 |
 |
Scott, my thought was that most of us, myself included, do not really understand DNA, (ancient tools in anthro classes looked like rocks to me), and consequently are incapable of evaluating the evidence for evolution. Also, Bronze Age theologies are probably the first explanations people learn about and it is so hard to erase that early training. The article below suggests it is the kind of scientific discovery that determines whether Christians accept it or not: Scott, I've been retired from teaching for 18 years but I still dream about it. The unappealing truth: Why American Christians hate (some) facts What do Copernicus and Darwin have in common?. Each presented a revolutionary worldview that challenged the reigning contemporary perspective. And each was met with vigorous opposition, some of the most vocal coming from the Christian community. While most Americans have accepted the fact that the world revolves about the sun (at least I hope they've accepted it), Darwin's theory of evolution remains a source of vigorous debate. In fact, a biopic about Darwin titled "Creation" cannot even secure a distributor in the U.S., so controversial is its subject. Combining this with the recent survey result that revealed that 68% of Americans believe in angels, and it would be tempting to say that Christians, or at least American Christians, are anti-science. But wait. Not every groundbreaking scientific advance is met with cries of heresy or just plain denial. While areas like stem-cell research hit a nerve with the American Christian community, Einstein, had a relatively easy go of it with his Theory of Relativity. So blanket generalizations don't seem applicable. So, where am I going with this? I'll tell you. Those scientific advances that are met with the greatest opposition from the Christian community are those that paint a world in which man is less unique, less important, and less protected. Copernicus suggested that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the solar system. Imagine the shock in the suggestion that all celestial bodies do not circle our own. And Darwin, of course, suggested that humans were not placed by God directly upon the earth in their present form, but that they "arose" from other "lower" forms of life. What a shot to the human ego that must have been. Not only does that stubborn bitch of a solar system refuse to revolve about us, but we ourselves owe a significant portion of our ancestry to apes, lizards, and fish. So it's no surprise to me that so many of us strongly cling to less-than-fact-based ideas like angels. Angels, at least, allow us to feel not only special but protected. Even a shoot-em-up cop show (packed with booze and bare-bottom sex) has fully embraced the "guardian angel" concept. Of course, in Saving Grace, God appears only as a droopy-faced mastiff with a freakishly long tongue. Make of that what you will. So, is there any hope for an American embrace for evolution? Probably not. Unless someone were to unearth the fossilized remains of a prehistoric human family, complete with car, kitchenette, and laptops--thus demoting those monkeys, lizards, and fish from ancestors to spectators. So while I wholeheartedly support the teaching of evolution as science in public schools (and creationism as fable, or outside the public schools), I think there will always be those who'd rather have an angel on their shoulder than a monkey for an uncle. October 05, 2009 | Permalink don't know who wrote this Rayilyn Brown Director AZNPF Arizona Chapter National Parkinson Foundation [log in to unmask] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn