Footnotes to History: 6/11/05 - Biblical creation display OKd at Oklahoma Zoo
TULSA, Okla. (AP) — The Tulsa Zoo will add a display featuring the biblical account of creation following
complaints to a city board about other displays with religious significance, including a Hindu elephant statue.
The Tulsa Park and Recreation Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a display depicting God's creation of the world in six days
and his rest on the seventh, as told in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
The vote came after more than two hours of public comment from a standing-room-only
crowd.
Story continues
at:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/060805dnnatzoo.2f4647b62.html
+++
Don Hockaday, Re. Tulsa Zoo Story
“The Tulsa
Park and Recreation Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a display depicting God's creation of the
world in six days and his rest on the seventh, as told in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.”
The problem with the display
is its intent. The biblical account could be provided with the same purpose and format as would be a bunny display or an egg
collection during Easter. However, it was initiated by a Dan Hicks because, "It's a matter
of fairness. To not include the creationist view would be discrimination."
The purpose
is to give credibility to the narrow view of Fundamentalist Christians and promote doubt for the well established scientific
fact of organic evolution. To be fair, and not be discriminatory, the zoo should include a dozen or so of the many creation
myths and place the Genesis account in perspective with equal weight to the others.
Actually,
there isn't 'the' Genesis account there are two contradictory accounts: J-Story and P-Story, both modifications of the Babylonian
story.
+++
Robin Glynn, Re.
Godde's Creation
Don Hockaday:
“Actually, there isn't 'the' Genesis account there are two contradictory accounts: J-Story and P-Story, both modifications
of the Babylonian story.”
There is also an E writer but in the creation story it is almost impossible to separate
the E source from the J source. They, the P and JE sources, don't contradict each other they just are from different sources
that emphasize different theological points that have been woven together by a redactor. The Hebrews had no problem with this
kind of weaving together of stories. They understood it as being more about theology than facts. Personally I don't agree
with the theory of evolution, but I don't think the creationist have it right either. I do believe Godde (spelling done to
remind people of the feminine aspect of our creator) created the world and it's not an issue for me "how" Godde did it. My
understanding is that there are, basically, two sides. Those who think we are a cosmic accident, and those who think there
is a purposeful creator. If the zoo is going to present the theory of evolution as fact why not let the creationist express
their theory as fact? What about removing all of it and changing the zoo from being a place for a science lesson and
just let it be a place of enjoyment? What about letting adults and children make their own discoveries about the beauty of
life and the planet we live on? It's a fantastic place no matter how it was created, let’s enjoy it and take care
of it.
+++
Don Hockaday, Re.
Creation, Evolution, & Tulsa Zoo
Dateline: October 23:
Archbishop James Ussher
(1701) calculated God created earth at nightfall on Sunday October 23, 4004 BC.
For the earth to have been created at nightfall, it would have had to be flat. Most creationists believe in a 'young
earth' (thousands, not billions, of years old). I don't know how many believe it is still flat.
To the date, precisely
6000 years after God reportedly created earth, on October 23, 1996 -- Pope John Paul II wrote, "fresh knowledge leads to recognition
of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis." I don't know what time of day he wrote it.
I just realized I missed
the YK6 celebrations.
If the zoo is going to
present the theory of evolution as fact why not let the creationist express their theory as fact?
Because it appears they
didn't want to present facts. They apparently wanted to proselytize their religious beliefs as being based on fact, not faith,
and do it in a public educational institution.
Again, there are many creation
myths. Oklahoma is proud of its Native American cultures; they could have picked at least two
Native American creation myths applicable to Tulsa. A half-dozen equally weighed creation myths would have been 'educational.'
Highlighting only the biblical creation myth as 'fact' is propaganda.
The Hebrews had no problem
with this kind of weaving together of stories. They understood it as being more about theology than facts.
This also applies to most
Christian denominations. We wouldn't even be discussing this except for the Fundamentalist view of literal adherence to the
Bible. Even that wouldn't be an issue if they didn't pick and choose what passages to accept literally. Even that wouldn't
be an issue if they just believed what they believed and didn't try to force their beliefs on others. The recent discussion
on the F-LDS shows the ultimate result on the scale of hundreds to thousands, and our recent awareness of fundamentalist Muslim
governments shows the ultimate results on nations.
Personally I don't agree
with the theory of evolution, but I don't think the creationist have it right either.
