The C Word
True story. In June 1999, I was walking with a group of scientists – paleontologists, mostly – along a mountain road in Yunnan Province, southern China. We were on our way to look at a famous outcrop containing fossils from the so-called Cambrian Explosion. I happened to fall in next to David Bottjer, a paleontologist from USC, and his wife. “Nice day, eh?” I said to Bottjer, apropos of nothing, except that it was, in fact, a nice day.
Without saying a word, Bottjer and his wife pivoted on their heels and started walking in the opposite direction, back towards the bus waiting on the main road. The rest of the group moved on towards the outcrop. Bottjer only rejoined us when he and I were a safe distance apart.
Don’t talk to creationists. Savor the cheap alloy tang, the sour flavor, the unmistakable frisson of “creationist,” and its cognates, such as “creationism.” Let the associations wash over you for a moment.
Sarah Palin is a creationist. Instantly, a hot knife cuts through the cultural butter.
On one side: shopping carts abandoned under the lights in a Walmart parking lot, conceal-and-carry permits, the Scopes Trial, home schooling, venison packed in the garage deep freeze, a rusting propane tank out back, the King James version in large print with a handworked white leather binding, unaccredited Bible colleges nestled in strip malls. The cable channels you never watch, and didn’t even know existed. None of your Facebook friends. Somewhere else.
On the other side: rationality, science, sanity. Martha’s Vineyard. Montauk. Strolling through the Upper West Side on a summer evening. Classical music drifting over someone’s garden wall.
Richard Dawkins has said that creationists – he means the young-earth, Sarah Palin-variety, of course, which for Dawkins is the only variety worth talking about – are “barking mad.” No voice contradicts him because the proposition is self-evidently true. Everyone I know thinks that creationists are crazy, and I know I’m not crazy. The people whom “creationist” captures, by contrast: well, yes, barking mad.
Now try this.
You’re sitting in an elementary school parent-teacher conference. An administrator has been called in. His expression is grim.
“Mr. Nelson,” he says, “your daughter is exceptionally creative. Here is a software program she wrote, without anyone knowing about it. And look at these drawings, and this completely original and – again! – creative science project. Creativity and originality of this sort are discouraged here. Frankly, we’re concerned.”
Say what?
Mozart created The Marriage of Figaro. Shakespeare created A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Hopper created Girl at a Sewing Machine. “Okay, that was the most creative movie I’ve watched in a long time.” Oh yeah? Don’t want to see it, then. Reminds me of Sarah Palin. The C word, you know...
I deeply, passionately, unreasonably love the word liberal, to which I attach the following.
The liberal arts were the study of a free (a liberal) man. This is the dedication, from the editor Arthur Quiller-Couch, in my copy of the Oxford Book of English Verse:
To the President, Fellows, and Scholars of Trinity College, Oxford
A house of learning, ancient, liberal, humane
And my most kindly nurse
Except for that last line, which is way too English for an ice-hockey-playing North American boy, I can never read this inscription without a shiver of pleasure at “liberal.”
Liberal. As in, the proper study of a free man. As in, the books that someone will always be reading. As in, long and unforgettable conversations with insightful, patient, wise scientists or philosophers or historians or journalists. Just had four days of those conversations in Tuscany. Sue me, I strive to be a liberal.
I’m already a creationist. Don’t want to talk to me? I’m sorry about that. You seem like an interesting person, but I can wait until you’ve figured out what exactly bothers you about the C word, and hence, me.
Nah, the C word don’t scare me, much. Kinda like it.
- Comment (90)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
May '11
Re: The C Word
Who allowed a creationist to post here?
May '10
Re: The C Word
I know very little about young earth creationism. I always considered myself a Creationist in that I believe God created matter and life, along with processes like natural selection and adaptation.
But my creationism sounds pretty puny compared to your creationism. Do you believe that the evidence points to the earth being 6,000 years old, or is it more that the case for a 6 billion year old earth hasn't been made?
Mar '11
Re: The C Word
I take a somewhat Deistic view on the subject. I don't think the central insight of creationism is at odds with evolution or adaptation, so long as you posit the process began by God's creation of nature and its laws. There is no unbridgable gap between nature and nature's God, and if it appears that way we have misunderstand one or the other.
I have no problem with a view of public education at the local level that would seek to to present Intelligent Design alongside other speculative cosmological frameworks that theoretical physics at a very high level is struggling with today, and as a reminder that the science is not settled. But it should be presented as theory.
The notion that we would disregard the fossil record, carbon dating, half-life measurements, background radiation in the universe and the whole edifice of modern science, thereby abandoning the scientific method itself, in favor of young earth theory's hyper-literalist reading of the Bible is complete madness. Zealotry run amok.
Or, in short: I associate myself with Ottoman's question.
Re: The C Word
I don't want to presume to speak for Paul, but look at the first paragraph of his post: Is that the typical pastime of a man disposed to ignore the fossil record?
May '11
Re: The C Word
Claire, it's not clear what he might believe, he seemed somewhat vague. I was only being tongue-in-cheek with my first comment, but your question could easily be answered, "Yes, if he is determined to disprove a fossil record's evidence."
