"Except for the point, the still point, there would be no dance, and there is only the dance." ~ T.S. Eliot in "Burnt Norton"

Monday, January 21, 2013

Devilution?

Last class we learned about the 4 ways you can divide the argument between religion and science. They are grouped into conflict, independence, dialogue, and integration. In the video clip below all four are easily seen. Lisa clearly views the two in conflict, and that neither can be accepted. She even says that "two different ideas cannot coexist'. Lisa's mom Marge disputes this by saying "two incompatible things are both true" which takes the view of integration. This is because they both work together as one. The school starts teaching the children that "God did it". In class we learned is also called "God of the gaps" which is categorized under dialogue. Lastly when the Reverend is confronted by Ned he replies saying, "Ned you have to take these things with a grain of salt" by saying this he is inferring that the bible should be taken seriously but not literally. This falls into the group called independence. 

Video: Simpsons Evolution vs. Creationism 

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/45786/detail/


Questions:
1) Should creationism be taught in our schools?
2) Do we need to be more open to the possibility that both creationism and evolution are true?
3) Is it possible for creationists to accept evolution and vice versa? Should they?


Lauren M, Stephanie P, Tiba T

32 comments:

  1. I don't think Creationism or Intelligent Design will ever be taught in public schools (there's legal precedent made that rejects Intelligent Design as a science) but the teaching of philosophy that can teach Natural theology. These classes could also help establish differences between Christian philosophy from the likes of Agnosticism, Deism, and Atheism which would not necessarily teach "creation". As for the question on creationism and evolution both being true look no further to the argument of causation used by the likes of Aristotle. Recently many Christian Apologists have become more based on scientific fact, believing that ideas such as the big bang are not contradicting to Christian theology.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In my opinion, the only time creationism may be taught in school is at a private school where those who believe in that particular opinion may practice and inform others of their opinion. As a society which at least appears to be in favor of using reason to guide our decisions, it would be contrary to mainstream societal acceptances to "do away" with a theory that has been scientifically scrutinized whereas the proposed creationism argument, unless new evidence presents itself, seems to be contrary to the aforementioned scientific arguments. Though I have been previously discussing a more literalist creationist argument, I think the Catholic Church is a prime example in the fact that creationism and evolutionary theory do not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. Metaphorical interpretations of the Bible which are still able to align with a "God" created the universe argument and evolutionary theory is more along the lines of this argument. I think my previous comments indicate that I do believe it is possible for both sets of believers, under certain circumstances, to accept the other's argument as possibly true as well. And I do think that each person should never argue contrary to reason without some other information or reason that would lead them to that point. Regardless, we should continue the vetting process of learning and understanding more about each of these arguments while never truly ruling out the possibly that both could be true.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm not sure how much I as an individual can contribute to such an extensively debated topic. I think that if I were to be compelled to label my opinions on the matter, I would probably contend that I support evolution over creationism, but I should imagine that both should be taught as existing theories or philosophies, but perhaps teachers should not betray their biases in favor of one or the other. I think this video is a surprisingly good fit for Barbour's distinctions between the different interactions. I hadn't expected to find those distinctions fit so well into a context that I suppose some would consider plain and not necessarily theological. I think this goes to show how well Barbour's distinctions can fit into a common language. However, in my opinion, I haven't found a clean method by which evolutional theory and creationism may be reconciled with one another. Perhaps it behooves us as scholars to further explore this dialogue and perhaps even make adjustments to our contentions which allow for better reconciliation in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do a good job with this, but I just want to take a minute to address the word "theory." As we discussed when I explained the scientific method, a scientific theory is one step away from a scientific law. In this way evolution is a theory in the same way that gravity is a theory. I don't think that one can place creationism on the same level. That being said, in thinking about the ideas of mythos and logos as Karen Armstrong presents them, one can think about creation and evolution in parallel ways, one falling in the realm of mythos and the other in logos, respectively. This kind of thinking which can hold both methods of discovering truth, can allow for dialogue in a way that presenting creationism and evolution as competing "theories" cannot.

      Delete
  4. First, I really enjoyed the chosen reference. I think it was a great example of how more frequently than not such seriously debated topics can end up being discussed not simply on the news but in more casual forms of media. I was however surprised, as Julian mentioned, at how well the clip displayed Barbour's distinctions.

    In regards to creationism being taught in schools, I do not believe that it sound be a topic of education in public schools. However, personally I believe it is something that individuals should acknowledge, respect, and spend the time to understand even if the at the end of that process they chose not to agree with it's principles. Without spending the time to educate yourself about opinions different from your own, I don't believe it is fair to dismiss them. This idea ties into my response for the second question: Do we need to be more open to the possibility that both creationism and evolution are true? I would say yes I believe we do need to be more open to the possibility that both creationism and evolution are true. At least initially, I think anyone discussing or considering these two topics should primarily be willing to listen to and attempt to understand both ideas and their integration. Only from considering both aspects as well as the four distinctions can someone truly hold a strong opinion regardless of whether that opinion is in favor or opposition to integration itself.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The teaching of creationism in the public school system is probably never going to happen based on the fact of separation of Church and State. It wasn't too long ago when parents were calling for the removal of religious items, any forms of prayer and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance if it were said in classes; even removing "In God We Trust" from our currency was brought up. While this subject matter may never be a discussion in public schools, private institutions teach what they want based on a common belief or set curriculum. I found it comical and interesting that when Marge was faced with having to choose between one or the other she gave no answer and joined Homer on the trampoline. She kept her independent stance without bringing the two together and without letting both battle it out but instead avoided it all together and joined Homer, going with the flow instead of causing any ripples. This is something we see often in our own society. We are all challenged in our faith and stance on popular issues and have to either choose one way or the other without stumbling and without wavering on any previous position or believe we've stated. I think an open mind is a characteristic that we should all strive for. Open mindedness gives us a chance to view another's perspective and leaves us open to new possibilities. With an open mind we can better understand each other as people and work towards a common ground, instead of standing in constant opposition. To say this isn't to say that there is a clear divide between religion and science or between creationists and evolutionist but that people have set positions and finding that middle ground isn't always easy if we can't have an open mind. While accepting other opinions and beliefs isn't the easy premise it isn't entirely impossible. Francis Collins, an American physician-geneticist who headed up the Human Genome Project was a proclaimed atheist after he graduated while in graduate school even having been raised by Christian parents. Later in life he found religion again and wrote a book "The Language of God." Bridging the gap between the two is possible and finding truth is what people strive for. An open mind and a desire to know the truth is what could bring both together, but it doesn't guarantee it will or that people will try.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In my point of view, I think we need to open our mind to accept both of Creationism and Evolution. Perhaps Lisa Simpsons in the movie overreacted about Creationism acceptance. As you can see in many aspects of life, the religion and science are coexisting. Some people believe in God, who created everything from the very beginning of the time; some people consider Big Bang theory as the beginning of evolution. In reality, we cannot reject either group. So, instead of trying to approve which group is wrong, why don’t people let them work together? I won’t say which theory is wrong or right since science and religion have their own persuasive explanation. To easier accept both Creationism and Evolution, let’s think that they are different aspects of same thing; for instance, some girls think that pink shoes are beautiful but the others don’t, but the shoes are still themselves. Imagine that someday scientists can prove that there is no God, what is going to happen to 3 billion people who believe in God? Or someday people reject science, how is our world gonna be? So, in this case, people shouldn’t choose one of two: Creationism or Evolution. We should accept them both.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gillian brings up an important theme addressed in Barbour's "Religion and Science" - that the expression of "extreme views lends itself to dramatic media coverage"(77). Lisa Simpson's conflict with culture, much like Sheldon's discourse with his mother in "The Big Bang Theory", lends itself to casual comedy. Media coverage seems to be more focused on the means than the content of this hotly-debated topic. On the surface, it appears that the two circles of Science and Religion agree to disagree: one stays inside while the other jumps on the trampoline outdoors. As Sean suggests, it's as if Science and Religion are two similarly-charged magnets charged and repelled by political, personal, or social zeal. The issue gets more murky, however, when we consider situations such as Kelly Clarkson's lauded performance of "My Country 'Tis of Thee" earlier today at the Inauguration, which included an entire verse in prayer to "Great God, Our King". Situations like these beg the question: Is God merely a feeling rung out in the last verse of a song, when reason has attained all the fulfillment of our appetitive culture? When events take a toll on our lives, is Science the only rational path towards fulfillment while Religion falls by the wayside? The term I think that will help resolve this issue between Science and Religion is "truth" - a word used in many of the above comments, and is highly (if not comically) scripted in the aforementioned episode of "The Simpsons", yet is quietly hidden from Chapter 4 of Barbour's work. I do not seek to define the age-old question "What is Truth?", but I think the more apt question to consider is "What is the purpose of Truth?". For the Simpson's Ph.D in Truthology, Science reveals truth as a source of knowledge and empirical patterns. Its purpose is to gain intellect. For theologians such as St. Thomas Aquinas, God is and reveals truth which "fulfills the end to which it was ordained by the divine intellect" (Disputed Questions on Truth). The argument arises when pride of intellect, the mind of the scientist, comes at odds with pride of belief, the faith of the religious devout. I see truth, however, as being above ourselves. When pride of self is rendered obsolete, true enlightenment - the 'right path' - can reveal itself both intellectually and faithfully.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the idea that you bring up here about God being more than just a feeling at the end of a song. I think Karen Armstrong addresses this in her text as well when she talks about how we make God "small." God is infinite as we discussed in class on Thursday, and not something we can shape to fit out own purposes, such as nationalism or hoping that our sports team wins. I also like that you deal with "truth" in much the same way we have been wrestling with it in class. These are all major ideas that will shape this entire course.

