Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education
Creationism - National Center for Science Education
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
I do not intend to try to resolve this debate, but I suspect that any meaningful and<br />
valid religious system must be amenable to both the intellectualist and the symbolic<br />
approaches. Be<strong>for</strong>e the development of science (and this sequence is perpetuated in each<br />
individual’s development from infancy), the social order was assumed to be the model <strong>for</strong><br />
the “natural order” and <strong>for</strong> “law,” and explanatory theories, even when referring to the<br />
non-social, natural aorld, were conceived in terms of social relations. It is thus to be<br />
expected that the symbolic statements which characterize social behavior should be<br />
extended in the ef<strong>for</strong>t to influence the natural world. The “symbolist” approach then<br />
becomes employed in the pursuit of “intellectualist” goals. Perhaps fundamentalism<br />
involves an emphasis on the intellectualist origins of religion and neglect of its symbolic<br />
nature. Liberal dismissals of fundamentalism as wrongly mixing two totally different<br />
categories—religion and science—may likewise fail to realize that religion was (and still<br />
is, <strong>for</strong> fundamentalists) concerned with attempts to provide theoretical explanations of the<br />
natural as well as the social world.<br />
It may be relevant, in this regard, that strict fundamentalists (but not<br />
Pentecostalists) tend to limit miracles to those expressly described in the Bible. They<br />
insist on supernaturalism, of course, but only biblical supernaturalism (granted, though,<br />
the assumption that Satan and his demons can act supernaturally, or quasi-supernaturally,<br />
provides vast scope <strong>for</strong> incorporation of additional miraculous evidence). The strict<br />
fundamentalist seeks first to explain natural phenomena in non-supernatural terms; only<br />
when this is impossible does he resort to miracle, and only if this miracle is required, or<br />
at least allowed, by the Bible (Barr 1981:238-239). Creation-science explanations of the<br />
Flood and Noah’s Ark, <strong>for</strong> example, generally concede that the animals were<br />
miraculously assembled, but most or all other aspects of the Flood and the Ark are<br />
interpreted in terms of non-miraculous, “scientific” hypotheses. (The Flood itself of<br />
course was divinely ordained, but it became manifest through secondary, natural causes:<br />
e.g. rupture of hypothesized internal sources of water, and collapse of the hypothesized<br />
pre-Flood water canopy surrounding the earth.)<br />
In his detailed presentation of the water canopy theory, The Waters Above:<br />
Earth’s Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy, creation-scientist Joseph Dillow says that his book<br />
(which has a Foreword by Henry Morris) “assumes that the Bible is the inerrant,<br />
authoritative Word of God; there<strong>for</strong>e, it provides a framework <strong>for</strong> scientific investigation<br />
of the ancient earth” (1981:3).<br />
For example, if Moses comments that there was a liquid ocean of water placed up above the atmosphere on<br />
the second creative day, it is necessary to infer that this liquid was arranged by God into some <strong>for</strong>m that<br />
could be maintained by natural law. It would naturally turn to water vapor in view of low vapor pressure<br />
and the solar radiation, unless God supernaturally intervened and prevented it from doing so. Hence, the<br />
area of significance, cautiously applied, and with the assumption that present-day laws of nature applied<br />
then, can give us a “scientific textbook” look at the world that used to be. [1981:37]<br />
The Creation account in Genesis is clearly a straight<strong>for</strong>ward historical narrative, says<br />
Dillow; hence factual and scientific propositions can be derived from it, and scientific<br />
predictions made on the basis of it. A straight<strong>for</strong>ward, “normal” exegesis of Genesis<br />
shows “that :he Bible teaches the existence of a literal ocean of waters above the pre-<br />
Flood earth.”