Scientific creationism becomes an election issue
World is 6,000 years old

Tom Barrett

"Vancouver Sun" Thursday 16 November 2000

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The first line of the book of Genesis is also the
starting point of scientific creationism, a theory
pushed by a small group of researchers who believe in a
literal interpretation of the Bible.

Scientific creationism became an election issue
Wednesday after Canadian Alliance leader Stockwell Day
told reporters "there is scientific support for both
creationism and evolution."

He made the comments after a CBC News documentary
included clips from an academic who said Day discussed
creationism during a closed speech in Red Deer.

The man said Day told the crowd he believed the world
was 6,000 years old, that men walked with dinosaurs,
that there was no more proof for evolutionism than
creationism and that creationism should be considered
part of the school curriculum.

Most scientists dismiss these arguments, but there are
groups, like the California-based Institute of Creation
Research, that argue that the Bible is literally, and
scientifically, true.

The Institute publishes papers with titles like
Earthquakes and the End Times: a Geological and Biblical
Perspective, Dinosaur Through the Eyes of a Child: The
latest in a long line of cinematic diatribes for Darwinism
produced by the Disney studios," and Complex Life Cycles in
Heterophyid Trematodes: Structural and Developmental Design
in the Ascocotyle Complex of Species.

On its Web site (www.icr.org), the Institute of Creation
Research offers the following "Tenets of Scientific
Creationism":

- "The physical universe of space, time, matter, and
energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally
created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has
existed from eternity.

- "The phenomenon of biological life did not develop by
natural processes from inanimate systems but was specially
and supernaturally created by the Creator.

- "Each of the major kinds of plants and animals was
created functionally complete from the beginning and did not
evolve from some other kind of organism . . . .

- "The first human beings did not evolve from an animal
ancestry, but were specially created in fully human form
from the start."

All these things can be proven scientifically, the
Institute argues.

Ron Ydenberg is a Simon Fraser University biology
professor who has spoken a number of times on scientific
creationism.

"Scientifically none of these things is respectable," he
says of arguments raised by scientific creationists.

"I don't think there's a single piece of credible
evidence for scientific creationism. The motivation for it
isn't scientific. The motivation for it is political or
religious."

Creationism and the theory of evolution are two
completely different things, Ydenberg said.

"If you want moral guidance on an issue you shouldn't
turn to evolutionary theory because that's not what it's
about. But if you want to understand the evolution of
organic diversity on the planet then you shouldn't turn to
the Bible because that's not what it's about."

When questioned by reporters Wednesday, Day said his
religious beliefs are his own business.

But Sharon Betcher, a Lutheran pastor and a theologian
at the Vancouver School of Theology, argues that a
politician's views on science are a legitimate matter
for public debate.

"We need to have some understanding of where a
politician is going to fall out on the question of
interpretation of science or philosophies of science,"
Betcher said.

The ethics of science is a public issue, she said.

Richard Leggett, an Anglican priest and a colleague of
Betcher's at the School of Theology, said media coverage of
Day's beliefs has been one-sided.

"I think that we would not be having this conversation
if Stockwell Day was a Confucian or a Buddhist," Leggett
said.

The media view evangelical Christians like Day as
"sinister characters," Leggett said.

"Does it bother me that he believes in creationism?

"Personally, yes. I don't think that it's a particularly
accurate way of understanding how God brought creation into
being."

On the other hand, Leggett says, "I appreciate lively
debate

. . . .

"It's then the task of the electorate to say whether
those views are ones they want to guide public policy."
   --------------------------------------------------
Comments about this article? Send an e-mail to the writer <tbarrett@pacpress.southam.ca>

Tom Barrett <tbarrett@pacpress.southam.ca>
Oryginal: http://www.vancouversun.com/newsite/news/001116/4879143.html

POWRÓT