The Genesis text has become a modern day hermeneutical dilemma in the U.S. (hermenutics is the study of interpretation). The authorial intent of the text is dismissed by literalists, and as a result the literal interpretation has become a filter for validating scientific methodologies. Hence the numerous viewpoints expressed by Creationists equating evolution with atheism.
Theistic Evolution advocates accept two things (one from the scientific arena and one from the theologcial arena):
1) The high probabilities associated with the cosmological sciences pointing to evolution, combined with a Divine Designer concept.
2) An understanding that the Genesis text holds a much deeper meaning than what literalists have to offer: the text served as a theological response to the neighboring Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies as a means of distinguishing the Hebrew God as the sole and infinite creator, with creation being intentional, and God loving His creation.
How Creationism took off in the U.S. and has turned into a full fledged structure of Christian fundamentalism is quite a phenomenon. The Creationists totally bypass the hermeneutical issue with the text and go straight for the scientific jugular.
It all comes down to interpretation. Creationist opt for a prima-facie approach to the text rather than seeking what was really intended in the text. Can you blame them? After all, arts and theatre are dying in our American culture...we are an information culture that doesn't like to have to read beyond the print.
We saw the Creationists rise in the 1980's and begin to fall in the latter 90's. Many of the Ph.D. folk who carried the Creationist banner in the 80's have abandoned the cause and moved on to a newer breed of thinking: Intelligent Design. While ID takes on a more open view of biblical interpretation and a more strategic approach to the scientific aspect, many of its following cling to an Old Earth literalist interpretation.
Here is a great article (2 links to it) by Dr. Conrad Hyers, author of "The Meaning of Creation"
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1332
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/literalism.htm
In conclusion, while the media, the extremists on both sides of the debate, and the fundamentalist pulpits will have you thinking that the debate centers around interpretation of scientific data, the real issue is with the interpretation of the Genesis text. Interestingly, there is a large knowledge gap between the scholarly realm and the pulpit realm. The scholars understand the role of the Genesis text, but usually do not speak out because it is the fundamentalists who are contributing funds to their employer. Scholars don't want to upset the donors.
Thus, this spiral will continue for many more years.
-Phil
Theistic Evolution advocates accept two things (one from the scientific arena and one from the theologcial arena):
1) The high probabilities associated with the cosmological sciences pointing to evolution, combined with a Divine Designer concept.
2) An understanding that the Genesis text holds a much deeper meaning than what literalists have to offer: the text served as a theological response to the neighboring Babylonian and Egyptian cosmologies as a means of distinguishing the Hebrew God as the sole and infinite creator, with creation being intentional, and God loving His creation.
How Creationism took off in the U.S. and has turned into a full fledged structure of Christian fundamentalism is quite a phenomenon. The Creationists totally bypass the hermeneutical issue with the text and go straight for the scientific jugular.
It all comes down to interpretation. Creationist opt for a prima-facie approach to the text rather than seeking what was really intended in the text. Can you blame them? After all, arts and theatre are dying in our American culture...we are an information culture that doesn't like to have to read beyond the print.
We saw the Creationists rise in the 1980's and begin to fall in the latter 90's. Many of the Ph.D. folk who carried the Creationist banner in the 80's have abandoned the cause and moved on to a newer breed of thinking: Intelligent Design. While ID takes on a more open view of biblical interpretation and a more strategic approach to the scientific aspect, many of its following cling to an Old Earth literalist interpretation.
Here is a great article (2 links to it) by Dr. Conrad Hyers, author of "The Meaning of Creation"
http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=1332
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/literalism.htm
In conclusion, while the media, the extremists on both sides of the debate, and the fundamentalist pulpits will have you thinking that the debate centers around interpretation of scientific data, the real issue is with the interpretation of the Genesis text. Interestingly, there is a large knowledge gap between the scholarly realm and the pulpit realm. The scholars understand the role of the Genesis text, but usually do not speak out because it is the fundamentalists who are contributing funds to their employer. Scholars don't want to upset the donors.
Thus, this spiral will continue for many more years.
-Phil