It seems nearly everyone
has an opinion on the subject, but few know very much about either modern evolution or modern creationism. There is
no real conflict until it is purposely generated. The current conflict is centered on the effort to have religious creationism
taught in science classes as if it is a science. They actually called it 'scientific creationism' for a long time. They now
favor 'intelligent design' and shifted somewhat toward simply trying to discredit evolution by having disclaimers included
in text books.
Most scientists are religious.
Nearly all working biologists accept the evolutionary model. Almost no creationists are working biologists. Just about any
competent biologist would jump on an opportunity to show any prevailing view of the scientific community is faulty, including
any aspect of evolution. That is how progress is achieved.
My understanding is that
there are, basically, two sides. Those who think we are a cosmic accident, and those who think there is a purposeful creator.
I suppose one could divide
things up like that, and the religious creationists especially like to. It evades the point. Among those who accept
the evolutionary model, there are many who think 'we are a cosmic accident,' and many who think there is a purposeful creator.
There are very many who
think there is a purposeful creator who do not subscribe to the Judo-Christian bible. There are many who subscribe to the
bible who reject its literal translation. There are many who think there is a purposeful creator but don't think he micro-managed
creation. There are many who think there is a purposeful creator who created life, plants, animals, and humans through
evolution. "Accident' vs. 'Purposeful Creator' is a red herring.
Next 'chapter' -- 'common
ground.' I think I could teach the basics of evolution with a knowledgeable, serious, sophisticated, creationist in
class with a buzzer. If he/she doesn't agree with anything I say, the buzzer sounds. I think I could do that without ever
hearing the buzzer.
In the meantime if anybody
thinks evolution is 'just a theory' might look up 'scientific theory.'
Closing quote:
"Let us hope it
is not true. But if it is true, let us hope
it does not become
widely known."
(Anglican Bishop's wife upon hearing of biological evolution, 1860)
...
Galluping Creationism
2001
"According to a recent
(2001) Gallup poll, Americans are about equally split regarding evolution. 49% believe in
evolution and 45% believe in special creation. 37% of those who believe in evolution believe God guides the process. An earlier
poll had similar results."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=14107
November 19, 2004
"Only about a third of
Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence,
while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they
don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their
present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual
word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=16462
May 24, 2005
"A plurality of Americans
wouldn't be upset if either creation or evolution were taught in the local schools. But those with a preference for only one
theory or the other are more likely to come down on the side of creationism."
+++
Re. Creation, Evolution,
&c.
Robin Glynn:
Don Hockaday: "Because
it appears they didn't want to present facts. They apparently wanted to proselytize their religious beliefs as being based
on fact, not faith, and do it in a public educational institution."
But in their eyes it is
fact. You saying that it isn't based on facts isn't going to convince them they are wrong. And who decided a zoo needs to
be a public educational institution? Now if I enter a "science museum" I know what I am in for. Hum maybe we could start calling
them the science zoos. Or if it is an educational institution why not just stick to information about animals and not evolution?
Isn't there enough to learn about? Like where animals live, what they eat, how they live with each other, without talking
about how they evolved?
LOL I would like to see something about humans not being the highest life form. Personally
I think whales are a higher life form than us. They are capable of living with each other and in their environment in a peaceful
way. Now that, to me, is an evolved life form.
Don: "Again, there are many creation myths. Oklahoma is proud of its Native American cultures; they could have picked at least two Native American creation myths applicable
to Tulsa. A half-dozen equally weighed creation myths would have been 'educational.'
Highlighting only the biblical creation myth as 'fact' is propaganda."
Once again you saying it's
propaganda doesn't change anything. It's just adding fuel to the fire. If people have to be politically correct when it comes
to others why not be that way with the fundies? Why include other creation myths and not theirs? If they want to present it
as fact then why not say, some people believe....... then scientific theories are....... Native Americans believed....
I
don't know the answer I am just tossing some stuff out there.
It's like the sticky Prayer in School issue. If
we let the Christians pray then all other groups need to be equally represented too, right?
So, it seems to me that
an all or nothing policy is the solution.
Don: "This also applies to most Christian denominations. We wouldn't even
be discussing this except for the Fundamentalist view of literal adherence to the Bible. Even that wouldn't be an issue if
they didn't pick and choose what passages to accept literally. Even that wouldn't be an issue if they just believed what they
believed and didn't try to force their beliefs on others."
AMEN!
