All well and good, so far. Christians shouldn't be like the crazed cultists who explain away inconvenient facts that don't agree with their prior religious beliefs. That's high-minded talk, that. John Mark Reynolds of 2007, meet John Mark Reynolds of 1999. What are we to think about you?However, a rational person does not just need beliefs that fit together in his own head, but beliefs that fit with and explain his experience of the world. As a set of beliefs, a world view, stops being connected to the real world or as the connections grow smaller and smaller, it becomes more and more irrational. The Heaven's Gate cult is a good example. In 1997 all the members of this California religious group committed suicide in the mistaken notion that the comet Hale-Bopp was a sign that it was time to die and go to heaven. Sadly, there was no connection between what they believed and the real world. Their beliefs were perfectly consistent and if any of them had been true it might have been interesting to listen to them. Consistency in the web of belief is not good enough. A person also has to ask, "Are my beliefs connected to reality?" Some Christians will say, "I know in my heart that my beliefs are true!" This is not good enough. Any number of foolish things can be justified in the human heart. There has to be a connection between beliefs and the outside world. This has become more difficult for Christians in the last two hundred years. Most mainstream science has rejected important components of a Biblical world view. Traditional Christianity believed God worked in the visible world. Science is no longer allowed to see that action, even if it exists. It feels free to ignore divine action as being either non-existent or so rare and unimportant that it can be safely ignored. For most of church history, Christians felt comfortable with science. It supported their view of the world. Now for many Christians there exists a tension, or at least a worry, that their beliefs are not so different from Heaven's Gate. [...] Christians must love a real God passionately enough to crave knowledge of him. The must love His Word enough to find that the Bible itself does, as a whole, connect to the visible world. Christians must have faith, but this faith should be consistent with reason which is not a mere religious rationalization. The Heaven's Gate cult is alleged to have bought a telescope to look at the comet Hale-Bopp. When their view through the telescope did not confirm their beliefs, they returned the telescope on the assumption it was defective. This is the path of madness that leads to death. (Bolds added.)
Just how much clearer could it possibly be that John Mark Reynolds is actively engaged in denying reality because it doesn't fit with his prior religious beliefs? He basically admitted it in 1999. So how is this any different from the very wackos he criticizes in 2007? How can he claim Christians' view of the world should be connected to the observed real world, and yet arrogantly, scandalously dismiss everything from radiometric isochron dating to thermoluminescence to stellar distances to the complete absence of non-radiogenic nuclides with short half-lives to ice cores to varves to tree rings. I am well aware that most Christians think that John Mark Reynolds' attitude is ludicrous -- in fact, most of the pages I linked to above were written by Christians, even evangelicals. Reynolds has written in various places that a particular Bible reading should be surrendered if the empirical case against it makes the reading "hopeless." Geocentrism is given as an example. But just how much more hopeless could the case for a young-earth possibly get? Why should anyone take Reynolds seriously as an honest, reliable thinker when he won't even take his own high-minded advice about keeping ones' views connected to the real world and "following the evidence where it leads"? I know that some PT readers may be tired of me harping on this, but (1) I am morbidly fascinated by the creationist mind and (2) if, at some point in the future, John Mark Reynolds wakes up in the middle of the night and realizes he's been living a lie and that his own Christian beliefs are telling him to deal with reality, suck it up like the grown man he is, and admit that the young-earth view is wrong, then it will have been worth it. PS: So far the only (implicit) response I have seen out of John Mark Reynolds is that the people who criticize young-earth creationism are "rude." I guess he doesn't think it's rude when he calls UFO cultists deluded.Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidences for a recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns. [...] As it is now interpreted, the data are mostly against us. Well and good. We take this seriously. Eventually, failure to deal with that data in a recent creationist scientific theory would be sufficient reason to give up the project. [...] Recent creationists should humbly agree that their view is, at the moment, implausible on purely scientific grounds. [...] Presently, we can admit that as recent creationists we are defending a very natural biblical account, at the cost of abandoning a very plausible scientific picture of an "old" cosmos. But over the long term, this is not a tenable position. In our opinion, old earth creationism combines a less natural textual reading with a much more plausible scientific vision. They have many fewer "problems of science." At the moment, this would seem the more rational position to adopt. (Paul Nelson and John Mark Reynolds (1999). "Young Earth Creationism." in: Three Views on Creation and Evolution, edited by James Porter Moreland and John Mark Reynolds. Zondervan, pp. 41-75. Pages 49, 51, 73. Bolds added.
36 Comments
Nathan Parker · 2 May 2007
conscious = Conscience?
Nick (Matzke) · 2 May 2007
Yes, I am an idiot...
Nathan Parker · 2 May 2007
raven · 2 May 2007
Nick (Matzke) · 3 May 2007
Eh, might as well admit error. Mei spellling iss sumtimes pour.
Roscoe · 3 May 2007
[qs] I am morbidly fascinated by the creationist mind[/qs]
Not so morbid, Nick. It`a called self-preservation. Those who are deluded by other visions have their fingers on some mighty powerful weapons throughout the world. Better we learn to ease or cure the delusions than wait till one monkey decides to bring on Armageddon.
Frank Hagan · 3 May 2007
I'm convinced that my fellow Christians who hold to creationist views do so because of all the wrong reasons: they feel it fits in with their "world view" and that they lose the culture war if they give ground. But Christians should approach the issue from the basis of what is true, is true. The purpose of theology is to make sense of what we know is true within a spiritual context, so young earth or any other kind of Creationism is excluded on the basis of a distinct lack of truth.
Francis Collins rightly quotes St. Augustine, from the 5th Century, who discouraged a literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. Trying to force the stories in Genesis one and two into a model of creation is "shameful", with the explanation that "The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions ... and are criticized and rejected as unlearned men".
Ignoring what is true about the physical world to make it fit your theology is backwards; our theology must synthesize what we know is true into a coherent model of faith.
Sir_Toejam · 3 May 2007
Frank J · 3 May 2007
Peter Henderson · 3 May 2007
raven · 3 May 2007
Where are our dinosaurs!!!
I keep asking this question because no creo has ever answered it. According to dogma, all terrestrial life originated in the middle east, got on the Big Boat 5 ky ago, presumably got off. 99% of it then died, including all the dinosaurs. I blame it on poor post deluge planning and/or incompetent dinosaur husbandry.
I'm sure they have an ad hoc explanation but there is an oopsy in there somewhere and they don't seem to want to talk about it.
The problem with piling on ad hoc miracles is that after a while the whole thing starts to look ridiculous. These guys have rocks forming from sediment in a week, the supercontinent breaking up 5,000 years ago and superspeed plate tectonics rafting Australia with marsupials to the antipodes.
It is also bad theology, it makes god look like a devious, unfathomable being who created a 5.8 kiloyear universe that just happens look like it is 13.7 billion years old.
khan · 3 May 2007
Raging Bee · 3 May 2007
What proof does he have that the Heaven's Gate cult was mistaken?
Can he prove they're not in Heaven?
If Heaven has a Special-Ed division, one might well find them there...
harold · 3 May 2007
Funny, I had a thought the other day, and here is a perfect illustration of it.
Creationists like Reynolds are motivated by religion in a bad way - they seem to wish to legally force everyone to observe the rituals and arbitrary taboos that they personally claim to favor (although often secretly violated, eg Ted Haggard, etc, etc, etc), in gross violation of basic human rights.
They are NOT, however, religious in the usual sense of the term.
Reynolds is openly stating that his acceptance of Christianity (and by implication, whatever minimal moral restraints he may observe, or at least pretend to observe, as a result of that) is dependent on proof that the claims of Christianity are literally true.
For Reynolds, either Jesus can prove that the Noah's ark story is "literally true", or it's all the exact equivalent of the Heaven's Gate cult.
He then goes on to falsely claim the the earth is 6000 years old and so on. But that doesn't change the fact that his statements are a mockery and perversion of actual religious faith.
Please note that I am by no means either favoring or condemning any particular religious view, or lack thereof.
But I think we should recognize the difference between hypocrisy motivated by authoritarian fantasies and actual religious belief, however some of us may feel about the latter.
Wes · 3 May 2007
harold · 3 May 2007
Wes -
You are oversimplifying Christianity quite a bit; among other things you use the word as if it referred to a single, monolithic, religious tradition. You also imply that followers of "Christianity" must by definition reject science or uncritically accept irrational ideas beyond their core religious beiefs ("I'm not surprised at all that people who believe that stuff are often more than willing to reject evidence in favor of dogma."), which is factually incorrect.
However, your description of Christian beliefs, however oversimplified, is probably somewhat accurate, for millions of people.
But again, millions of those people, who hold those nond-disprovable, spiritual beliefs, also accept scientific reality.
Many if not most Christian traditions require faith.
What creationists like Reynolds demonstrate is a complete lack of faith. Reynolds effectively states that he won't accept Christian belief on faith, but that rather, he has to imagine that the Bible has been literally "proven true" by scientific measurement. That attitude is implicit in all ID/creationism, but especially clear in YEC.
You may not like traditional Christianity, or any Christianity, and that's fine, but let's not confuse this fundamentalist demand for a concrete formula with the rest of Christianity.
harold · 3 May 2007
Before I get flamed -
My own religious behaviors are not relevant here.
However, I would like to point out quickly that I am NOT a traditional Christian by any means.
I don't consider myself an atheist, I sometimes refer to myself as an "existentialist Christian" in an ethical and cultural sense, but I also don't have any faith or belief whatsoever in anything supernatural. I strongly "believe in" certain Dharmic traditions, especially some forms of Buddhism but also the fundamental teachings of some schools of yoga, but not to the extent of believing in reincarnation.
