Native American tribe rejects evolution

[Deamiter]

From today's Wall Street Journal (D6) there's a passing comment about relativism that is very interesting.

A spokesman for a tribe of American Indians announced that his people reject the findings of Western science. Indians (he said) did not enter the Americas from Asia 10,000 years ago. Instead they are descended from the Buffalo People, who emerged from a subterranean world of supernatural spirits. 'If non-Indians choose to believe they evolved from an ape, so be it.'"

One can certainly choose to believe whatever one likes, so what is the standard? Is your personal belief that a particular writing is given by God infallable? Wouldn't these Native Americans have an equal claim to infallability since they believe just as strongly that their historical records are accurate despite physical evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, it says nothing about the faith of creationists like mark kennedy who work very hard to align their faith with their understanding of physical evidence. But what about creationists who refuse to CONSIDER that their interpretation of scripture may be wrong? When their entire belief system is created around a personal interpretation that includes infallability (as these American Indians appear to have done) how would they be ABLE to recognize if they were wrong or misled?

 

[WalksWithChrist]

From today's Wall Street Journal (D6) there's a passing comment about relativism that is very interesting.



One can certainly choose to believe whatever one likes, so what is the standard? Is your personal belief that a particular writing is given by God infallable? Wouldn't these Native Americans have an equal claim to infallability since they believe just as strongly that their historical records are accurate despite physical evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, it says nothing about the faith of creationists like mark kennedy who work very hard to align their faith with their understanding of physical evidence. But what about creationists who refuse to CONSIDER that their interpretation of scripture may be wrong? When their entire belief system is created around a personal interpretation that includes infallability (as these American Indians appear to have done) how would they be ABLE to recognize if they were wrong or misled?

Got link?

 

[mark kennedy]

From today's Wall Street Journal (D6) there's a passing comment about relativism that is very interesting.

I'm a little unclear how you are useing this term 'relativism'. It's no big deal but it seems a little odd I was wondering if you could clarify it a little.

One can certainly choose to believe whatever one likes, so what is the standard? Is your personal belief that a particular writing is given by God infallable? Wouldn't these Native Americans have an equal claim to infallability since they believe just as strongly that their historical records are accurate despite physical evidence to the contrary.

This is clearly a cultural and spiritual point of referance. If I were to have the opportunity to discuss this with Native Americans who believed this way I think I would tell them Western science has nothing to do with this. Sometimes we give the impression that because something is not science it's not true. That is really not the case, some things go well beyond the boundary of natural science, the spirit of the Native American is just one of them.

Anyway, it says nothing about the faith of creationists like mark kennedy who work very hard to align their faith with their understanding of physical evidence. But what about creationists who refuse to CONSIDER that their interpretation of scripture may be wrong? When their entire belief system is created around a personal interpretation that includes infallability (as these American Indians appear to have done) how would they be ABLE to recognize if they were wrong or misled?

I don't have any references but I heard of a study that monitored brain activity while people prayed. If memory serves it was Nuns, Buddist monks...etc. They found that there was a certain part of the brain that was active at this time. My guess would be that when you are talking to a creationist you are talking to someone in a prayerfull state of mind (for lack of a better way of expressing it). That is one of the reasons it is so futile to blend theology and natural science, it's two fundamentally different ways of thinking about the world around you.

I think this is a glimse into the spiritual tradition of this tribe, deeply religious in nature. Science doesn't come into this place, as a matter of fact Western culture itself is outside looking in.

Personally, I think it's kind of neat how they look at their origins. This is a spritiual and cultural thing, like prayer its a part of their private world that should be taken in that context.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[busterdog]

The fact that anyone would have a plausible claim to "infallibility" is exactly what you would expect in a world that is fallen and full of deception. Genesis 2 and 3 predict the problem.

Identifying the problem is not the same as identifying any relationship between the Bible and N.A. beliefs.

It is impossible to establish that both are fallible simply because you can prove that one of them must be.

You are left with a decision that does not going away simply because the deception increases.

 

[vossler]

But what about creationists who refuse to CONSIDER that their interpretation of scripture may be wrong?

This is always an interesting position TEs throw out. It would behoove us to realize that this isn't about your interpretation or mine but only about one interpretation, God's. Our job is to discover His through the study and prayer of His Word. The Bible is our source document and as such it should support all findings, if not then its more study and prayer.

So if you've got a model that is biblically strong why should you consider one that isn't?

 

[Mallon]

I guess this bring up the point: in this context, what makes the Amerindians any different from creationists? Should we be "teaching the controversy" over the subterranian Buffalo People, too? Is "Aboriginal science" any better or less supported than "Christian science"?
Maybe we will soon see them lobbying to have meteorology banned from the science classroom because it clearly contradicts the rain dances passed down from their ancestors.
I think I know exactly what God meant by "science falsely so called."

 

[Smidlee]

Their idea they had decended from Buffalo People by the means of supernatural spirits sounds extremely familiar with evolutionist idea that they decended from Ape People by the means of supernatural-selection. Both seems nothing short of a miracle.