I home school,
but not for religious reasons. My children have a beautifully illustrated book about Darwin written
by Peter Sis next to a beautifully illustrated book about God creating the world in seven days. There is a co-op on
my end of town. My son likes science and I put him in a few classes. Science and the discovery of animals. The science teacher
told the children that all secular scientists were conspiring against the christians, and that it was the dodo bird's fault
that it is extinct. My son is very smart and thought the conspiracy theory was silly and cried about the dodo birds. So, I
do understand the frustration with this stuff. I just think that constantly telling people they are wrong isn't going to change
their minds. I did ask the powers that be at the co-op to not use such strong words like conspiracy especially with a group
of seven year olds and you know what, she twisted the conversation into an argument about the biblical inerrancy before I
knew what hit me.
Don: "The recent discussion on the F-LDS shows the ultimate result on the scale of hundreds
to thousands, and our recent awareness of fundamentalist Muslim governments shows the ultimate results on nations."
Exactly so why piss any
more people off by making them feel excluded or force fed ideas that clash with their faith?
If the zoo was a non-educational
zone then don't we eliminate another area of conflict?
Don: "It seems nearly everyone has an opinion on the subject,
but few know very much about either modern evolution or modern creationism. There is no real conflict until it is purposely
generated. The current conflict is centered on the effort to have religious creationism taught in science classes as if it
is a science. They actually called it 'scientific creationism' for a long time. They now favor 'intelligent design' and shifted
somewhat toward simply trying to discredit evolution by having disclaimers included in text books."
Well, who is purposely
generating the conflict? Extremism on both sides? Why don't we just let it go? Isn't there enough science to learn without
including all the issues around creation? Maybe leave that for college level study?
Don: "Most scientists are
religious. Nearly all working biologists accept the evolutionary model. Almost no creationists are working biologists. Just
about any competent biologist would jump on an opportunity to show any prevailing view of the scientific community is faulty,
including any aspect of evolution. That is how progress is achieved."
Humm are you saying that
progress is only achieved through conflict?
Don: "I suppose one could
divide things up like that, and the religious creationists especially like to. It evades the point. Among those who
accept the evolutionary model, there are many who think 'we are a cosmic accident,' and many who think there is a purposeful
creator.
"There are very many who think there is a purposeful creator who do not subscribe to the Judo-Christian bible.
There are many who subscribe to the bible who reject its literal translation. There are many who think there is a purposeful
creator but don't think he micro-managed creation. There are many who think there is a purposeful creator who created life,
plants, animals, and humans through evolution. "Accident' vs. 'Purposeful Creator' is a red herring."
I apologize for being so
simplistic about such a complicated topic.
"Next 'chapter' -- 'common
ground.' I think I could teach the basics of evolution with a knowledgeable, serious, sophisticated, creationist in
class with a buzzer. If he/she doesn't agree with anything I say, the buzzer sounds. I think I could do that without ever
hearing the buzzer."
This is fantastic. I am
looking forward to reading it. I am sure it is possible in a class room of, as you say "knowledgeable, serious, and sophisticated"
people, tall order, personally I am none of the above. But I am not so sure that it's possible in public arenas were Jane
and Dick average walk around.
Don: "In the meantime if
anybody thinks evolution is 'just a theory' might look up 'scientific theory.'"
You are right, once again
I was being simplistic in my use of the word theory.
+++
Mike Wright:
I'm glad I didn't respond
to this thread earlier, leaving it to Don to do all the hard work.
Every time I've had someone tell me that they
"don't believe in evolution", I've found that they can't give me a clear description of just what it is that scientists
mean when they use the term "evolution". I've also found that they can't easily distinguish among "evolution",
"natural selection", "speciation", and "biogenesis".
Whenever I've had someone tell me that "evolution" (whatever they think
that might be) is "just a theory", I've found that they can't tell me what a scientific "theory" entails, nor how it
might differ from a "hypothesis". When pressed, most couldn't tell me the difference between scientific theory and simple
assertion--the difference between what can be investigated (and has the potential to be disproved) and what cannot.
I've
also had people complain that science can't explain the origin of the universe, though they seem to imagine that religious
stories *can* do so. In fact, religious stories of origins are the opposite of "explanation". They are simply assertions
that something happened. At some point they all involve claiming that something occurred, the details of which cannot
be requested. To say that "God created the universe" may appear to explain the origin of the universe, but it just
pushes the true origin back one layer, leaving the origin of God unexplained.
The ultimate Creationist agenda
is to undermine science in favor of religion. Richard Dawkins has a nice little essay on that agenda at
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,592-1619264,00.html
It seems that many people
want a feeling of certainty in their stories about the world. That's something that science never offers. In fact, when
uncertainty ends, science also ends. When we say that "water freezes because God wants it to," science dies, because there's
no longer any point in looking for details. Asking "why?" and "how?" becomes a pointless exercise. A creationist who
is very close to me was talking about the demise of the Texas supercollider
project some years back. He said, "This guy told me that it would shed light on the origins of the universe. I told
him that I already know how the universe originated."
Of course, even creationists seldom seem to carry this attitude
to its logical conclusion. They often balk at "people get sick because God wants them to" and "people die because
God wants them to." Consistency is a hard master.
To get back to evolution (but really speciation) for a moment, as Dawkins
notes, creationists often make a big deal over the so-called "missing links". This is a nice little game. Whenever a
fossil is discovered that sits midway between two others in a lineage, the creationist can now complain about two
gaps, instead of one. Yet those who claim to be the direct descendants of Adam and Eve seem to have lots of missing
links in their own lineages. I've never met one who could fill in all the gaps between themselves and their oldest ancestors.
In fact, none can even fill in the gaps back to the Noachian bottleneck. Who's gonna believe a story with such big gaps in
it?
Cheers,
Mixer
+++
Wylie Miller:
Hi Tom,
I was amused by reading
Don Hockaday's notes in your coffee dated 6-18-05. I am never sure who
provides the most comedy, Creationists or Evolutionists. It takes equal amounts of blind faith to put ones trust in
either. I laughed at Hockaday's note with its typos (as surely as I make them myself), regarding this Judo-Christian
thing.
As I study exegesis of
Genesis chapter one, apparently it's Hebrew author(s) intended to dispel the creation myths of Mesopotamia (Gilgamesh
Epic). From those myths, the gods had created humans subject to their whim. Humans had no control or any true
fate other than to be servants to the gods and their capriciousness. Everything in Genesis one refutes the notion of
the powers of those astral deities and their supposed control over human life and destiny (including how animals and crops
are produced).
What Genesis and Creationism
have in common is a view of God that is intimately involved in the details of human life. Both grant humans a divine
destiny to be more than the rest of creation, and a divine plan for every human life. Since evolutionary theory intends
to offer how and not why, it fails to give humans any dignity. In effect like the creation myths of the ANE it leaves
humans subject to whimsical fate.
I am not a biblical literalist.
I am sure the earth is very old, and created in some form similar to the big bang theory. However, I have watched evolutionary
theory change considerably during my lifetime. Darwinism would be considered a joke by evolutionary scientists today
who have gone way beyond those original speculations. Evolutionary theory is still in its infancy, to be watched carefully,
but not taken too seriously. Just remember that in a more empirical science (medicine) they thought that you could treat
blood pressure by cutting men's feet and draining some of the blood, a hundred and fifty years ago. The paleontologists
of two hundred years from now will laugh at what is being published today.
So if I had to choose between
two ideas only: creationists or evolutionists, my choice would be easy. I would rather be wrong with those who give
humans more than just a ride on the whims of fate.
However God created us,
God is intimately involved in every detail, and has a plan for me and you. These are statements of faith. No empirical
science could ever grant us a place to hang our faith from. God bless those brave souls who venture forth in speculative
science. We need them.
Wylie Miller+
+++
Tom, Re. Blemish
One game in Eric Berne's popular
1969 book "Games People Play" is "Blemish." The Blemish player characterizes someone else as an undesirable:
"Hasn't read Proust," "Is Jewish," "Hasn't consulted an encyclopedia of science re. 'theory,'" "Can't
define 'speciation,'" "Makes typos," "Plays Blemish," etc.
Please don't neanderthalize
those who do not share your viewpoint, especially if one of them is me.
BTW I ran a spell-check
on Hockaday's long-playing commentary and got an all-clear, so where are the typos? *Asterisks in place of italics*
is standard e-mail usage because of another chasm dividing the human race into two hostile camps - Windows users vs. everyone
else.
The free online Wikipedia,
with its reader-written (and debated) definitions, is probably a good enough place to at least begin studying
what we're trying to discuss - evolution, creationism, intelligent design, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
As a very pretty young
lady said when, at age 18, I told her I loved her, "Define your terms."
+++