      Delete
  8. Because I believe in the separation of church and state creationism should not be taught in public schools. The reason being is because of the freedom of religion we have in this country. If there was a heavy church influence then that one religion would be the only religion practiced and if state held sway over the church they can decide what religion a person can worship. Public schools being state funded should be free of religion as to not impose any type of belief in students. That being said however private schools are free to choose their own curriculum and as such can choose any type of creation story they want, whether that be evolution or creationism. Whichever version a school teaches should introduce the topic, or at least add it into the subject later on, the opposite side. This should be to allow students to freely choose what they wish to believe therefore the subject should be taught briefly and without bias. This allows freedom of thought and choice and allows students the opportunity to think and believe as they wish.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that creationism should definitely be taught purely as an optional elective in school, given that we do have a separation of church and state in America. However, to not be taught it would, in my opinion, be a disservice to learning and knowledge in general. I can definitely see a conflict with those who take a literalistic view of the Bible being taught evolution and vice-versa, though; these types of conflicts can be assumed to be inevitable. I don't see why both evolution and creationism cannot be accepted together. I consider myself a deist, and I don't necessarily ascribe to any specific denomination, though one thing that I do know is that we still do not know how exactly the universe came to be, and more importantly, why. In my opinion, being more open about the possibility of creationism and evolution being true would be a healthy course of action, and a good middle ground between the two ideas. As for each member of their respective ideas accepting the other's idea, of course it is possible. This can vary on the type of religion a person has (taking into account what it calls for, not specifically Christianity), however I don't necessarily believe they should be forced to believe in one and not the other, though this may present a problem of they seek public office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you also think that we should teach other religious creation stories, such as those found in Hinduism or Native American traditions in public schools?

