I recently finished compiling a reply to a Christian fundamentalist who sent me a 13 page document criticising my stand against young earthism. Let me say straight away that it was nice of him to spend so much time trying put me back on the straight and narrow. He meant well although it is true that he is probably a bit of a curmudgeon and being a fundamentalist was, from the outset, suspicious of my motives for believing what I do. But I couldn't let it go. So I took my spiritual life into my hands and over the course of no less than two years I slowly dissembled his arguments and added another 80 odd pages to those 13 pages. On sending him the first draft the outcome however was inevitable; he was after all a fundamentalist: My name was mud! Below are a couple of extracts from the preface to my book length reply:
***
The
format of this book has been styled as a reply to the contents of a 13 page
document compiled and sent to me by a Christian fundamentalist & Young
Earth Creationist. I shall call him Joe
Smith. That 13 page document was in turn a response to a short PDF I sent him. It was very nice of
Joe to reply at length to my initial PDF. But having lured him to go over the top
only to have me use his arguments, like WWI troops, as target practice for my machine
gun, it all smacked of dirty tricks to Joe’s suspicious fundamentalist mind and
he accused me of sucker punching him.
***
I
will leave the real name & identity of Joe Smith as an enigma; although the
original Smith arose out of a real correspondence that now may or may not be
the case: I may or may not have concocted him from bits of Christian fundamentalist
reality for the sake of illustration and for the purpose of bringing to the
foreground the salient points I wish to make. Just how real or unreal this
person is, need not come into it. Joe Smith is an abstraction, perhaps even
another Simplico after all. But as an abstraction he has given me the opportunity
to showcase in this book important technical matters whose implications go far
beyond a singular debate with this or that fundamentalist: Namely:
1.
Epistemic distance & epistemic amenability.
2. That the fundamentalist sound-bite
that there is a difference between historical science and observational science
is an incoherent & scientifically harmful notion.
3.
Time irreversibility and messaging.
4.
The signalling cosmos and creative integrity.
5.
The difference between historical (H)
vs. algorithmic (A) descriptions and their respective epistemic distances.
6.
The interdependence of H and
A.
7.
The nature of standard evolution.
8.
Interpreting the Bible.
9.
The right way to read Genesis 1.
The
primary focus of this book is actually epistemological and about just how far
short many fundamentalists (and secondarily some atheists) fall in their
understanding of epistemology.
Timothy
V Reeves, June 2021
ADDENDUM 14/07/21
Sympathy with Ken Ham!
That the fundamentalist tendency to use a polarised puritanical polemic to depict social reality is too simplistic becomes apparent when even someone like myself can sympathetically align with fundamentalists on certain issues (as ought to be clear from my book). Take this example from Ken Ham's blog: Viz:
https://answersingenesis.org/racism/scientific-american-publishes-error-filled-hit-piece/
It's titled Scientific American Publishes Error-Filled Hit Piece, Claiming Genesis Is Racist. The piece Ken is talking about was written by Alison Hopper who according to Ken is a film maker. Ken's post includes part of the following quote from the offending Scientific American article, an article sensationally titled Denial of Evolution is a Form of White Supremacy Viz:
At the heart of white evangelical creationism is the
mythology of an unbroken white lineage that stretches back to a light-skinned
Adam and Eve. In literal interpretations of the Christian Bible, white skin was
created in God's image. Dark skin has a different, more problematic origin. As
the biblical story goes, the curse or mark of Cain for killing his brother was
a darkening of his descendants' skin. Historically, many congregations in the
U.S. pointed to this story of Cain as evidence that Black skin was created as a
punishment.
The fantasy of a continuous line of white descendants
segregates white heritage from Black bodies. In the real world, this mythology
translates into lethal effects on people who are Black. Fundamentalist
interpretations of the Bible are part of the “fake news” epidemic that feeds
the racial divide in our country.
It's likely true that East and West versions of Christianity have disproportionately portrayed Adam and Eve as white Europeans thus effectively promulgating an almost unconscious systemic racism. Moreover, I can't speak for the whole history of fundamentalist brands who from time to time may (or may not) have identified the mark of Cain with Black skin; but I've never heard of any Christian groups who have have made this identification. Also, it is clear from Ken's article that it has never occurred to AiG to promote such a harmful notion and AiG certainly don't teach what Hopper is slanderously claiming. This is Hopper interpolating the contemporary concept of a heinous sin and putting these "modern blasphemies" into the mouths of innocents, inquisitional style. It certainly doesn't follow that denial of evolution necessarily entails racism any more than belief in evolution necessarily entails racism (as some anti-evolution Christians might try to maintain).
In any case I wonder if Hopper really understands evolution. In my book Epistemology, Ontology, Creation and Salvation I talk of the difference between evolution as natural history (H) and evolution as algorithm or mechanism (A), two very distinct meanings; one can be in a position where one believes one but not the other. Does one automatically classify as racist in Hopper's eyes if one challenges the status quo on evolution? Sounds as though Hopper believes one does, and who knows, if her ideas catch on the virtuous thought police may be knocking at your door! Authors like Hopper who are claiming to fight for the black cause are actually doing harm to that cause by caricaturing it so badly.
All in all it seems that some of the new watchers of our morals can be just as inquisitional & threatening as fundamentalists: If they are anything like Hopper they too see the world through polarised spectacles; we are all labelled as racists if we don't believe what Hopper believes. But really there is no surprise here: The fact is these new moral guardians are flawed humanity like the rest of us and therefore tempted by the same draw to polarising extremism as are fundamentalists. The resultant effect of Hopper's false accusations will only entrench fundamentalists further into their embattled stance and confirm to them that the world of outsiders is out to get them.
Finally it's important to note that at the end of this sensationally twisted article Scientific American adds a disclaimer.....
This is an opinion and analysis article; the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
They've made sure they've washed their hands then!
NOTE: The de facto Intelligent Design web site, Uncommon Descent, also comment on this article:
ADDENDUM 20/08/21
Lack of sympathy with Ken Ham!
In a post dated 19 August and entitled Do Conservatives have a “Difficult Relationship with Science”? We find Ken peddling his usual anti-science notions about the difference between observational science and historical science (sic), a matter I address in the book linked to in this post. In Ken's post we find the usual cliché surfing that Ken is inclined to do on this subject:
But what the author is failing to recognize is the difference between observational and historical science. In other words, this author has a “difficult relationship with science” because the author doesn’t understand the word science. You see, very few people have a so-called “difficult relationship with science” when it comes to observational science. Observational science is studying what is directly testable, observable, and repeatable. It’s the kind of science that uses the scientific method and builds our technology and medical innovations. Both creationists and evolutionists agree on observational science......But this is very different from historical science. This kind of science deals with the past—which cannot be directly tested, observed, or repeated
As I show in my book this is both false & incoherent anti-science nonsense. He simply doesn't understand epistemology any more than does Joe Smith. Instead he claims others don't understand the word science because they don't take onboard his intellectual gimcrack. He can get this nonsense past his naïve supporters and that's all that matters to Answers in Genesis