Creationism is the religious belief that life and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being. In the ancient world and during the Middle Ages, philosophical discussion on creationism concentrated on the idea of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo). Alternatively, it [ ] that the creation of the world could also be some kind of formation of a previously existing matter, as the Greek philosopher Aristotle supposed.
Christian supporters of creationism frequently insist on a literal interpretation of Creation according to Genesis. In this belief, a creationist God manipulated natural procedure, which can either refer to the creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) or the introduction of order to the previously existing chaos (tohuwabohu). This view spread among Protestant Christians in the 19th century, most of which merged with fundamentalist and evangelical lines in the 20th century as some kind of opposition to the ideas of the scientific movement and evolutionary theory. In the late 20th century, Islam and some parts of the Jewry took similar views.
Creationism, strictly speaking, takes the view that scientific aspects support creation according to traditional myths and that literal interpretation of those reports in Genesis or the Koran reveals actual events. Unfortunately, creationism does not explain how exactly creation came about. Creation myths in Genesis or elsewhere only become intelligible under the co-consideration of the Gods-Astronauts-Hypothesis (or ancient astronaut hypothesis, as it is sometimes called). Using common interpretation techniques, scientific facts, as empirical source of information on natural history, regularly oppose literal interpretation of the Bible. The Gods-Astronauts-Hypothesis, however, may solve this contradiction under the assumption that religious and other texts were written by people who did not know about genetics or terraforming and who could explain either of them only with God’s omnipotence.
Other strong arguments in favour of creationism derive from the weakness of evolutionary theory. First of all, there are neither eye-witnesses nor final evidence for evolution. Fossils and archaeological discoveries, in the end, can only be pieces of circumstantial evidence that could be subject to misinterpretation. Furthermore, chance plays an extremely important role in evolutionary theory. However, as already stated, believing in big bang or evolutionary theory means nothing less than expecting the formation of an encyclopaedia out of the explosion of a printer’s workshop. Even if one might consider an infinite period of time, it is virtually impossible, according to probability calculus, that life just happened to come into existence by mere chance. Another problem is the creation of animals or plants by natural mutation or selection. Positive mutation is extremely rare and has never been witnessed reliably. Neither does natural selection necessarily produce new species. As a consequence, evidence in favour of Darwin’s evolutionary theory or natural selection is rather scarce.
Furthermore, creationism does not necessarily exclude mutation since the world has been created. In the view of so-called “evolutionary creationism”, God is the creator who used evolution as a tool to create species and who also uses evolution in order to improve them. There are, yet, different views on how much influence God executes on this. But the common point of view is that natural selection is not the cause for the appearance of new species, as this is executed directly by God who intervenes in the process of evolution.
Whichever view one may prefer, the result is still the same: the world as we know it. The important point is that evolutionary theory simply cannot explain everything so that it is a poor alternative to creationism. One may remember the example of bees and flowers, or the mother whales, which also goes well with Thomas Aquinas’s argument of the first cause, because the prime move certainly would echo in its creation. Even Kant would be satisfied, as this world is perfectly perceptible to men through their senses.
Politically, creationism is frequently regarded as a threat to secular order, e.g. in the USA. Teaching evolutionary theory could oppose creationism in a rather unfair way. Attempts to teach creationism in schools frequently are prevented by legal means under the assumption that the separation of state and church would be abolished. Main representatives of creationism in the USA are the so-called evangelical Christians, who also have great political influence. Their best known representative might be former president George W. Bush. But also in Europe, though creationism is rather unpopular in politics, the European Council in October 2007 regarded creationism as a possible threat to human rights. However, both views are based on traditional interpretation of the Bible without considering the Gods-astronauts-hypothesis.
Christian supporters of creationism frequently insist on a literal interpretation of Creation according to Genesis. In this belief, a creationist God manipulated natural procedure, which can either refer to the creation out of nothing (ex nihilo) or the introduction of order to the previously existing chaos (tohuwabohu). This view spread among Protestant Christians in the 19th century, most of which merged with fundamentalist and evangelical lines in the 20th century as some kind of opposition to the ideas of the scientific movement and evolutionary theory. In the late 20th century, Islam and some parts of the Jewry took similar views.
Creationism, strictly speaking, takes the view that scientific aspects support creation according to traditional myths and that literal interpretation of those reports in Genesis or the Koran reveals actual events. Unfortunately, creationism does not explain how exactly creation came about. Creation myths in Genesis or elsewhere only become intelligible under the co-consideration of the Gods-Astronauts-Hypothesis (or ancient astronaut hypothesis, as it is sometimes called). Using common interpretation techniques, scientific facts, as empirical source of information on natural history, regularly oppose literal interpretation of the Bible. The Gods-Astronauts-Hypothesis, however, may solve this contradiction under the assumption that religious and other texts were written by people who did not know about genetics or terraforming and who could explain either of them only with God’s omnipotence.
Other strong arguments in favour of creationism derive from the weakness of evolutionary theory. First of all, there are neither eye-witnesses nor final evidence for evolution. Fossils and archaeological discoveries, in the end, can only be pieces of circumstantial evidence that could be subject to misinterpretation. Furthermore, chance plays an extremely important role in evolutionary theory. However, as already stated, believing in big bang or evolutionary theory means nothing less than expecting the formation of an encyclopaedia out of the explosion of a printer’s workshop. Even if one might consider an infinite period of time, it is virtually impossible, according to probability calculus, that life just happened to come into existence by mere chance. Another problem is the creation of animals or plants by natural mutation or selection. Positive mutation is extremely rare and has never been witnessed reliably. Neither does natural selection necessarily produce new species. As a consequence, evidence in favour of Darwin’s evolutionary theory or natural selection is rather scarce.
Furthermore, creationism does not necessarily exclude mutation since the world has been created. In the view of so-called “evolutionary creationism”, God is the creator who used evolution as a tool to create species and who also uses evolution in order to improve them. There are, yet, different views on how much influence God executes on this. But the common point of view is that natural selection is not the cause for the appearance of new species, as this is executed directly by God who intervenes in the process of evolution.
Whichever view one may prefer, the result is still the same: the world as we know it. The important point is that evolutionary theory simply cannot explain everything so that it is a poor alternative to creationism. One may remember the example of bees and flowers, or the mother whales, which also goes well with Thomas Aquinas’s argument of the first cause, because the prime move certainly would echo in its creation. Even Kant would be satisfied, as this world is perfectly perceptible to men through their senses.
Politically, creationism is frequently regarded as a threat to secular order, e.g. in the USA. Teaching evolutionary theory could oppose creationism in a rather unfair way. Attempts to teach creationism in schools frequently are prevented by legal means under the assumption that the separation of state and church would be abolished. Main representatives of creationism in the USA are the so-called evangelical Christians, who also have great political influence. Their best known representative might be former president George W. Bush. But also in Europe, though creationism is rather unpopular in politics, the European Council in October 2007 regarded creationism as a possible threat to human rights. However, both views are based on traditional interpretation of the Bible without considering the Gods-astronauts-hypothesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment