I've posted this before, but it is buried now. It's time to bring this essay back to the surface:
"The objective of this article is to analyze the evolutionist and creationist positions and explain why the debate is so intense and the controversy so inflamed with passion. We will first examine what is meant by "stories of ultimate meaning" and what happens when they are told.
"We all have areas in our lives where factual data are absent or inadequate to allow us full understanding of what is true, real, and meaningful. When faced with such a circumstance, humans usually tell a story about what they believe to be true, real, and meaningful. The more vital an area of a person's life which is involved, the more important the story becomes until it develops into a story of ultimate meaning, a story which expresses the ultimate truth about life and death. The more people who share the same story, the more powerful it becomes.
"The absence or inadequacy of factual data leading to stories of ultimate meaning occurs in two different ways. In the first instance, the necessary or desired data are available but technological limitations prevent their acquisition. The flat earth story is an example. It was invented, had meaning, and was accepted as truth by those who needed to have a concept of the earth's shape but were unable to measure it accurately. The second reason for data being absent is that there simply are none in existence. Typical of this condition are stories which concern the presence, absence, and nature of God. No amount of technological advance will allow humanity to either prove or disprove stories about God. We are faced, therefore, with two varieties of stories of ultimate meaning. One variety is testable but for some reason has not yet been verified (or falsified). The second variety of story is inherently untestable and cannot be verified or falsified.
"Most people found it relatively easy to accept the demise of the flat earth story when data showed it to be false. Flat earth people certainly felt frightened and threatened as their story was destroyed, but most of them moved ahead with a new and better story about an earth with the shape of a ball. For some flat earth people, the transition was devastating because their story about the shape of the earth was all tangled up with their story about God. Let us examine why it may have been relatively easy for some to change from a flat earth story to a spherical earth story while for others it was not. To do this we must observe the differences in the ways the shape-of-the-earth stories and God stories interacted.
"Those who found it easier to shift to the spherical earth story might have said, "The earth is flat and God is in heaven." The statement really tells two independent stories. Destruction of the flat earth story does not threaten the God story. In contrast, those who found it difficult to accept a spherical earth story in the face of overwhelming evidence might have said, "The earth was created flat by God who is in heaven." This last statement resembles the first statement because it also consists of two totally different stories. Where it differs from the first statement is in the ultimate tangling of the two stories with each other. They are so closely interdependent that the destruction of the flat earth story, at the very least, called into serious question God's existence and place of residence. When faced with a threat to their concept of God, it is understandable why some flat earth people refused to reject the flat earth story. It is also understandable why it was easier for some to deny rational evidence, personal testimony, and overwhelming masses of data concerning a spherical earth than it was to deny God. Any time culture or a significant segment of society tells a story that is inherently not verifiable (a God story) and makes it dependent upon another story which is testable (verifiable), we risk intense and divisive conflict. ...
"Society can get itself into deep trouble when a large segment tells a story of ultimate meaning which is believed immutable but which is also potentially refutable. Why does society do such a disservice to itself? At least two reasons come to mind. The first reason is simple and straightforward. Many of the testable stories were believed to be inherently untestable when they were first told. The flat earth story was told by people who could not conceive of the earth beyond the horizon. Not only that but they couldn't conceive of traveling far enough to see what did indeed exist beyond the horizon. As far as they were concerned, the earth looked flat from their perspective and beyond that the story was untestable. The second reason why society will ascribe untestable qualities to a story which is indeed testable is slightly more complicated and indirect. We can start first with the God stories. Despite the fact that such stories of ultimate meaning are inherently untestable, we humans are tempted (even driven) to try to test the untestable. Many, perhaps all humans have some degree of yearning to prove or disprove the existence of God on a more concrete basis than faith. It is insidiously easy to tie a testable story of ultimate meaning to the God story for when the testable story is verified it also gives a sense of verification of the God story. All is well unless the testable story is refuted; then the God story is called into question at the same time. At this point the story-teller must either ignore the refutation or risk losing God.
"For either of the two reasons, society has placed many booby traps in its stories of ultimate meaning. One of the causes of society's uneasiness in these modern times is that science and technology are revealing mythic booby traps at a rate which we find difficult to accornmodate. As science and technology challenge stories of great or ultimate meaning, they also engender a growing sense of anti-science/anti-technology.
"Creationists are telling a story about our beginnings which is rooted solely in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. When we look at the Genesis account, we see that there is both a God story ("In the beginning God created. . .") and a story about the order and timing of creation. The first story is inherently untestable, whereas the second story is quite testable. Creationists find the theory of evolution to be very threatening, as legislative tactics and court actions attest.
"Exactly why evolution is so threatening is not obvious. Evolutionists intend no threat to the God story. Christian evolutionists share the God story about who was responsible for creation. Atheist evolutionists find the God story irrelevant to their study of the process of development of life on earth. A study of the process of creation (evolution) is as little affected by Christian or atheistic beliefs as a study of combustion would be affected by who lit the fire. The God story concerns the who of creation whereas evolution concerns the when and how of creation, so there is no direct threat to the God story.
"At one time, creationists demanded that evolution be taught as a theory. Scientists were quick to agree. Most scientists who are actively involved in research pertaining to evolution view it as a theory or concept which has much merit and is generally valid. They also agree that the understanding of the details of evolution needs refining and much more research is necessary before the theory is substantiated in all its parts. The theory of evolution is testable., and the testing is going on continuously. The creationists had made a demand, and the evolutionists had acquiesced. For a while it appeared that the threat to the creationist's story had been removed. Since there was no direct threat to the God story, this should have resolved the controversy and the creationists and evolutionists were free to go their separate ways. The creationists soon revealed, however, that the threat to them had not been removed. If a controversy had indeed been resolved, it was the wrong controversy. The battle quickly resumed.
"The question remains, what is it that the creationists find so threatening in evolution? Evolution does not directly threaten the supremacy of God as Creator because it concerns itself with the "how" of creation, not the "who" or "why." Evolution does not threaten creationism by claiming to be an immutable law of science or the universe because it isn't. We must conclude by process of elimination that evolution is threatening to creationists even in the form of a theoretical alternative to the two accounts of creation which are given in Genesis. Creationists respond to the threat by calling evolution "non-Christian" and "humanist" inspired. This doesn't tell us why evolution is threatening but it does help delineate the threat and gives us a direction to follow in our inquiry. Despite the fact that creationists assert that one cannot be an evolutionist and a Christian, there are many Christians who are not at all troubled by the theory of evolution. Let us pursue the difference in response of Christians to evolution in an attempt to understand more fully the threat as perceived by creationist Christians.
"Most, if not all, Christians share the story of God's responsibility for creation, so we must look elsewhere for the reason for the different responses to evolution. This leaves the Genesis accounts of the order and timing of creation to which some Christians respond as evolutionists and some as creationists. Why don't all Christians turn to creationism in the face of the theory of evolution? It is because despite the sharing of the story of God as the "who" and "why" of creation, not all Christians tell exactly the same story about the "how" of creation. We all share the same words but the story is not quite the same.
To some, the steps and timing of creation in Genesis represent what the ancient Hebrews and their predecessors were able to understand about creation. To others, these same words and passages are a poetic statement, and the structure of the language in which the verses were spoken, and then written, did more to control the nature and order of events which were included than did any insight into fact. When creationists use these same words in Genesis they tell yet another story which is that the Genesis account is the way that God actually chose to create the universe. All of these examples are consistent with the idea of God as Creator. All of them are interpretations of Genesis to be found in Christendom today. Only one of the examples is told by people who find evolution to be threatening. The creationist not only finds evolution threatening to the biblical steps of the creation story, but it is also threatening to the ultimate role of God as Creator even to the point of threatening the existence of God.
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "how" of creation separate from the "who" and "why' of creation.
"In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God." Richard W. Berry, The Beginning, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50.