      Delete
  10. This clip was a great modern day example that many students, parents, and teachers are faced with in today's society. Because everyone is so opinionated in their beliefs, this can especially make it hard as to what she be taught when it comes to schooling. In regard to the first question, I will easily say that creationism should not be taught in public schools. Going to a private school from K-8, all we were ever taught was creationism, or as Lisa stated "every answer was God did it." However, in public high school, this topic was extremely controversial and raised quite the debate in a couple different classes. With this being said, I have seen both sides of the story. I can answer the second question positively by saying that yes, as a society, and it now being 2013, we do need to be more open with the ideas of evolution and/or creationism. Being closed minded isn't going to get you very far; I'm not saying that you need to agree with both, but we as a whole will not have any sort of productivity in anything we do with a one track mind. Lastly, if an evolutionist is an evolutionist...then there is no reason for them to have to be able to accept creationism. They are their own person and therefore are allowed to have their own opinion. However, there is room for them to be open to and listen to the ideas of the creationists. The same goes for the other way around. At this point however, with society as far advanced as it is, one's belief is personal and it is nothing more than just a belief.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think that creationism should be taught in public schools. Not only does this violate the separation between church and state, but I think that it would give people a skewed outlook on the creation story. As we discussed in class, we cannot read the Bible as a science textbook. The way lessons have been taught in schools for decades would cause us to interpret the Bible from a literalist standpoint. I also believe that the school system is where we go to be taught science (including evolution). If we are looking to learn about creationism, we are able to attend a church or consult other literature.

    Many people today are open to the idea that both creationism and evolution are true. However, it is always possible to be more accepting of multiple points of view. Of course, nobody should be criticized for their beliefs. Compared to years ago, the theory of evolution has gained immense popularity. It is important that we pursue evolution through learning, but we must also preserve the creation story as it is seen in the Bible.

    I don't think it is necessarily possible for creationists to accept evolution and vice versa, because their titles imply that they only believe in one point of view. However, I definitely think it is possible for someone to believe in some combination of the two.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In my opinion creationism has it's place in schools to an extent. For example, if a student was sent to a Catholic school creationism should be addressed, but not without consideration of evolutionary principles. As we discussed in class, the main point of Gaudium Et. Spes was that if religion is done correctly and if science is done correctly then conflict should not occur between the two. Furthermore, said conflict is replaced with dialogue. Therefore, to answer the second question, our society must move to a less strict construction of creationism and evolution. If we lend ourselves to a greater understanding of the opinions of both, we lend ourselves to a greater understanding of truth, and furthermore an enlightened and knowledgable view of creation. In my opinion scientists could, under the model demonstrated in Gaudium Et. Spes as well as Karen Armstrong's work "The Case for God," believe in creationism. It would be possible if scientists understood what truths religion had to offer and understood that there is a place for both views. Additionally, if society viewed religious teachings from their foundation of "mythos," which focuses more on preserving a way of life, one would see that scientists could be both religious yet still possess a grounding in scientific thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is good, but I want to make a few corrections. "Creationism" only applies to the idea that Genesis 1 and 2 present an accurate, empirical account of how the universe came to exist. Accepting these stories as somehow true (in a mythos kind of way) is not creationism. Secondly, because of this definition, Catholics are not, nor have ever been historically, creationists. A few other Christian denominations hold this position, though they are by no means the majority. However, they can be rather loud. We will discuss this more when we get to evolution in class, but I wanted to make sure we were all operating from the correct set of terms from the beginning.

      Delete
  13. I think Creationism should not be taught as a class which focuses only on Creationism. However, I think it is okay to discuss it as a chapter from a textbook just to present to students different ideas regarding religion and science. Nowadays most schools, especially public schools, have World Religion courses to show students various beliefs from all over the world. In modern days, teaching religion is no longer forcing a religious idea into one's brain, but rather provide one with ideas that he/she can choose from on their own.

