). It enters into the political realm and the social andcultural discourses too. For example, Joe Pierre, M.D. (2018) described theoutlandish and supernatural intervention claimed by Pat Robertson in the casesof impending or ongoing natural disasters. This plays on the vulnerabilities ofthe suffering.

However, otherquestions arise around the reasons for this fundamental belief in agency behindthe world in addition to human choice rather than human agency alone. Dr. JeremyE. Sherman inPsychology Today(2018), who remains an atheistand a proper scientist trained in evolutionary theory, attempts to explain thesense of agency and, in so doing, reject the claims of Intelligent Design.Regardless of the international, regional, and national statuses, and thearguments for or against, American remain a litigious culture. Creationists andIntelligent Design proponents met more than mild resistance against theirreligious and supernaturalist, respectively, philosophies about the world, asnoted by Bryan Collinsworth at the Center for American Progress.

He provided some straightforward indications as to the claims to the scientific status of Intelligent Design only a year or thereabouts after the Kitzmiller v Dover trial in 2005. Legal cases, apart from humour as a salve, exist in the record as exemplifications of means by which to combat non-science as propositions or hypotheses, or more religious assertions, masquerading as science. All this and more will acquire some coverage in the reportage here.

Court Dates Neither By Accident Nor Positive Evidencefor the Hypothesis

The theory that religion is a force for peace, often heard among the religious right and its allies today, does not fit the facts of history.

StevenPinker

I feel like I have a good barometer of being more of a humanist, a good barometer of good and bad and how my conduct should be toward other people.

Kristen Bell

Thewhole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and henceclamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of themimaginary.

H.L.Mencken

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other religions were converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

Oliver Stone

God, once imagined to be an omnipresent forcethroughout the whole world of nature and man. has been increasingly tending toseem omniabsent. Everywhere, intelligent and educated people rely more and moreon purely secular and scientific techniques for the solution of their problems.As science advances, belief in divine miracles and the efficacy of prayerbecomes fainter and fainter.

Corliss Lamont

There exists indeed anopposition to it [building of UVA, Jeffersons secular college] by the friendsof William and Mary, which is not strong. The most restive is that ofthepriests of the different religious sects, who dread the advance ofscience as witches do the approach of day-light; and scowl on it the fatalharbinger announcing the subversion of the duperies on which they live. In thisthe Presbyterian clergy take the lead. The tocsin is sounded in all theirpulpits, and the first alarm denounced is against the particular creed ofDoctr. Cooper; and as impudently denounced as if they really knew what it is.

Thomas Jefferson

A common error in reasoning comes from the assertion of the controversy,where an attempt to force a creationist educational curricula onto the publicand the young fails. This becomes a news item, or a series of them. It createsthe proposition of a controversy within the communities and, sometimes, thestate, even the nation, as a plausible scenario as the public observes thelatter impacts of this game literally, a game with one part including theWedge Strategy of Intelligent Design proponents playing out (Conservapedia,2016; Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture, n.d.). The WedgeStrategy was published by the Center for the Renewal of Science & Cultureout of the Discovery Institute as a political and social action plan with aserious concern over Western materialism that (it claims) has no moralstandards and the main tenets of evolution create a decay in ethical standardsbecause materialists undermined personal responsibility, and so was authoredto overthrow materialism and its cultural legacies (Conservapedia, 2016).The Discovery Institute planned three phases:

Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity

Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

(Center for theRenewal of Science & Culture, n.d.)

TheDiscovery Institute (Ibid.) argued:

The proposition that human beings arecreated in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Westerncivilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, ofthe Wests greatest achievements, including representative democracy, humanrights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, thiscardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on thediscoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of bothGod and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freudportrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machineswho inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behaviorand very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry,and environment

The cultural consequences of this triumphof materialism were devastating

Materialists also undermined personalresponsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated byour biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches tocriminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme ofthings, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or heractions.

Thestrategy of a wedge into the institutions of the culture to renew the Americanlandscape, and presumably resonating outwards from there, for the recapture ofthe citizenry with the ideas of Western civilization, human beings created inthe image of God, and the rejection of Darwinian, Marxian, and Freudiannotions of the human race as not moral and spiritual beings (Ibid.). As thisgame continues to play out, more aware citizens can become irritated andlitigious about the infringement of Intelligent Design and creationism in thepublic schools through an attempted enforcement.

