Native American tribe rejects evolution

[Dannager]

Wait, so we can add the Buffalo People Spirits to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn? This is awesome.

 

[busterdog]

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.

One of the coolest things ever is making fire out of sticks. Really. It is just the most awesome thing. I knew a guy who could make a fire a fast as you could take out your matches and strike on.

Sweatlodges are pretty cool. However, idolatry is a big problem.

I personally think these guys (as well as the Amish) have some pretty important things to say about our society.

 

[shernren]

Wait, so we can add the Buffalo People Spirits to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, God and the Invisible Pink Unicorn? This is awesome.

Buffalo People Spirits + Flying Spaghetti Monster + God + Invisible Pink Unicorn

=

Spaghetti
bolognaise with beefballs, pastrami, and bacon
delivered in 15 minutes or your money back.

Oh, and say grace before you eat.

 

[chaoschristian]

since the Native American community in the US is involved with this, it is prudent for one to consider if this statement is really about rejecting evolution, or if it is more about solidifying the Native American identidy in the context of US-Indian relations as bounded by the numerous treaties that govern that relationship.

in otherwords, is anything at risk if the Native American community makes an official statement supporting evolution?

does that call into question the status of the tribes and any claims they make to benefits available to them?

is this about theology or is it really about politics?

i can't say for certain, but it will make for interesting reading.

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?

 

[Deamiter]

It's from Thursday, November 16.

 

[Deamiter]

Here's a good chunk of it as it appears it was only printed in print (though most large libraries -- certainly university libraries should have it, it'd be a pain for an uncited reference to a particular tribe's position on evolution).

Please assume all grammatical errors or misspellings are mine as I typed it quickly with only a quick spellcheck.

A curious trait of the modern academy is it’s willingness to embrace extreme forms of what may be called cognitive relativism. Here is a real-life example. 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.”
Perhaps predictably, at least one archaeologist responded by agreeing with this rejection of his own field. “Science is just one of many ways of knowing the world,” he stated, “and this worldview of the Indians is just as valid as the viewpoint of archaeology.”

This is a curiously self-defeating way to put the point. Curious since what he evidently wants to say – that the view of other cultures may sometimes rightly cause us to question our own and that in any case the people who hold those views deserve to be treated with respect – can be more plausibly defended as a statement of an objective truth rather than his all-views-have-validity claim.

“Postmodern relativism” was something of an academic fad 20 years ago, at least in some departments. It was never popular among natural scientists or (significantly) philosophers. Recently it has been on the decline even in departments that used to march under the banner of “deconstruction.” But it has not disappeared altogether. Indeed, it is by now deeply embedded in the culture at large, in a wary sort of nonjudgmental approach to all sorts of pressing matters—as if to call one view true and another false is mere blinkered dogmatism. Last year, President Bush was asked about the teaching of “intelligent design” in the public schools along with (or instead of) Darwinism. He replied, as might our anthropologist, that “both sides ought to be properly taught.” What more could a multiculturalist want?

It is easy to dismiss such views as confused, or silly, or driven by political correctness. But it is much harder to say exactly where they go wrong. And certainly one cannot leap straight from uncritical relativism to uncritical objectivism – the idea that a single truth is “out there” and knowable. For even what most objectivists will concede that, whatever the shortcomings of muddled multicultural relativism, it is preferable to the certitudes of the Taliban.

At this point, the author started getting pretty deeply into degrees of relativism and started summarizing other points of the book that are only loosely related to the above. I'd type it all, but I really would like to respect the WSJ's copyright and only quote relevent portions.

 

[Smidlee]

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.

Duh? Of course a Ford F-150 and a Ford Mustang could have been build by the same company as well as the same group of people. Now for a reptile to grow breast and totally overhaul it's own heart is nothing short of a miracle.
My main point was to show the similarities between Indains Buffalo people to Evolutionist Ape people. These ideas must be related.

 

[Willtor]

Duh? Of course a Ford F-150 and a Ford Mustang could have been build by the same company as well as the same group of people. Now for a reptile to grow breast and totally overhaul it's own heart is nothing short of a miracle.
My main point was to show the similarities between Indains Buffalo people to Evolutionist Ape people. These ideas must be related.

If you're going to liken these things, I'd very much like to see the evidence that Ford F-150's and Mustangs give birth. Then we can talk about common ancestry of Ford vehicles.

