Are militant atheists to blame for the rise of Creationism?

[Vance]

Do the militant atheists of the middle of the 20th century have a share in the blame for the rise of modern creationism? Here is an article I wrote on that subject after having listened to Ronald Numbers, leading historian of the history of the controversy.


http://submerging.reclaimingthemind...ave-only-themselves-to-blame-for-creationism/

That is a Christian site, where I am hoping to educate my fellow Christians regarding the history of anti-evolutionism, which I think can only everyone involved. Any thoughts would be appreciated.


BTW, I am a theistic evolutionist.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No. I'd say that fear of uncertainty and the inability to resolve the apparent contradiction between revealed truth and observed truth.

As best I can tell, militant atheism has only arisen in the last 10 years. Modern creationism has been around I'd say at least since the 60s. (I remember my parents giving me tracts to take to my biology teacher in the mid 70s.)

 

[Deamiter]

I'm with tinker grey. If I had to take a position (as a non-expert of course) I'd suggest that creationism is responsible for the rise of the recent militant atheism (a la Dawkins) certainly not the other way around.

 

[Vance]

Oh, I think that this is true as well. But read the article and see if you agree with the professor that, at a time when Creationism's "first wave" had pretty much died down, a group of "evangelical" atheists in the late 50's and early 60's helped to give rise to the Creationist reaction around that time.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Maybe, because the others wish to have a stong sword to strike back at militant atheism. But I don't know much on the issue.

 

[busterdog]

Is the oppression of Communism responsible for the break-out growth of the Church in China? Some would say yes. Oppression does lead to the growth of some movements.

I will say that I have more confidence in creationism than when I started here. As far as human causes are concerned, it is mostly because of arguing with evolutionists. There was lots of help along the way on genetics and the flood from the few core creationists -- who are almost completely absent from the site now. But I have to tell you quite honestly, that the biggest contributor to my confidence is the bad arguments of the evolutionists.

A dismissive attitude is as big an enemy for your the evolutionist cause as anything else -- because, what it does is convince your adversary that he is smarter than maybe he really is. Dismissiveness is a sign of weak intelligence, or at least one that is under-used. For the creationists, its is like blood in the water to the shark. You can smell it and you know that you are in the company of something that is fatally flawed.

Now what do you suppose the communists teach the Chinese Christians? Are they examples of a workable, loving way of living? Indeed not. Oppression does teach something about abundant life and grace and forgiveness. You do learn the difference between the ways of man and the ways of God.

You know what the funny thing is? I recognize that human intelligence is like excelling at the Special Olympics. A good thing and worthy of recognition, but inherently flawed and doomed to fail in a different context. But, you know what? Long term exposure to evolutionism makes me feel smarter. I am not justifying it, I am just telling you how it feels.

Yes, I understand that psychology of how that happens. Nietshe was one of the most prominent to attack Christians on this basis -- as the creation of a slave morality. But, as the bumper sticker says, he is dead.

 

[gluadys]

Do the militant atheists of the middle of the 20th century have a share in the blame for the rise of modern creationism? Here is an article I wrote on that subject after having listened to Ronald Numbers, leading historian of the history of the controversy.


http://submerging.reclaimingthemind...ave-only-themselves-to-blame-for-creationism/

That is a Christian site, where I am hoping to educate my fellow Christians regarding the history of anti-evolutionism, which I think can only everyone involved. Any thoughts would be appreciated.


BTW, I am a theistic evolutionist.

"While the mainstream Protestant denominations basically stood on the sideline, the evangelicals, pentecostals and other fundamentalist groups got themselves organized for an all-out war."​

If I were fingering anyone for blame this is the group I would point to. What was needed and needed badly were mid-20th century counterparts to Asa Gray, B.B. Warfield and other Christian proponents of evolution to combat the notion that evolution necessarily implies atheism.

I am glad that today we have articulate theistic evolutionists with strong scientific credentials such as Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. We still lack TEs with strong theological credentials.

 

[Vance]

"While the mainstream Protestant denominations basically stood on the sideline, the evangelicals, pentecostals and other fundamentalist groups got themselves organized for an all-out war."​

If I were fingering anyone for blame this is the group I would point to. What was needed and needed badly were mid-20th century counterparts to Asa Gray, B.B. Warfield and other Christian proponents of evolution to combat the notion that evolution necessarily implies atheism.

I am glad that today we have articulate theistic evolutionists with strong scientific credentials such as Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins. We still lack TEs with strong theological credentials.

Ain't that the truth. Someone will rise up, though.

Augustine would help us out there if he was still alive!

 

[metherion]

However, I would bet that if someone with strong theological credentials but weak scientific ones came up, he'd get either ignored or ridiculed. And getting both is a bit of a chore no matter how you look at it. Either you get both at the same time, which means handling double the workload after getting accepted to a place that offers both at the same time, or you do one and then do the other while still supporting yourself with the one you have (no easy feat.)

That does it. I need to become a deacon after I get my chem eng degree.

Metherion

 

[gluadys]

However, I would bet that if someone with strong theological credentials but weak scientific ones came up, he'd get either ignored or ridiculed. And getting both is a bit of a chore no matter how you look at it. Either you get both at the same time, which means handling double the workload after getting accepted to a place that offers both at the same time, or you do one and then do the other while still supporting yourself with the one you have (no easy feat.)

Yes, people drawn to theology tend not to be drawn to science and so feel cautious about making comments. It's a shame because the real issues are theological, not scientific.

That does it. I need to become a deacon after I get my chem eng degree.

Metherion

Yep. Easier I suppose than the other way around. There are not many who can pick up a specialty in science later in life. But the reverse does happen. Look at John Polkinghorne going into the priesthood after a 25 year career in theoretical physics.

 

[busterdog]

Yep. Easier I suppose than the other way around. There are not many who can pick up a specialty in science later in life. But the reverse does happen. Look at John Polkinghorne going into the priesthood after a 25 year career in theoretical physics.

Pish tosh. I would think Polkinghome ought to find that change relatively easy.

But, does he now seek or avoid critical mass?

 

[metherion]

But, does he now seek or avoid critical mass?

He doesn't need to seek it; he knows when the Holy Days of Obligation are!

rofl rofl

Metherion

 

[busterdog]

He doesn't need to seek it; he knows when the Holy Days of Obligation are!

rofl rofl

Metherion

Where does that leave us on transubstantiation?

 

[gluadys]

Where does that leave us on transubstantiation?

Well, he's Anglican, but then he could be Anglo-Catholic. Not much help there.