Then the responsebecomes a legal challenge to the attempted enforcement. From this, some of thecreationist community cry victim or utilize this legal challenge as a purportedexample of the infringement on their academic freedom, infringement on theirFirst Amendment to the American Constitution right to freedom of speech orfree speech, or the imposition of atheism and secular humanism on the public(the Christian community, the good people), and the like; when, in fact, thislegal challenge arose because of the work to bypass normal scientific procedureof peer-review, and so on, and then trying to force religious views in thescience classroom often Christian. Some creationist and biblicalfundamentalist outlets point to the calls out of creationism as non-science,i.e., it goes noticed (The Bible is the Other Side, 2008). It even takes upQuora space too (2018).

Althoughindigenous cosmologies, Hindu cosmology, Islamic theology, and so on, remain asguilty in some contexts when asserted as historical rather than metaphorical orreligious narratives with edificative purposes with, for example, someaboriginal communities utilizing the concept of the medicine wheel forcounselling psychological purposes. Some remain utterly firm in devotion to afundamentalist reading or accounting of Genesis, known as literal Genesis, asa necessity for scriptural inerrancy to be kept intact, as fundamental to thetheology of the Christian faith without errors of human interpretation, and tothe doctrines so many in the world hold fundamentally dear (Ross Jr., 2018).The questions may arise about debating creationists, which Bill Nye notes as animportant item in the public relations agenda not in the scientific one as notrue controversy exists within the scientific community (Quill & Thompson,2014). Nye explained personal wonder at the depth of temporality spoken in themoment here, Most people cannot imagine how much time has passed in theevolution of life on Earth. The concept of deep time is just amazing (Ibid.).

Hanley talkedabout the importance of sussing out the question of whether we want to bancreationism or teach from the principles of evolution to show why creationismis wrong (2014). Religion maintains a strong hold on the positions individualshold about the origin and the development of life on Earth, especially as thispertains to cosmogony and eschatology beginning and end, hows and whys relativeto human beings (Ibid.). Duly noting, Hanley labelled this a minefield; ifthe orientation focuses on the controversial nature of teaching evolution vianatural selection, and if the mind-fields so to speak sit in religious,mostly, minds, then the anti-personnel weapons come from religion, notnon-religion (Ibid.). Religion becomes the problem.

This teachingevolution, or not, and creationism, or not, continues as a global problem(Harmon, 2011). Harmon stated, Some U.K. prointelligent design (ID) groupsare also pushing to include alternatives to evolution in the countrys nationalcurriculum. One group, known as Truth in Science, calls for allowing such ideasto be presented in science classroomsan angle reminiscent of academicfreedom bills that have been introduced in several U.S. states. A 2006overhaul of the U.K. national curriculum shifted the focus of scienceinstruction to highlight how science works instead of a more just the factsapproach (Ibid.).

Ghose, oneducation and religion links to creationism, stated, About 42 percent espousedthe creationist view presented, whereas 31 percent said God guided theevolutionary process, and just 19 said they believe evolution operated withoutGod involved. Religion was positively tied to creationism beliefs, with morethan two-thirds of those who attend weekly religious services espousing abelief in a young Earth, compared with just 23 percent of those who never go tochurch saying the same. Just over a quarter of those with a college degree holdcreationist beliefs, compared with 57 percent of people with such views who hadat most a high-school education, the poll found.

Pappas (2014b)sees five main battles for evolutionary theory as taught in modern scienceagainst creationism: the advances of geology in the 1700s and the 1800s, theScopes Trial, space race as a boon to the need for science as Dr. NeildeGrasse Tyson notes almost alone on the thrust of scientific advancement andfunding due to wartimes stoked (e.g., the Americans and the Soviets), ongoingcourt battles, and the important Dover, Pennsylvania school board battle. GlennBranch at the National Center for Science Education provided a solidfoundation, and concise one, of the levels of who accepted, or not, the theoryof evolution in several countries from around the world stating:

The evolutionist view was most popularin Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the creationistview was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%),with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia(34%).