"The objective of this article is to analyze the evolutionist and creationist positions and explain why the debate is so intense and the controversy so inflamed with passion. We will first examine what is meant by "stories of ultimate meaning" and what happens when they are told.
"We all have areas in our lives where factual data are absent or inadequate to allow us full understanding of what is true, real, and meaningful. When faced with such a circumstance, humans usually tell a story about what they believe to be true, real, and meaningful. The more vital an area of a person's life which is involved, the more important the story becomes until it develops into a story of ultimate meaning, a story which expresses the ultimate truth about life and death. The more people who share the same story, the more powerful it becomes.
"The absence or inadequacy of factual data leading to stories of ultimate meaning occurs in two different ways. In the first instance, the necessary or desired data are available but technological limitations prevent their acquisition. The flat earth story is an example. It was invented, had meaning, and was accepted as truth by those who needed to have a concept of the earth's shape but were unable to measure it accurately. The second reason for data being absent is that there simply are none in existence. Typical of this condition are stories which concern the presence, absence, and nature of God. No amount of technological advance will allow humanity to either prove or disprove stories about God. We are faced, therefore, with two varieties of stories of ultimate meaning. One variety is testable but for some reason has not yet been verified (or falsified). The second variety of story is inherently untestable and cannot be verified or falsified.
"Most people found it relatively easy to accept the demise of the flat earth story when data showed it to be false. Flat earth people certainly felt frightened and threatened as their story was destroyed, but most of them moved ahead with a new and better story about an earth with the shape of a ball. For some flat earth people, the transition was devastating because their story about the shape of the earth was all tangled up with their story about God. Let us examine why it may have been relatively easy for some to change from a flat earth story to a spherical earth story while for others it was not. To do this we must observe the differences in the ways the shape-of-the-earth stories and God stories interacted.
"Those who found it easier to shift to the spherical earth story might have said, "The earth is flat and God is in heaven." The statement really tells two independent stories. Destruction of the flat earth story does not threaten the God story. In contrast, those who found it difficult to accept a spherical earth story in the face of overwhelming evidence might have said, "The earth was created flat by God who is in heaven." This last statement resembles the first statement because it also consists of two totally different stories. Where it differs from the first statement is in the ultimate tangling of the two stories with each other. They are so closely interdependent that the destruction of the flat earth story, at the very least, called into serious question God's existence and place of residence. When faced with a threat to their concept of God, it is understandable why some flat earth people refused to reject the flat earth story. It is also understandable why it was easier for some to deny rational evidence, personal testimony, and overwhelming masses of data concerning a spherical earth than it was to deny God. Any time culture or a significant segment of society tells a story that is inherently not verifiable (a God story) and makes it dependent upon another story which is testable (verifiable), we risk intense and divisive conflict. ...
"Society can get itself into deep trouble when a large segment tells a story of ultimate meaning which is believed immutable but which is also potentially refutable. Why does society do such a disservice to itself? At least two reasons come to mind. The first reason is simple and straightforward. Many of the testable stories were believed to be inherently untestable when they were first told. The flat earth story was told by people who could not conceive of the earth beyond the horizon. Not only that but they couldn't conceive of traveling far enough to see what did indeed exist beyond the horizon. As far as they were concerned, the earth looked flat from their perspective and beyond that the story was untestable. The second reason why society will ascribe untestable qualities to a story which is indeed testable is slightly more complicated and indirect. We can start first with the God stories. Despite the fact that such stories of ultimate meaning are inherently untestable, we humans are tempted (even driven) to try to test the untestable. Many, perhaps all humans have some degree of yearning to prove or disprove the existence of God on a more concrete basis than faith. It is insidiously easy to tie a testable story of ultimate meaning to the God story for when the testable story is verified it also gives a sense of verification of the God story. All is well unless the testable story is refuted; then the God story is called into question at the same time. At this point the story-teller must either ignore the refutation or risk losing God.