Jun '10
Re: The C Word
"The notion that we would disregard the fossil record, carbon dating, half-life measurements, background radiation in the universe and the whole edifice of modern science, thereby abandoning the scientific method itself, in favor of young earth theory's hyper-literalist reading of the Bible is complete madness. Zealotry run amok."
Exatly. It's only strict, literal interpretation of the Bible that puts a wedge between science and faith. If you and the doctrines of your faith hold that God set in motion an incredibly complex and fascinating process of creation and adaptation that continues to this day, there is no conflict. Scientists forging ahead to discover the truth are thus celebrated as seeking to move closer to God by understanding His miracle of creation.
Jun '11
Re: The C Word
"Rationality. Science. Sanity."
Huh. As you paint your unflattering portrait of an America you imagine (you know, the shopping carts and worn out Bibles), let us be generous and also portray and recall recall the rational, sane American scientists who labored diligently to hash out the orderly and sensible principles of eugenics which enabled Hitler to carry out his master plan.
Ah Science! The New God.
Jun '11
Re: The C Word
Exatly. It's only strict, literal interpretation of the Bible that puts a wedge between science and faith.
Interesting point. And the crusade to interpret the Bible in a strict, literal way is a bit tricky because when the Bible was composed, mankind was not yet in the habit of writing strict, literal documents. We told stories to help process and understand our experiences, to make sense of the human journey.
Mar '11
Re: The C Word
Claire--the answer to your question is "No". But, being a trouble-maker by nature, I like stirring the pot a bit. It's usually the best way to get interesting insights to bubble up.
My post was meant as a defense of creationism. But creationism comes in many shapes and sizes, as Sticker was quick to point out. I am willing to defend a circumscribed creationism that is compatible with the empirical observations we make about the world--all the while realizing that the tools of science are imperfect (thus my previous statement about nature, nature's God, and misunderstanding). I am unwilling to offer a defense of a creationist view that shirks science and interprets scripture in a way that makes reason impossible.
Michael: There is very good reason to be supremely skeptical of any attempt to make Science replace God.
Jun '10
Re: The C Word
Sarah Palin, by the way, is not a young earth creationist. She was raised by a science teacher, after all. Her skepticism about certain points in the theory of evolution seems to be mostly centered around the idea of a common ancestor. Certainly we've seen some members of the scientific community scramble to explain new discoveries of fossils or "missing links" that may take a hypothesis or theory down a raod which they do not want to travel. That's sad, because if scientists are searcing for truth, they will welcome any evidence that points them closer to that truth.
Palin has stated her beliefs pretty clearly. "But I believe that God created us and also that He can create an evolutionary process that allows species to change and adapt."
Re: The C Word
For those of you who missed it, this is an earlier thread in which Paul introduces himself. He answers the "So, how old do you think the earth is?" question in that video.
Jun '10
Re: The C Word
As it happens, my 14 year old son had to write a brief essay on an ispirational science quote of his choosing to be handed in on Friday as he took his Bio final exam. Being both a lazy writer and a lazy student, he just used a Tessla quote that I had printed and hung up by his desk at the start of freshman year. It was part of our family beginning of high school pep talk --- school should teach you to seek the truth (actually, make that Truth.) Don't let teachers trash your faith or your political beliefs or your pride in America.
Here's the quote & his write-up:
“As I stroked MaÄak's back, it became a sheet of light and my hand produced a shower of sparks. ... My father ... remarked, this is nothing but electricity, the same thing you see on the trees in a storm. My mother seemed alarmed. Stop playing with the cat, she said, he might start a fire. I was thinking abstractly. Is nature a cat? If so, who strokes its back? It can only be God, I concluded. ...
(continued..)
Jun '10
Re: The C Word
I cannot exaggerate the effect of this marvelous sight on my childish imagination. Day after day I asked myself what is electricity and found no answer. Eighty years have gone by since and I still ask the same question, unable to answer it.”
-Nikola Tesla
And here's my son's somewhat awkward interpretation of the story: (He's a hockey player, not a writer, but this shows me that he gets it.)
This famous quote was spoken by Nikola Tesla, a scientist who did much experimentation with electricity. What this quote means to me is that there is a link between science and religion. Nikola is trying to say that God created the world and wants us to find truth about the world we live in. Nikola found out many amazing things about electricity which helps us have a better understanding of it today. Nikola also stated in the quote that imagination is a very important part of a scientific mind. Without imagination, inferences, hypotheses, theories, and even laws of science couldn’t be created. Church practice should never exclude science; it should embrace and accept it. Faith and science are not mutually exclusive but can reinforce each other.
Mar '11
Re: The C Word
Claire--I had missed the original video but I am really glad that you reposted it.
Both Paul and your Father offer a heartening critique (I used the word correctly) of dogmatism: be it religious or scientific. This is what it means to be open minded and think critically.
Also, props to Paul for using the word soporific in daily conversation.
