Hi all,
Some thoughts on creationism and evolutionary theory, and how it might be
relevant to the MoQ.
I would like to begin by posing some questions to those who advocate a
"creationist" account.
The first question relates to the timescale of history. As I understand it
the accepted age of the universe is around 4.6 billion years or so; whereas
the traditional creationist account (ie the one dependent on the 18th
Century calculations of Ussher) thinks in terms of the age of the universe
being about 6 thousand years or so (creation in 4004 BC). I understand that
not all creationists accept that timescale, so my question is: do the
interlocutors in this forum accept the dominant scientific timescale - ie
one that talks in billions of years - or do they accept a timescale that
talks in thousands of years?
If the answer is the longer timescale then further questions follow below.
If not, then I'm not sure that there is a sufficient 'meeting of minds'
which would allow further investigation of the subject. For rejecting the
larger timescale isn't simply a question of rejecting modern biology - but
also modern geology and geography, physics and astronomy, archaeology and
history. I'm not saying such a rejection is necessarily incoherent, just
that the cast of mind which would allow such a rejection is quite alien to
my way of thinking. I'm not sure there is sufficient commonality of
intellectual ground to make such a discussion fruitful.
So, if the larger timeframe is accepted then my question to the creationist
camp is, do you accept evolution as a *possible* explanation for the
diversity of life (ie is it intellectually coherent)? This is where I think
the debate becomes interesting (and relevant to the MoQ).
If evolution is accepted then there is room for creative debate about
evolutionary theory. There are many areas where arguments can be explored
for and against the theory, but my follow-on question here is this: are the
problems you perceive such as to cast doubt on evolution *in toto*? For
example, think of the arguments between the late Stephen Jay Gould and
Richard Dawkins. These disagree on many details in evolutionary theory (eg
punctuated equilibrium) but each account is compatible with the theory of
evolution, broadly understood. These matters I find fascinating, but they're
probably not suitable for the MoQ discussion list.
However, if evolution is rejected as a *possible* explanation for the
diversity of life, then I would ask what is at stake in the rejection or
acceptance of this scientific theory? There are two separate issues I would
wish to unpick here.
The first is one about the rejection of 'meaninglessness' in the universe,
which, especially in Richard Dawkins, seems to be tied up with the defence
of evolutionary theory. I think it is perfectly possible to accept the main
elements of evolutionary theory - especially the question of the overall
timeframe involved, which I think is the single most important issue - while
rejecting the idea that the universe is therefore a meaningless place.
Indeed, that is one of the attractive things about the MoQ. (I would ground
the meaningfulness in a more explicitly religious framework, but again, I do
not see incompatibility here). This seems to be what lies behind the
language of 'intelligent design'. I would be interested to read a little
more about that.
The second is what of the many alternatives are being put forward as a
better explanation, to be specific, what concept of God is being put
forward? (making the not-too reckless assumption that this is important for
*creation*ists) For me, that standard idea is dependent on an anachronistic
reading of the opening chapters of Genesis and depends upon an idea of God
as one who 'intervenes' in the natural processes - something which was
conceptually impossible for the Biblical writers to imagine. I think there
are lots of theological problems with this position, one of which,
ultimately comes back to the nature of human thinking - again, a topic
relevant to the MoQ.
I'm really trying to get clarity as to what is at stake here. I do think it
appropriate to discuss these things in a MoQ forum - it seems to be a
question of applied MoQ thinking; after all, it brings in subjects close to
Pirsig's own interests, such as the excess veneration of scientific thinking
in our culture, as well as the possibility of quality (as John B's recent
post brought out). If we can get past some of the specific questions of
evolutionary theory then it may become clear that what in fact the
creationists are arguing for is the possiblity of Quality in existence -
which any supporter of the MoQ would agree with, even if they disagree with
the precise arguments used.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST