This week's New Scientist had a feature on creationists who are trying to do "creationist science". Of course science cannot be done with preconceptions of this kind.
But one conclusion to be drawn is that creationism itself is worthy of serious investigation - as an exercise in social anthropology.
The revival of creationism is an interesting phenomenon in its own right. Adherents of Christianity and Judaism are not required to believe in the literal truth of scripture. In order to do so, creationists must first accept that these texts came directly from God, which raises the immediate question of how they came into existence? Were they encapsulated in a rock, perhaps a meteorite? Did they arrive in the form of a celestial email, perhaps via a modem connected to the numinal realm - to the mind of the supreme creator who conjoured a material cosmos into being from eternity?
If indeed creationists imagine they can know the divine mind in this way, then they are claiming an authority which exceeds that which their humanity allows them. Only the numinal can fully comprehend itself; as St Paul points out, "we see through a glass darkly." To claim otherwise is a form of blasphemy or idol worship.
We must ask, then, why groups of people are taking up such a position, especially in the light of two centuries of philology which has demonstrated the fluidity of language.
One reason could be that it is an espousal of a form of totalitarianism. In the light of the last century's totalitarianisms, the present creationist revival could well be a rewarding subject for study.
But one conclusion to be drawn is that creationism itself is worthy of serious investigation - as an exercise in social anthropology.
The revival of creationism is an interesting phenomenon in its own right. Adherents of Christianity and Judaism are not required to believe in the literal truth of scripture. In order to do so, creationists must first accept that these texts came directly from God, which raises the immediate question of how they came into existence? Were they encapsulated in a rock, perhaps a meteorite? Did they arrive in the form of a celestial email, perhaps via a modem connected to the numinal realm - to the mind of the supreme creator who conjoured a material cosmos into being from eternity?
If indeed creationists imagine they can know the divine mind in this way, then they are claiming an authority which exceeds that which their humanity allows them. Only the numinal can fully comprehend itself; as St Paul points out, "we see through a glass darkly." To claim otherwise is a form of blasphemy or idol worship.
We must ask, then, why groups of people are taking up such a position, especially in the light of two centuries of philology which has demonstrated the fluidity of language.
One reason could be that it is an espousal of a form of totalitarianism. In the light of the last century's totalitarianisms, the present creationist revival could well be a rewarding subject for study.
Kommentarer