Apr '11
Re: The C Word
Years ago, facing a cold and snowy winter working out of the airport servicing Bar Harbor, Maine, I bought a book incorporating two of Darwin's works - The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man - and read it cover to cover.
Origin of Species is a brilliant work. The descent of Man is a load of rubbish full of postulates like, Cobblers have evolved distended foreheads because of the weight of their brains pushing against their skulls as they bend over their lasts. I notice no one ever seems to refer to this volume when defending Darwin.
It seems that there are two schools of thought: the universe is a created thing, an artifact of intelligence; or it created itself ex nihilo by a series of random events except in those cases where it appears to follow iron-clad physical laws.
I incline to the former view, though I admit that may be a reflexive response due to childhood conditioning by the Nuns. Science explains How things work but not Why they exist. And Why is just as fascinating question as How, and equally worth answering.
Jun '11
Re: The C Word
Herkybird: Years ago, facing a cold and snowy winter working out of the airport servicing Bar Harbor, Maine, I bought a book incorporating two of Darwin's works - The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man - and read it cover to cover.
Origin of Species is a brilliant work. The descent of Man is a load of rubbish full of postulates like, Cobblers have evolved distended foreheads because of the weight of their brains pushing against their skulls as they bend over their lasts. I notice no one ever seems to refer to this volume when defending Darwin.
It seems that there are two schools of thought: the universe is a created thing, an artifact of intelligence; or it created itself ex nihilo by a series of random events except in those cases where it appears to follow iron-clad physical laws.
I incline to the former view, though I admit that may be a reflexive response due to childhood conditioning by the Nuns. Science explains How things work but not Why they exist. And Why is just as fascinating question as How, and equally worth answering. · Jun 18 at 4:46am
Well put.
Oct '10
Re: The C Word
Welcome aboard Paul.
As a believer in creation of the rather fundamental Bible believing type, I am strong in my beliefs, but they are mine, and I would like to argue for them to be yours (plural). For me, it rests on whether we accept that there is a Creator, and is He is still engaged in acts of creation? And if so, is He personally invested in His creation today, at this moment? And if He is, how do we respond?
The Founders of this great country used a term not much used today. Providence. As used by Washington, it appears that he saw an active Creator, One Who remains engaged in His creative works, whether in the world around us, or within us.
Creationism, to me, is about that personal aspect of our Creator.
But, as a believer in Truth, discovered by searching, I must hold that others will reach differing accommodations with their understanding and relationship with creation and its Creator.
We are free to choose.
Jun '11
Re: The C Word
Crow's Nest: Claire--the answer to your question is "No". But, being a trouble-maker by nature, I like stirring the pot a bit. It's usually the best way to get interesting insights to bubble up.
My post was meant as a defense of creationism. But creationism comes in many shapes and sizes, as Sticker was quick to point out. I am willing to defend a circumscribed creationism that is compatible with the empirical observations we make about the world--all the while realizing that the tools of science are imperfect (thus my previous statement about nature, nature's God, and misunderstanding). I am unwilling to offer a defense of a creationist view that shirks science and interprets scripture in a way that makes reason impossible.
Michael: There is very good reason to be supremely skeptical of any attempt to make Science replace God. · Jun 18 at 4:26am
Yes. In my twisted view of history, I also associate the application of scientific principles to the birth of Rational Administration and the Progressive movement. The idea that governing is a science and not an Art.
I am quite fond of what is irrational in my life.
Dec '10
Re: The C Word
I've grown tired of the debate about creationism, which seems never to get deeper than an emotional spat of a weary, nearly divorced couple. As a physics major in college and a practicing neurologist I've never felt that religion and science were incompatible. If God created the world 10,000 years ago, then he did so by setting up a system that by all measurable means appears 14 billion years old. Numerous lines of scientific inquiry support biologic evolution and a multi-billion year old universe. Genetics, microbiology, paleontology, astronomy, etc. So let's hear your evidence of an alternative. When we reach the limits of current science's ability to measure or test hypotheses, then we have entered the realm of religion. Keep the distinctions clear.
I watched the brief interview with Paul by Claire in Tuscany and heard no science discussed, and I don't see any science discussed in the above post. I would appreciate it if the discussion moved on from reveling in the risks and bravery of taking on the orthodoxy, to actually addressing the issue of evolutionary theory.
Re: The C Word
Hello all,
I'm awaiting instructions from Claire about how to comment here, responding to individual members. But a global point in the interim: much of what I wrote in "The C Word" should be seen as ironic, and expressed in the voice of one part of our culture, not my own. For instance, the paragraph beginning with the Walmart shopping carts expresses a mass of erroneous but widely-shared perceptions, dumping unique human beings into a cultural bin labelled "religious fundamentalists." In my own voice: I have friends with conceal-and-carry permits who hold PhDs from Ivy League universities. I also have friends who fit perfectly into the Montauk and Martha's Vineyard paragraph, who alas are weighed down with prejudices that they really need to shake off -- prejudices far worse than those they impute to others.
One reason I love Claire so much is her unwillingness to throw people into convenient cultural bins. The same is true of her father.
More soon when I learn how to post here properly.