1. Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools

Comment #12493 by CatMac on December 12, 2006 at 7:34 am

I'd like to go back to an earlier objection of TimeLord's on a comment from one of his/her many detractors

"The Christian creation story is based upon numerous other mythological stories"
And, of course, you can prove that?? Or even support it???

The Christian creation story does indeed appear to be based on numerous earlier myths. In fact if one examines the parallels closely, it seems to be a direct copy of earlier creation myths. You don't have to look very hard for the evidence that might support this argument. Consider the similarities between the story of Christ and any of the many of "pagan" religions that were popular around the time of, or preceding, the alleged birth of Christ. The Dionysis myth of ancient Greece and the Sun God Ra from ancient Egypt are just two examples. You will find a common thread in all of them; a child is born of God, who then must die and be resurrected before achieving enlightenment and a higher state of consciousness. These are likely reinterpretations of more ancient mythology that comes from a time from which no proper written or oral history has been preserved. There is nothing new here, the foundations of all creation myths probably originate from early beliefs that the primary God or Goddess was nature, from a time when the cycling of seasons and the death and rebirth of the land dictated the beginning of new life and consequently was the basis of human spirituality. Therefore, there is nothing new in Christianity, or any modern religion for that matter; they simply recycle ancient mythology that had its foundations in the nature of survival.

The birth of any new religion or creed is generally founded not on some cataclysmic supernatural event but in frustration with the political and spiritual control exercised by the existing authorities. A new religion does not appear overnight, it is a gradual process of political change over decades, or more likely centuries. It is often generated by a small group of individuals who take a Gnostic approach towards theology rather than literal interpretation. People who want to retell this particular story, for that is what it is, in an allegorical form that gives guidance on raising the level of consciousness in the individual to elevate moral, ethical and spiritual standards in society. It is a fable, a tale to teach a moral lesson on humanity. This new faith is gradually adopted by those who become disillusioned with the old until it grows to such an extent that it finally has to be hijacked by the establishment as a way of regaining authority.

There is no doubt that humans search for spirituality, it permeates every aspect of our history and there is growing evidence for it in ancient prehistory of our species. The question you should be asking yourself, if you have courage to question yourself, is not whether this proves the existence of God but rather what it is in the genetic make up of our species, compared with all others, that causes us to adopt these practices and look towards abstract symbolism for answers.

Your counter arguments against evolution are weak and unformed. You seem to dismiss all evolutionary biology out of hand because there are flaws in Darwinism or because there are significant gaps in the fossil record. Rather than just dismissing these well constructed but admittedly incomplete and sometimes flawed theories, you might consider this. As a species we are in our infancy and so far we have been gathering scientific, evidence-based information on the origins of life for a mere 200–300 years. This is a very short period to collect and comprehend all the information that might explain the development of a hugely complex biological matrix that has been ongoing for several billion years. Here is the biggest problem that I have with your arguments; humans who follow your creed, or any other religious doctrine that supports the idea of creationism, seem to believe that we are the endpoint of evolution, that we are the pinnacle of creation and, therefore, must be all knowing. In which case, surely we must have an argument that provides a definitive answer to the origins of life? For if we don't, what does that say about our importance on this earth?

Unfortunately, this belief is not confined to those adhering to literalist religion. There are many scientists who also believe that our species is the endpoint of evolution. Scientists are after all human and are no more or less immune to hubris that any one else. The difference is that there are many scientists who choose not to think this way and so, as a discipline of thought, science provides some hope of advancement in information and education of our species. With our current technology and level of understanding, science is riddled with imperfections and as I scientist I'll happily admit it. However, it is based on looking for answers. This in direct contrast to literalist religion, which seems to be based on ceasing to look for answers. That should be enough of a danger to prevent the latter being taught in our schools, to prevent a theory being taught to our children that will encourage them to stop thinking at the very point when they should be training themselves to think about everything.

My apologies that this has turned into a lengthy essay and that it barely scrapes the surface of what we could discuss. However, if you care to look for it, there is a mountain of literature available that covers all of the things I've outlined and much more besides. I can provide some references if you are interested. No doubt you will dismiss much of it as being based on unsupported theory and ask again for direct evidence that proves it. But if you do, bear in mind that there is no less evidence than there is in support of your own arguments. It is ironic that you ask those in support of current scientific theory to provide proof in the form of hard facts that would explain everything when you are unable to do so yourself.

So to go back to your original objection that I mentioned at the start – that there is nothing to support the creation myth being based on other, older myths – do you not think you should start by examining the supporting information that is available before maintaining that there is none, or before demanding that someone else lay it out before you? It might improve your credibility if you appear to know some thing about the theories you are refuting.