Consistently with previous polls, in the UnitedStates, acceptance of evolution was higher among respondents who were younger,with a higher level of household income, and with a higher level of education.Gender was not particularly important, however: the difference between male andfemale respondents in the United States was no more than 2%.

The survey was conducted on-line between September7 and September 23, 2010, with approximately 1000 participants per countryexcept for Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa,South Korea, Sweden, Russia, and Turkey, for which there were approximately 500participants per country; the results were weighted to balance demographics. (2011a)

We can findcreationist organizations around the world with Creation Research and CreationMinistries International in Australia, CreaBel in Belgium, SociedadeCriacionista Brasileira SCB, Sociedade Origem e Destino, and Associao Brasilerade Pesquisa da Criao in Brazil, Creation Science Association of Alberta,Creation Science Assoc. of British Columbia (CSABC), Creation Science ofManitoba, LAssociation de Science Crationniste du Qubec, Creation Science ofSaskatchewan, Inc. (CSSI), Ian Juby Creation Science Research &Lecturing, Big Valley Creation Science Museum, Creation Truth Ministries, Mensa International Creation Science SIG, Creation Research Canada, CreationMinistries International Canada, and Amazing Discoveries in Canada, Assoc. AuCommencement in Franch, SG Wort und Wissen and Amazing Discoveries e. V. in Germany,Noahs Ark Hong Kong in Hong Kong, Protestns Teremtskutat Kr and CreationResearch Eastern Europe in Hungary, Creation Science Association of India andCreation Research And Apologetics Society Of India in India, and Centro StudiCreazionismo in Italy (Creationism.Org, 2019).

Furthermore, /Creation Research Japan CRJ and Answers in GenesisJapan in Japan, Korea Assn. for Creation Research KACR in Korea, gribu zintin Latvia, CREAVIT (CREAndo VIsion Total) and Cientficos CreacionistasInternacional in Mexico, Degeneratie of Evolutie?, Drdino.nl, and Mediagroep InGenesis in Netherlands, Creation Ministries International New Zealand andCreation Research in New Zealand, Polish Creation Society in Poland, ParqueDiscovery in Portugal, Tudomnyos Kreacionizmus in Romania, Russia (Nonelisted, though nation stated), SIONSKA TRUBA in Serbia, Creation MinistriesInternational Singapore in Singapore, Creation Ministries International South Africa and Amazing Discoveries in South Africa, SEDIN ServicioEvangelico Coordinadora Creacionista in Spain, The True.Origin Archive andCentre Biblique European in Switzerland, Christian Center for Science andApologetics in Ukraine, and Creation Science Movement, Creation MinistriesInternational United Kingdom, Biblical Creation Society, Daylight OriginsSociety, Answers in Genesis U.K., Edinburgh Creation Group, Creation ResourcesTrust, Creation Research UK, Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, andCreation Discovery Project in the United Kingdom (Ibid.). Mehta (2019b)described the weird nature of some of the anti-evolution content produced byorganizations such as the Discovery Institute, best known for IntelligentDesign or ID. In these contexts of creationist and Intelligent Design groupsattempting to enforce themselves on the population, American, at a minimum, courtcases arise.

Ofthe most important court cases in the history of creationism came in the formof the Scopes Trial or the Scopes Monkey Trial, H.L. Mencken became morefamous and nationally noteworthy, and historically, with the advent of thisreportage on Tennessean creationist culture and anti-evolution laws in whichindividuals who taught evolution would be charged, and were charged, as in thecase of John T. Scopes (Jacobsen, 2019). The cases reported by the NCSE (2019)notes the following other important cases:

1968, inEppersonv. Arkansas

1981, inSegravesv. State of California

1982, inMcLean v.Arkansas Board of Education

1987, inEdwardsv. Aguillard

1990, inWebsterv. New Lenox School District

1994, inPeloza v.Capistrano School District

1997, inFreilerv. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education

2000, MinnesotaState District Court Judge Bernard E. Borene dismissed the case ofRodneyLeVake v Independent School District 656, et al.

January 2005,inSelman et al. v. Cobb County School District et al.,

December 20, 2005,inKitzmiller et al. v. Dover

Read more here:
Canadian's and Others' Convictions to Divine Interventionism... - News Intervention

Related Post

Written by admin |

October 20th, 2019 at 9:13 am