 

[Mallon]

Duh? Of course a Ford F-150 and a Ford Mustang could have been build by the same company as well as the same group of people. Now for a reptile to grow breast and totally overhaul it's own heart is nothing short of a miracle.
My main point was to show the similarities between Indains Buffalo people to Evolutionist Ape people. These ideas must be related.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Smidlee. As Willtor pointed out, cars don't mate, and therefore cannot share a common ancestry. (Not only that, but evolution doesn't happen over the lifetime of an individual, as you imply.)
Secondly, I don't even think you know what sort of ramifications your analogy has...

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.

By applying this analogy to life, you seem to be implying that there may be multiple creators! I doubt this is what you intended, but that's what your analogy implies.

My main point was to show the similarities between Indains Buffalo people to Evolutionist Ape people. These ideas must be related.

But we already disposed of that point by pointing to the existent fossil record of "ape people" (read: hominids). Your point is moot.

So again, the heritibility of genes make them useful for deducing common ancestry. Have a go at that one.

 

[shernren]

If you're going to liken these things, I'd very much like to see the evidence that Ford F-150's and Mustangs give birth. Then we can talk about common ancestry of Ford vehicles.

You mean they don't?? Why, we've been lying to our children all this while!

 

[Redneck Crow]

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.

A lot of them did join main stream life, Bill. My family is part Indian and Indians did indeed not only joined mainstream life but married into the Europeans. After a few shuffles of the genes you end up with something like my family--my sister is a fair skinned wavy haired blonde and people ask me on a regular basis if I'm Indian.

The ones that chose not to take on European ways are generally the only ones people think of as Indian. The rest of us, we just kinda fit in unless you drew a whole bunch of the short, dark skinned, straight dark hair, high cheekbones genes like I did.

 

[Redneck Crow]

Duh? Of course a Ford F-150 and a Ford Mustang could have been build by the same company as well as the same group of people. Now for a reptile to grow breast and totally overhaul it's own heart is nothing short of a miracle.
My main point was to show the similarities between Indains Buffalo people to Evolutionist Ape people. These ideas must be related.

If the Indian Buffalo folks come up with a DNA analysis that shows that they share 98%+ of their genetic material with a buffalo, I'll start start giving their claims some serious thought as well.

 

[Willtor]

You mean they don't?? Why, we've been lying to our children all this while!

I meant besides the obvious. See? The exception proves the rule.

 

[Smidlee]

If you're going to liken these things, I'd very much like to see the evidence that Ford F-150's and Mustangs give birth. Then we can talk about common ancestry of Ford vehicles.

Duh? You don't seems to understand the point; they both made by common company but similaritiles of itself isn't proof of common ancestry, common design,or common company since it can point to any one of them. Evolution doesn't have an real engine... only supernatural-selection. At the molecular level all life is extremely similar. Same with computers> While the hardware is very similar, it's the software that makes the big difference.

 

[Pats]

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?

Without having fully reviewed the thread, I'd like to comment.

Firstly, I am one of the YECists to come to this site, fully consider TEism, and not really lay claim to either creationism or TE at this time.

Why does that seem to bother some posters? Why do some posters seem to be unable of grasping that I'm not completely decided at this time? I did not become YEC over night, I do not like any OEC theologies I've studied, and I enjoy considering TE theology and I find it pusuasive. However, I do not fine the two concepts wholly incompatable.

Further, it was a Native American/very scientific guy who first turned me on to studying Origins Theology two years ago. I wish he had the time to make more posts here, but I don't think he's all that interested in the Crevo debate on a large scale like our Crevo forum here.

 

[theFijian]

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

Precisely, which is why I'm not a YEC

 

[Willtor]

Duh? You don't seems to understand the point; they both made by common company but similaritiles of itself isn't proof of common ancestry, common design,or common company since it can point to any one of them. Evolution doesn't have an real engine... only supernatural-selection. At the molecular level all life is extremely similar. Same with computers> While the hardware is very similar, it's the software that makes the big difference.

No, the similarities between Ford autos is not evident of common ancestry because Fords don't have ancestry. That's what makes it a poor analogy. You'd have to find something that reproduces via a mechanism similar to biological life that is demonstrably designed. Otherwise the analogy doesn't say what you want it to say.

Think about it this way: Two populations of organisms have their respective ancestries. Darwin proposes the possibility that their ancestries are common. But notice that one doesn't talk about common ancestry (evolution) until one has addressed ancestry, itself.

Two "populations" of autos do not have ancestries because they don't reproduce. Ergo, it is impossible to suggest that they have common ancestries.

---

To put it another way: Supposing that you are correct and the species do not share common ancestory, one should be able to see how a person might be mistaken on this issue, but not make the same mistake regarding automobiles, because it was through analysis of the biological ancestry that common ancestry of the species was inferred. The same inference was not made for autos because there was no ancestry to study.