By Gene Ogorodov
Early in February the Creation Museum hosted a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Both of these people are notorious for their outspoken support for their own world view. Ken Ham has been the world's leading proponent of Intelligent Design for several decades, and in 2013 Nye sparked a firestorm among Christians in the US when he (rightly) compared Creationism to Astrology. Although falling far short of the sensationalism of either the Scope's Trial, or even Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, once again America has demonstrated the indefatigably of bad ideas, with overwhelming popular appeal. Spontaneous creation of earth and all its "kinds" six to ten thousand years ago should have died in the mid 1850's, but alas one and half centuries later the proliferation of this stupidity, like our universe, is expanding ever faster.
This debate reminded me of a friend that once did a tour with the US Army in Iraq. He made an observation that the Iraqis found the Americans to be a superstitious and ignorant. That the people of Iraq would have such a low opinion of Americans is not a surprise, most of the world shares their view for one reason or another. The philistinism and savagery espoused by our leaders coupled with the worthlessness of American education certainly justifies any comparison between Americans and barbarian hoards. Yet, the common Iraqi has come to the conclusion shared by the overwhelming majority of the population of the world without knowledge of global education ranking or any exposure to the finer nuances of American politics having had the pleasure of an unprecedented exposure to Americans in the recent occupation of their country. All Iraqis, from officers and politicians to peasants and starving uneducated waifs, found it an endless subject of mirth that so many Americans, including senior officers and diplomats, believe in patently false ideas like ghosts, UFOs, and a 6000 year old earth.
To say that most Americans are addicted to an imaginary view of the world is an observation hardly worth making. The enormous circulation of the New York Times demonstrably proves that. However, the disassociation with reality, so prevalent among Americans, is hardly accidental. There is no evidences of an evolutionary per-disposition towards self delusion. Thirty years, which is about the amount the length of time that has passed since the US began to under-preform the rest of the western world, is simply not enough time for human intelligence to devolve in a population size as large as the US. Misinformation and fantasies are intentionally propagated by people like Ken Ham.
It is painfully obvious why anyone would devote his or her life's work towards making Americans the laughing stock of the world, Australian or not--there is still a lot of money to be made selling snake oil. I am, nonetheless, at loss as to why anyone would finance such an operation. It never ceases to amaze me how much money goes into propaganda of religious charlatans in the US. Theft is one thing, but Ken Ham and the Creation Museum can hardly support the events that they host from the paltry revenue that could possibly be accrued by working class moms and fundamentalist pastors. The fortunes that must be spent on world class facilities and the interminable stream of Hollywood caliber advertising would make anyone but the richest billionaires cringe. Ham and Nye's Debate was characterized by this same ostentatious wealth. In fact the auditorium at the Creation Museum made the venues of the presidential debates between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney seem spartan by comparison. It must have had some backers to compete with the Moguls that sponsor our political races. Although it seemed to me to be an unworthy cause, I will not presume to speculate on the motives of the plutocratic class of the United States.
Nevertheless, in the midst of all the meaningless detritus Ken Ham made a surprisingly apropos observation. He said that the argument between Intelligent Design and Evolution was based on two differing world views. This may seem innocuous enough--a throwaway comment intended to validate the religious lunacy of his faction--but in the context Clifort Geertz's definition of religion it can hardly be described as worthless remark. To recap, Geertz proposed in 1966 in his essay "Religion as a Cultural System"that religion is:
In other words religion is an organized symbology which propagates, in a society, a world view and an ethical code translated into cultural semiotics that appeals to and explains transcendent reality.
In anthropological terms religion is the corner stone which establishes a world view refined by science and philosophy made less uncertain by innovation and magic. It can be extrapolated that a successful religion provides a self perpetuating and self evident world view. Creationism, qua pseudo-science, exposes Fundamentalism as a farce of a religion which depends upon an indefensible world view. It is the best argument against Fundamentalism. Creationism was created as a scaffolding to prop up a tottering faith, but in the end its dead weight will consign that faith to be nothing more than a footnote of history.
Ken Ham did nothing other than demand that no one can ever disprove his world view, implying that he was far from taken his world view for granted. Furthermore, his religious world view prevented him from engaging in any form of science (unbiased observation of the world), although, as he observed too frequently, the application of natural laws discovered by science in advancement of technology is not inconsistent with his world view. Bill Nye never consciously engaged his world view. When he touched upon his values, he spoke as one who assumes that everyone in the room holds the same core values, which they did. When asked to summarize his world view, without hesitation, he responded--verifiable and predictable truth. Bill Nye, not Ken Ham, possessed a world view that was self perpetuating and self evident. Thus the agnostic rather than the Christian had complete confidence in his religion.
Ken Ham was absolutely right; Intelligent Design is ultimately a argument about world views, not a scientific one. An argument, which by the way, few people have ever ventured to engage more than superficially. The Nye-Ham Debate certainly did not try to thrash out the differences between their competing world views. The competitors spoke a different language when they stepped into the realm of ideals; each misunderstanding his own world view as much as his competitor's. This unfortunately I believe is an intentional aspect of the ongoing debate between Fundamentalism and Mainstream American Culture. The former is unable to live in reality because reality apparently disproves Fundamentalism in toto; while the latter lacks any genuine existential meaning and no self respecting American would ever admit the self evident truth that libertinism is not the ultimate expression of human liberty.