"For either of the two reasons, society has placed many booby traps in its stories of ultimate meaning. One of the causes of society's uneasiness in these modern times is that science and technology are revealing mythic booby traps at a rate which we find difficult to accornmodate. As science and technology challenge stories of great or ultimate meaning, they also engender a growing sense of anti-science/anti-technology.
"Creationists are telling a story about our beginnings which is rooted solely in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. When we look at the Genesis account, we see that there is both a God story ("In the beginning God created. . .") and a story about the order and timing of creation. The first story is inherently untestable, whereas the second story is quite testable. Creationists find the theory of evolution to be very threatening, as legislative tactics and court actions attest.
"Exactly why evolution is so threatening is not obvious. Evolutionists intend no threat to the God story. Christian evolutionists share the God story about who was responsible for creation. Atheist evolutionists find the God story irrelevant to their study of the process of development of life on earth. A study of the process of creation (evolution) is as little affected by Christian or atheistic beliefs as a study of combustion would be affected by who lit the fire. The God story concerns the who of creation whereas evolution concerns the when and how of creation, so there is no direct threat to the God story.
"At one time, creationists demanded that evolution be taught as a theory. Scientists were quick to agree. Most scientists who are actively involved in research pertaining to evolution view it as a theory or concept which has much merit and is generally valid. They also agree that the understanding of the details of evolution needs refining and much more research is necessary before the theory is substantiated in all its parts. The theory of evolution is testable., and the testing is going on continuously. The creationists had made a demand, and the evolutionists had acquiesced. For a while it appeared that the threat to the creationist's story had been removed. Since there was no direct threat to the God story, this should have resolved the controversy and the creationists and evolutionists were free to go their separate ways. The creationists soon revealed, however, that the threat to them had not been removed. If a controversy had indeed been resolved, it was the wrong controversy. The battle quickly resumed.
"The question remains, what is it that the creationists find so threatening in evolution? Evolution does not directly threaten the supremacy of God as Creator because it concerns itself with the "how" of creation, not the "who" or "why." Evolution does not threaten creationism by claiming to be an immutable law of science or the universe because it isn't. We must conclude by process of elimination that evolution is threatening to creationists even in the form of a theoretical alternative to the two accounts of creation which are given in Genesis. Creationists respond to the threat by calling evolution "non-Christian" and "humanist" inspired. This doesn't tell us why evolution is threatening but it does help delineate the threat and gives us a direction to follow in our inquiry. Despite the fact that creationists assert that one cannot be an evolutionist and a Christian, there are many Christians who are not at all troubled by the theory of evolution. Let us pursue the difference in response of Christians to evolution in an attempt to understand more fully the threat as perceived by creationist Christians.
"Most, if not all, Christians share the story of God's responsibility for creation, so we must look elsewhere for the reason for the different responses to evolution. This leaves the Genesis accounts of the order and timing of creation to which some Christians respond as evolutionists and some as creationists. Why don't all Christians turn to creationism in the face of the theory of evolution? It is because despite the sharing of the story of God as the "who" and "why" of creation, not all Christians tell exactly the same story about the "how" of creation. We all share the same words but the story is not quite the same.
To some, the steps and timing of creation in Genesis represent what the ancient Hebrews and their predecessors were able to understand about creation. To others, these same words and passages are a poetic statement, and the structure of the language in which the verses were spoken, and then written, did more to control the nature and order of events which were included than did any insight into fact. When creationists use these same words in Genesis they tell yet another story which is that the Genesis account is the way that God actually chose to create the universe. All of these examples are consistent with the idea of God as Creator. All of them are interpretations of Genesis to be found in Christendom today. Only one of the examples is told by people who find evolution to be threatening. The creationist not only finds evolution threatening to the biblical steps of the creation story, but it is also threatening to the ultimate role of God as Creator even to the point of threatening the existence of God.
"Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "how" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "how" of creation separate from the "who" and "why' of creation.
"In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God." Richard W. Berry, The Beginning, in Is God a Creationist? Edited by Roland Frye, pp. 44-50.
Thanks, I will read it close.
what is "scientifically inconceivable, therefore irrelevant"?
