Fundamentalist Relativism
At first glance the idea of Fundamentalist relativism might seem strange. After all they believe in the inerrancy and literal truth of their holy book. They are right everyone else is wrong and because they believe so must you. Pretty absolutist so far, but watch what happens when the subject of creationism arises.
When seeking to get access to the classroom and thus the minds of the young creationists will start moaning about the tyranny scientific orthodoxy and insist that Darwinian evolution is “just a theory” and thus we can have alternative theories (Einstein’s theory of relativity is also “just a theory” but do they really doubt it?).
Epistemologically speaking this is relativism. Evolution is massively supported by the evidence and discoveries after Darwin died (most notably DNA) have only confirmed it. 150 years on from the publication of the Origin evolution has stood up to everything its opponents have thrown at it and come through with flying colours to be at the core of our understanding of biology, virology and so on – quite an achievement. The ideas proffered by creationists on the other hand are not tested and not testable (how does one prove that a god did anything without first proving that this god exists?) they fail to account for what evolution accounts for and we cannot make predictions based on it. Evolution can explain the emergence of new diseases, just in the last couple of decades Ebola, SARS, bird flu and swine flu have all come into existence where previously they did not exist; creationism cannot account for this fact. Evolution tells us that the emergence of new types of life is based on genetic mutations that are favourable to the organism thus we worry about whether bird flu will mutate so that human to human transmission is possible and attempt to make drugs to attack the virus. Creationism leaves us with an intellectually crippling ‘it must be God’s wrath’ non-explanation.
There are many other examples of the power of evolution’s explanations and predictions but the point is made. Creationism just can’t compete yet its proponents insist that it be given equal weighting in the science classroom with evolution. “There are other ways of knowing!” “Teach the controversy!” we hear. The assumption being that religion is just as good at explaining the natural world as science. Evidence be damned, equal time is the demand. Yet this is a call to set unproved and unprovable religious ideas alongside well tested and supported science as being equal as theories and thus equally true – the basis for this call is an a priori belief that the faithful are right and everyone else is wrong. You put in absolutism at one end and you get relativism at the other, the very thing Fundamentalists decry.
Strangely creationism has its secular defenders in the science studies area of the sociology departments of certain universities, their chief argument being the ‘imperialism of science’ in disproving alternative explanations. The most notable of these unusual people is Professor Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick. You can read more about these guys here.
As Richard Dawkins asked “if science is just a patriarchal western orthodoxy why is it that delegates going to a conference overseas on cultural relativism go by plane and not by magic carpet?”
I hasten to add most Christians are not creationists. However the ones who are are sufficient in number to be a problem, especially in the US where 40% of people claim to have been born again and a majority think the world is only about 6000 years old.
When seeking to get access to the classroom and thus the minds of the young creationists will start moaning about the tyranny scientific orthodoxy and insist that Darwinian evolution is “just a theory” and thus we can have alternative theories (Einstein’s theory of relativity is also “just a theory” but do they really doubt it?).
Epistemologically speaking this is relativism. Evolution is massively supported by the evidence and discoveries after Darwin died (most notably DNA) have only confirmed it. 150 years on from the publication of the Origin evolution has stood up to everything its opponents have thrown at it and come through with flying colours to be at the core of our understanding of biology, virology and so on – quite an achievement. The ideas proffered by creationists on the other hand are not tested and not testable (how does one prove that a god did anything without first proving that this god exists?) they fail to account for what evolution accounts for and we cannot make predictions based on it. Evolution can explain the emergence of new diseases, just in the last couple of decades Ebola, SARS, bird flu and swine flu have all come into existence where previously they did not exist; creationism cannot account for this fact. Evolution tells us that the emergence of new types of life is based on genetic mutations that are favourable to the organism thus we worry about whether bird flu will mutate so that human to human transmission is possible and attempt to make drugs to attack the virus. Creationism leaves us with an intellectually crippling ‘it must be God’s wrath’ non-explanation.
There are many other examples of the power of evolution’s explanations and predictions but the point is made. Creationism just can’t compete yet its proponents insist that it be given equal weighting in the science classroom with evolution. “There are other ways of knowing!” “Teach the controversy!” we hear. The assumption being that religion is just as good at explaining the natural world as science. Evidence be damned, equal time is the demand. Yet this is a call to set unproved and unprovable religious ideas alongside well tested and supported science as being equal as theories and thus equally true – the basis for this call is an a priori belief that the faithful are right and everyone else is wrong. You put in absolutism at one end and you get relativism at the other, the very thing Fundamentalists decry.
Strangely creationism has its secular defenders in the science studies area of the sociology departments of certain universities, their chief argument being the ‘imperialism of science’ in disproving alternative explanations. The most notable of these unusual people is Professor Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick. You can read more about these guys here.
As Richard Dawkins asked “if science is just a patriarchal western orthodoxy why is it that delegates going to a conference overseas on cultural relativism go by plane and not by magic carpet?”
I hasten to add most Christians are not creationists. However the ones who are are sufficient in number to be a problem, especially in the US where 40% of people claim to have been born again and a majority think the world is only about 6000 years old.