posted on Apr, 19 2003 @ 02:44 AM
Maybe not "adopted", TC -merely "adapted".
I think a number of issues have to be carefully distinguished and clearly borne in mind when we return to this old favourite.
First of all: "creationism" is not the same sort of thing as "Darwinism" or some similar mainstream evolutionary approach. The latter, for better
or worse, with greater or lesser persuasive force, depends upon an empirical approach to the here and now (I count fossils as the "here and now").
The sudden discovery of a fossilised ten-foot ant with gills and tusks will have countless repercussions for Darwinism, I really can't think of any
This is to advocate or endorse neither. It is merely to point out that the suffix "-ism" is misleading. One can think of many great scientific
minds that would have endorsed creationism (look at the contemporary reaction to Darwin, in many quarters) and blithering idiots who somehow "know"
evolution must be correct.
The one is about faith and spirituality and to attack it as being indifferent to argument is probably not quite right. It is, rather, that it is
indifferent to the same sort of argument.
Also, we must recall that "Darwinism" is not wholly accepted in the academic world -certainly not the fairly simplistic account offered at
In terms of public education, it would seem to me that little is lost by offering both and little is gained by merely offering one: other than the
implications for staffing and curriculum time. On balance, I doubt a typical Biology teacher is a creationist and I doubt a typical R.E. (religious
studies, where these are offered) would know his genome from his genesis.
One area of concern is, however, the context. Even with the contemporary near collapse of Western public education, "evolution" will be offered in
some sort of context of prior scientific study. Creationism will not be so lucky. I know that religious education is an unexploded MOAB in the US; but
in the UK state sector it tends to be a sort of pink, boneless, value-free " we all worship the same God" confection of drivel.
There is perhaps a need to examine religious education first. Also there is the staff issue: who will teach "creationism"? And how shall tax-payer
and parent assess the quality of that teaching?
As I say, an old favourite and rather better treated at present on ATS than it has been in the past, it seems to me.
[Edited on 19-4-2003 by Estragon]