    To think that Evolution and Creationism can both be true is a little strange since they seem to be two extremely different ideas. Like Lisa Simpson said, they are incompatible and seem impossible to coexist. However, I think it is important that we keep an open mind to both ideas, just like we read the writings of different philosophers. We might agree with one philosophical idea and disagree with the other ones, but it doesn't hurt to also see the other ideas. Similarly, one can be in favor of one theory, but still understand and acknowledge the opposite. This leads to the third question. It sounds impossible to me that Creationists will ever accept Evolutionists, and vice versa. I think it is unnecessary that one theory should accept the other. There is nothing wrong in believing different theories as long as they respect the beliefs of the other side.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you put this in the context of a World Religions course, which I alluded to above.

      Delete
  14. I believe both creationism and evolution should be taught in schools. While this link: ((http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism_n_1571127.html), which I found quite interesting) says 46% of Americans believe in creationism, I find it necessary to teach both theories in public schools, as well as non-public schools. I don't think children should be told one way is right or one way is wrong because that is not how life will proceed to be for them. As Matt said above, children should have the right to religious freedom & be taught without bias. All angles need to be taught. However, it should not be taught in depth until at least middle school.
    I think both concepts can be accepted. I recall a point that was brought up in class. If there was a "big bang" that started everything, does that mean God created that "big bang"? In the link I posted above, 32% of Americans believe in theistic evolution. If I had to choose, I would stand by theistic evolution. It’s the most realistic, to me, without rejecting God.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We'll talk more about theistic evolution later on, but I like that it comes up here. I want to ask (as I did above), should other religious creation stories also be taught? If not, what makes Christianity's special?

      Delete
  15. I think, both creationsm and evolution should be taught in our school and we need to be open to the possibility that both creationism and evolution are true. In the video, the father who appeared in the begining of the video really believes in the Bible, in that God did every thing to human's life . But in the other hand, Lisa Symsons is a fan of science so they have the different thought about the origin of human with Darwin theory. So they come up with the different idea about the things. Both of them are true, no one is wrong. And the true is, we cannot rejected anyone of those even try to prove which one is wrong. Since in the specific case, we can chose one of them to explain the issue.like with the question why human is created, the answer is God did it. And with the question how human is created, and the answer is that human passed the evolution. So, these answers make me feel that it is possible for creationists to accept evolution and vice versa. I heard about a theory that make me interested, that is God created the human thorought evolution. So both theories really co-exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does "true" mean fact or something that can be proven empirically to be true? Are evolution and creationism both true in the same way?

      Delete
    2. "true" as I mean is both evolution and creationism have the convinced points. People do not need to prove which is wrong.

      Delete
  16. I agree with several of my classmates when they say both views should be taught. While I'm a firm believer in evolution, there is a significant amount of people who believe in creationism. Undoubtedly, some of those who believe are children who have been raised by parents who also believe that to be true. We don't want to set up a system of teacher that is in conflict with parents' teachings. They should be harmonious. Thus, while there is not much proof to support creationism, children should at least be taught that the belief exists and that there are several in-between views such as the ones we discussed in class. This way, no one feels excluded or prejudiced and children have more tools to form their own theories and beliefs in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I believe that both creationism and evolution should be taught in public and private schools. Since both of them are true, why do we consider one and deny the other?. In my country, Saudi Arabia, only creationism is taught in public and private schools. However, the idea of evolution was never brought up in our science textbooks and that’s because it conflicts with the Islamic belief. Although many people believe science should be taught in school and religion should be taught in churches, I think teaching creationism in a religion class and evolution in a science class is the best approach for students. Teaching both ideas in schools will allow students to think critically about them and chose what they feel is right. I do not think that it is possible for creationism to accept evolution because they are totally opposite to each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like that you distinguish the realm of these two: one in science and the other in religion. I also like that acknowledge the need for critical thinking and students to make their own decisions.

