|
personally, i would imagine that the folk who should be most offended by and opposed to this "creation science" or "intelligent design" nonsense would be christians who are not evangelical protestants/fundamentalist protestants--who do not subscribe to the ludicrous position that the bible must be "interpreted literally"--because that minority position gets fobbed off as representative of "christian" thinking in general--but the catholics dont have this problem, the methodists dont have it, the unitarians dont have it, on and on and on.
this nonsense is about protecting a space for ONE type of christianity.
it's internal structure is the exact mirror of the logic of that ONE type of christianty----a collective fear of change and/or fear of history can be read off the idea that the bible is literally true in its king james version---and with that, there are so many problems that it is hard to know where to even start.
so id/creation "science" is not even an accurate reflection of christianity as a whole--i mean this is the same tradition that enabled a work like whitehead's "process and reality"--which is entirely antithetical to such nonsense.
so this matter is entirely about the political domination of a particular type of christianity in particular parts of the country. nothing else. one index of domination is the ability to impose a particular frame of reference as if it were THE frame of reference. there is nothing substantive at issue in the arguments themselves--they are simply indexical.
maybe later i'll come back to this...
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|