It's quite possible that someone with beliefs very similar to mine might even choose to call themself an "atheist". That's not what I consider myself, however.
I make this clarification for one simple reason. Having defended traditional Christians who accept science, and having distinguished between traditional Christianity and what I see as the hypocrisy and insincerity of ID/creationism, I know that posts from atheists will appear, essentially assuming that if I say something non-insulting about, say, Catholics, I must be a Catholic.
Not so, and in fact, I'm very surprising that way. For example, I also support full civil rights for gay people, without actually being gay.
Nick (Matzke) · 3 May 2007
Hey, look at that, John Mark Reynolds is trying a little more to explain why his reality-denial is different than a cultists' reality denial...
Bill Gascoyne · 3 May 2007
Steviepinhead · 3 May 2007
Peter Henderson · 3 May 2007
qetzal · 3 May 2007
raven · 3 May 2007
raven · 3 May 2007
The creationists can't win. If you look at religion and science, it has been a steady retreat from the religious viewpoints on what the visible world is like.
First it was Copernicus and the earth center theory, then the demise of the flat earth theory. Then the age of the earth. Geology and astronomy have mostly triumphed although there are still pockets of geology and big bang deniers.
Creationism has been in retreat since the 1800s and the battle has long been won scientificly. Their ad hocracy just doesn't explain the real world or fit in with the mountains of facts. It also isn't useful.
Despite Egnor's blunders, evolutionary concepts have fed into agriculture and medicine in very important ways. To cite just one example, emerging diseases are a constant threat and we've seen many in the last 30 years, SARS, HIV, bird flu, ebola, nipah, others. One is a serious worldwide killer, having successfully emerged, HIV/AIDS. Evolutionary thought indicates that there will be more. There is a possibility that the next successful one might make HIV look like a minor nuisance.
Frank J · 3 May 2007
In the link in Nick's Comment #173345, Reynolds says:
"The good news is that if young-earth creationism fails, it will not impact Christianity. If C.S. Lewis could be 'old earth,' I am confident I could survive such a 'switch!'"
If that means that Reynolds is still promoting YEC directly elsewhere, as he did in the 1999 quote, then one must wonder if the switch already occurred, and that he survived it, but still sees the need to conceal that from the rank & file YECs he needs for political support. Another possibility is that there was no switch, but he has been "enlightened" into the "postmodern" way of thinking that characterizes ID, and now truly believes that it could be something like "YEC and OEC at the same time." If so he can keep the YEC fairy tale that he needs, whether for himself or his audience, no matter what the evidence says.
Either way, ID is still a scam, and I'm sure that Reynolds knows it. He could easily have substituted "mainstream evolution" for "old earth" and "Kenneth Miller" for "C.S. Lewis" and made the same point about Christianity. But of course, Miller is ID enemy #1 for the simple reason that he was one of the first Christians to expose ID.
David B. Benson · 3 May 2007
raven --- I admire your optimism, which, because of the current administration, I do not share...
George Cauldron · 3 May 2007
raven · 4 May 2007
Frank J · 4 May 2007
Raven & David:
The way I see it, creationism, and pseudoscience in general, is winning the PR war, and will continue to win regardless of who is president. BTW, from the debate of Republican candidates, there's almost no chance that the next president will reject evolution. Of course, like GWB and McCain, he/she might fall for the "teach the controversy" scam regardless.
The "'teach the controversy' is ID is creationism is religion" argument may be necessary to keep anti-evolution pseudoscience out of public schools, but it only a minor part of what is wrong with anti-evolution activism. To emphasize that aspect, while downplaying how it is a slick misrepresentation scam, and rejected by most mainstream religions to boot, is counterproductive.
harold · 4 May 2007
Raven -
"Three out of 10 GOP candidates admitted not believing in evolution. Which means 7 do. Better than I expected."
My understanding was that only four candidates answered that question.
John "straight talk express" McCain uncharacteristically engaged in some genuinely straight talk and said that he does "believe" in evolution - albeit after a comical hesitation. (this does not represent anything remotely close to an endorsement of McCain's candidacy).
Brownback, Tancredo, and one other, believed to be Huckabee indicated that they "do not believe" in evolution.
My understanding was that the other six failed to answer. Was I wrong? In fairness, I can't see Giuliani answering that one the wrong (this does not represent anything remotely close to an endorsement of Giuliani's candidacy). That still leaves five.
Pro-Science Conservatives and Libertarians -
Why was this question asked at a purely political debate? Why wasn't it asked at the Democrat debate? Do you believe that, had it been asked at the Democrat debate, three presidential candidates would have denied evolution?
Peter Henderson · 4 May 2007
raven · 4 May 2007
Peter Henderson · 5 May 2007
Frank J · 6 May 2007
sohbet · 6 March 2009
thank you very much
fnxtr · 20 August 2009
Klaatu barada nikto!