As a side note Ken Ham's argument frequently delved into the hyperbole that Creationists frequently use to silence opposition--Does God have last word or does Humanity? Nye was unphased by this false bifurcation. Unfortunately his personal indifference allowed him to miss the opportunity to demonstrate the hollowness of this argument. Let me demonstrate. The English jurist William Blackstone divided divine revelation into categories: special revelation (scripture) and natural revelation (the world). If one accepts that the bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God then one must accept that "All scripture is inspired by God" NRSV as the author of 2 Tim 3:16 asserts, what ever the original author meant by "inspired by God." The original Greek word is theospneustos, which implies non-miraculous Divine inspiration of an individual or individuals. The works of Homer, Virgil, and Shelley could be described as theospneustos since they could be described as Providential gifts, if one views the will of God, or Providence, as the source of all fortuitous things in the universe. Thus Scripture is by its own description of itself the work of human beings. God has allowed human beings to speak for him as special revelation.
Nature, however, is the unadulterated handy-work of God. Scripture describes God as the Creator, not for one moment but for all eternity and all creatures. That is not to say that God did not lay down the fundamental laws of the universe and establish its constants. Far from that, the Bible says that he laid the foundations of the world. What else is the foundation of the world that the essential physical laws and constants? Scripture is, nonetheless, unambiguous that God did not just leave his constants and laws to do what chance would allow. His Providence guides and watches over all of nature. In other words nature speaks for God by itself, not for God through human effort. Ipso facto one comes to the uninspiring conclusion that A = A, viz a viz natural revelation is natural revelation.
How then should one examine the world to make God the final arbiter of the nature of the universe rather than humanity? The answer is obvious. Since humans have written Scripture and God has written nature, the truly pious person must observe the world dispassionately and unbiasedly, gathering verifiable data, and constructing models that produce predictable results, viz. science. Furthermore, inquiry into Scripture must also be guided by rational and reasonable examination. It is inappropriate to take earlier scientific models or intended metaphors as the ultimate mystery of the universe. Scripture must be interpreted within the context of an ever changing view of the natural world and respect for the meaning of the text as received. Specifically myths must be accepted as myths and not science.
Early in February the Creation Museum hosted a debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham. Both of these people are notorious for their outspoken support for their own world view. Ken Ham has been the world's leading proponent of Intelligent Design for several decades, and in 2013 Nye sparked a firestorm among Christians in the US when he (rightly) compared Creationism to Astrology. Although falling far short of the sensationalism of either the Scope's Trial, or even Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover, once again America has demonstrated the indefatigably of bad ideas, with overwhelming popular appeal. Spontaneous creation of earth and all its "kinds" six to ten thousand years ago should have died in the mid 1850's, but alas one and half centuries later the proliferation of this stupidity, like our universe, is expanding ever faster.
This debate reminded me of a friend that once did a tour with the US Army in Iraq. He made an observation that the Iraqis found the Americans to be a superstitious and ignorant. That the people of Iraq would have such a low opinion of Americans is not a surprise, most of the world shares their view for one reason or another. The philistinism and savagery espoused by our leaders coupled with the worthlessness of American education certainly justifies any comparison between Americans and barbarian hoards. Yet, the common Iraqi has come to the conclusion shared by the overwhelming majority of the population of the world without knowledge of global education ranking or any exposure to the finer nuances of American politics having had the pleasure of an unprecedented exposure to Americans in the recent occupation of their country. All Iraqis, from officers and politicians to peasants and starving uneducated waifs, found it an endless subject of mirth that so many Americans, including senior officers and diplomats, believe in patently false ideas like ghosts, UFOs, and a 6000 year old earth.
To say that most Americans are addicted to an imaginary view of the world is an observation hardly worth making. The enormous circulation of the New York Times demonstrably proves that. However, the disassociation with reality, so prevalent among Americans, is hardly accidental. There is no evidences of an evolutionary per-disposition towards self delusion. Thirty years, which is about the amount the length of time that has passed since the US began to under-preform the rest of the western world, is simply not enough time for human intelligence to devolve in a population size as large as the US. Misinformation and fantasies are intentionally propagated by people like Ken Ham.
It is painfully obvious why anyone would devote his or her life's work towards making Americans the laughing stock of the world, Australian or not--there is still a lot of money to be made selling snake oil. I am, nonetheless, at loss as to why anyone would finance such an operation. It never ceases to amaze me how much money goes into propaganda of religious charlatans in the US. Theft is one thing, but Ken Ham and the Creation Museum can hardly support the events that they host from the paltry revenue that could possibly be accrued by working class moms and fundamentalist pastors. The fortunes that must be spent on world class facilities and the interminable stream of Hollywood caliber advertising would make anyone but the richest billionaires cringe. Ham and Nye's Debate was characterized by this same ostentatious wealth. In fact the auditorium at the Creation Museum made the venues of the presidential debates between Barak Obama and Mitt Romney seem spartan by comparison. It must have had some backers to compete with the Moguls that sponsor our political races. Although it seemed to me to be an unworthy cause, I will not presume to speculate on the motives of the plutocratic class of the United States.
Nevertheless, in the midst of all the meaningless detritus Ken Ham made a surprisingly apropos observation. He said that the argument between Intelligent Design and Evolution was based on two differing world views. This may seem innocuous enough--a throwaway comment intended to validate the religious lunacy of his faction--but in the context Clifort Geertz's definition of religion it can hardly be described as worthless remark. To recap, Geertz proposed in 1966 in his essay "Religion as a Cultural System"that religion is:
(1) a system of
symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and
long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating
conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these
conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and
motivations seem uniquely realistic.
In other words religion is an organized symbology which propagates, in a society, a world view and an ethical code translated into cultural semiotics that appeals to and explains transcendent reality.
In anthropological terms religion is the corner stone which establishes a world view refined by science and philosophy made less uncertain by innovation and magic. It can be extrapolated that a successful religion provides a self perpetuating and self evident world view. Creationism, qua pseudo-science, exposes Fundamentalism as a farce of a religion which depends upon an indefensible world view. It is the best argument against Fundamentalism. Creationism was created as a scaffolding to prop up a tottering faith, but in the end its dead weight will consign that faith to be nothing more than a footnote of history.
Ken Ham did nothing other than demand that no one can ever disprove his world view, implying that he was far from taken his world view for granted. Furthermore, his religious world view prevented him from engaging in any form of science (unbiased observation of the world), although, as he observed too frequently, the application of natural laws discovered by science in advancement of technology is not inconsistent with his world view. Bill Nye never consciously engaged his world view. When he touched upon his values, he spoke as one who assumes that everyone in the room holds the same core values, which they did. When asked to summarize his world view, without hesitation, he responded--verifiable and predictable truth. Bill Nye, not Ken Ham, possessed a world view that was self perpetuating and self evident. Thus the agnostic rather than the Christian had complete confidence in his religion.
Ken Ham was absolutely right; Intelligent Design is ultimately a argument about world views, not a scientific one. An argument, which by the way, few people have ever ventured to engage more than superficially. The Nye-Ham Debate certainly did not try to thrash out the differences between their competing world views. The competitors spoke a different language when they stepped into the realm of ideals; each misunderstanding his own world view as much as his competitor's. This unfortunately I believe is an intentional aspect of the ongoing debate between Fundamentalism and Mainstream American Culture. The former is unable to live in reality because reality apparently disproves Fundamentalism in toto; while the latter lacks any genuine existential meaning and no self respecting American would ever admit the self evident truth that libertinism is not the ultimate expression of human liberty.
As a side note Ken Ham's argument frequently delved into the hyperbole that Creationists frequently use to silence opposition--Does God have last word or does Humanity? Nye was unphased by this false bifurcation. Unfortunately his personal indifference allowed him to miss the opportunity to demonstrate the hollowness of this argument. Let me demonstrate. The English jurist William Blackstone divided divine revelation into categories: special revelation (scripture) and natural revelation (the world). If one accepts that the bible is the infallible and inerrant word of God then one must accept that "All scripture is inspired by God" NRSV as the author of 2 Tim 3:16 asserts, what ever the original author meant by "inspired by God." The original Greek word is theospneustos, which implies non-miraculous Divine inspiration of an individual or individuals. The works of Homer, Virgil, and Shelley could be described as theospneustos since they could be described as Providential gifts, if one views the will of God, or Providence, as the source of all fortuitous things in the universe. Thus Scripture is by its own description of itself the work of human beings. God has allowed human beings to speak for him as special revelation.
Nature, however, is the unadulterated handy-work of God. Scripture describes God as the Creator, not for one moment but for all eternity and all creatures. That is not to say that God did not lay down the fundamental laws of the universe and establish its constants. Far from that, the Bible says that he laid the foundations of the world. What else is the foundation of the world that the essential physical laws and constants? Scripture is, nonetheless, unambiguous that God did not just leave his constants and laws to do what chance would allow. His Providence guides and watches over all of nature. In other words nature speaks for God by itself, not for God through human effort. Ipso facto one comes to the uninspiring conclusion that A = A, viz a viz natural revelation is natural revelation.
How then should one examine the world to make God the final arbiter of the nature of the universe rather than humanity? The answer is obvious. Since humans have written Scripture and God has written nature, the truly pious person must observe the world dispassionately and unbiasedly, gathering verifiable data, and constructing models that produce predictable results, viz. science. Furthermore, inquiry into Scripture must also be guided by rational and reasonable examination. It is inappropriate to take earlier scientific models or intended metaphors as the ultimate mystery of the universe. Scripture must be interpreted within the context of an ever changing view of the natural world and respect for the meaning of the text as received. Specifically myths must be accepted as myths and not science.