 

[Mallon]

Their idea they had decended from Buffalo People by the means of supernatural spirits sounds extremely familiar with evolutionist idea that they decended from Ape People by the means of supernatural-selection. Both seems nothing short of a miracle.

The major difference being that we have a fossil record of "ape people".
Seriously, though, my question is a sincere one. What makes the Aboriginals any different from creationists in this regard?

 

[random_guy]

The major difference being that we have a fossil record of "ape people".

Well, there's that and the fact that we are apes kind of help, also. As for Creationists, should we also teach the Native American's views in class in order to give equal time?

 

[Smidlee]

The major difference being that we have a fossil record of "ape people".

What? those bones of contention? Sure you do. You can make those fossil say anything.

 

[Mallon]

What? those bones of contention? Sure you do. You can make those fossil say anything.

Even when it's backed up by DNA evidence?

Wait. DNA evidence. That's forensic science, isn't it? I guess it won't hold much weight with you, then.

 

[Smidlee]

Even when it's backed up by DNA evidence?

Wait. DNA evidence. That's forensic science, isn't it? I guess it won't hold much weight with you, then.

It's a scientific fact that designed thing have a lot of similarities. A PC is a lot more similar to MAC than a Ford truck but all three are made by three complelely separate companies.
Yet it hasn't been shown that our genes is what makes us human nor a animal with time can/could evolved into a human. DNA is only evidence if you assume evolution is 100% true but proves nothing to someone who is a skeptical over the theory.

 

[Mallon]

It's a scientific fact that designed thing have a lot of similarities. A PC is a lot more similar to MAC than a Ford truck but all three are made by three complelely separate companies.
Yet it hasn't been shown that our genes is what makes us human nor a animal with time can/could evolved into a human. DNA is only evidence if you assume evolution is 100% true but proves nothing to someone who is a skeptical over the theory.

DNA counts as evidence if you accept that it is heritable. I would suggest that you have much the same DNA as your parents. In fact, I would be willing to bet (if I were a betting man), that your DNA is more like that of your parents than anyone else's. I would also be willing to bet that your DNA is more like your grandfather's than, say, mine. Why? Because DNA IS heritable. It is passed down from generation to generation, and generations most closely related will have the most similar DNA. Scientists suggest this happens at larger scale, too. Species that share similar DNA share a common ancestor (much as my sister and I have similar DNA because of common ancestry -- our parents). You, on the other hand, suggest that there is some sort of invisible barrier to heritability. Yet you cannot point to where it is; you cannot substantiate it. You simply insist that some barrier must be there because your literal interpretation of the Bible tells you so (and the Aboriginals' folklore tells them so). That's not science. And that's why evolution is being taught in the science classroom and creationism is not.

 

[Deamiter]

It's a scientific fact that designed thing have a lot of similarities. A PC is a lot more similar to MAC than a Ford truck but all three are made by three complelely separate companies.
Yet it hasn't been shown that our genes is what makes us human nor a animal with time can/could evolved into a human. DNA is only evidence if you assume evolution is 100% true but proves nothing to someone who is a skeptical over the theory.

so... you're claiming that genetic parental tests are only coincidentally accurate because children are designed to be very near their parents?

It's EXACTLY the same analysis that goes into these DNA comparisons. Either both are accurate or neither are accurate.

I'll try to dig up a link. I've been getting the paper version for free (a professor left on maternity leave and isn't using her copy) so I didn't find it on a website. The article is about relitavism (a word I obviously can't spell) but I didn't want to go too far into that -- a topic for a seperate thread methinks.

 

[Deamiter]

Sorry, it looks like the online version is strictly limited to paid customers. It really was a passing reference (not an article on the tribe) but if anybody REALLY wants it, I could be persuaded to type it up and email it.

 

[Mallon]

I can probably get it though my university subscription. What's the paper?

 

[Deamiter]

In response to mark's comments, I absolutely LOVE how Native Americans look at spirituality. I think we have a ton we could learn from them about just walking in peace with God in his beautiful creation!

Further, you bring up a point that theistic evolutionists are forced to repeat endlessly. Truth does not equal fact. Even though we do not accept the first few chapters of Genesis as fact (no more than creationists accept the Native American creation stories as fact) we see immense truth in it the same way mark just commented that there is truth in the Native American stories.

While I acknowledge that THESE Native Americans (not all by any means) treat their creation stories much more like creationists than the resident theistic evolutionists, they stand as a wonderful example of how truth need not be factual in order to simply be true.

 

[Deamiter]

The paper's the Wall Street Journal. It's in the last section (Personal Journal) on page D6. The article is actually in the Bookshelf column by William Ewald. It's called, "No, Everything Isn't Relative" and it reviews the book "Fear of Knowledge" by Paul Boghossian.

The book might be worth looking into -- it attacks relativism WITHIN the scientific community. In particular, an anthropologist commented that "the worldview of the Indians is just as valid as the viewpoint of archaeology."

 

[Mallon]

Hmmm... can't seem to find it. Is it possible to get a date?

 

[billwald]

Anyone wonder why Indian People have a problem joining main stream American life? Not saying that they are any less happy or content than main streamers. Only different. Sort of like Amish and some other religionists.