      Delete
  18. I do not think the idea of creationism should be totally dismissed in schools. It becomes and issue to most when this theory is taught in public schools, due to the idea of separation of church and state. However I think that both evolution and creationism should be taught in schools, as two theories. This was children in schools have two point of view, as long as they do not contradict each other. Is it important to teach students to be open minded and just teaching one theory will not allow for that. Integration allows theses two theories to be in dialogue, keeping open conversation, can allow us to discover new ideas. If only one or the other is taught in schools children may miss important opportunities to discover their truths. As long as creationism and evolution do not contradict each other it is possible that they may both be true. The creation story in the bible is not meant to be taken literally; with this in mind it can be applied to the theory of evolution. As I mentioned before as long as the two theories keep open dialogue, they may see they do not contradict each other. We must remain open minded to both creationism and evolution. I think that for many people who are either stuck in their religious ways of thought, or their purely scientific thought, it may be difficult for them to accept the other's theory. That is why it is important to teach new generations to be accepting of both. This might allow for new idea combined both with religion and science to be discovered. It seems that it will be important for creationist and evolutionist to accept both theories, in order to avoid conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You did a good job with this, but I want to offer a few corrections in terminology, which I did above as well. 1) "Theory" in science means something different than "theory" in our everyday language. In science a theory is one step from a scientific law. This means that evolution is a theory as gravity is a theory. Creationism cannot be placed on the same level. Also, in Barbour's taxonomy integration and dialogue are two different things. What you describe is dialogue, but not integration. Finally, while you say that the creation story in the Bible is not meant to be taken literally, that is exactly what creationists do. Therefore, if one is reading the Genesis narratives in any way other than literally, one cannot be a creationist.

      Delete
  19. Why do you think people avoid tough situations like Marge did when Lisa asked her what she believed in? Why is it easier sometimes to just do what everyone else is instead of pushing the envelope?

    ReplyDelete
  20. This video was a great reference for such a controversial topic. As I'm thinking more about both theories, I'm a little confused as to what I believe personally. I think that public schools should stick with the evolution theory because there are so many religions and unfortunately people are more likely to accept scientific fact over having faith. I think both theories make a lot of sense which is why it's hard for me to pick one over the other. It is important to be open minded because no one truly knows the answer. However, not all people are open minded and I would like to point out that I feel more sorry for the people who completely reject creationism than the ones who completely reject evolution. This is because I think it's easy to reject having faith in God if you don't come from a religious background and also aren't being exposed to godly ideas. I think there is an abstract truth that connects all beings---I believe that truth is love and God is the source of love (the Creator).
    It is easy to get caught up in scientific knowledge, yet there is SO much we do not know. The God of the gaps exists yet scientists are always looking for ways to prove it wrong. Personally, I think there will ALWAYS be room for God of the gaps because we will NEVER know everything. Some things cannot be explained because we live in a world with millions of other beings and we are all clouded by our perceptions. People must be open and willing to accept both theories to form a more solid opinion about creation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a good entry, but I want to address ask a few questions. Can someone have faith in God and reject creationism? Also, does saying "God did it" when we don't know something really good theology? (Or good science for that matter?) Also, see my above explanations of the word "theory."

      Delete
  21. I believe that there should be a balance between creationism and evolution. I feel that only at a Catholic school should there be a heavier curriculum dealing with creationism. I believe that all students (if parents want) should have the opportunity to learn what the Bible teaches, but should not be forced. Science and Religion, need to coexist and Catholic schools should teach the scientific theory. I think everyone should be open to the possibility that creationism and evolution are true. To me that would be selfish and somewhat ignorant to not be open to understanding another theory or point of view. Not saying that they need to accept an opposing view. I don't know if I am wrong but I accept both views and I see nothing wrong with that. God gave us (well not me but scientist) the ability to facilitate our minds enough to conduct these experiments and find logical solutions. I think that it is very much possible for creationists to accept evolution and vice versa. In order to have a better understanding of the world we live in and understand such a complex idea as creation and evolution one must understand and accept both.

    ReplyDelete