Episode two.
Let me offer a few more comments with regard to Julian Huxley's views in Quote Two.
Using our science and religion warfare diagram on page one of the handouts,
it is obvious that Huxley is entrenched in the evolution versus creation dichotomy,
in that he assumes that there are only two positions on
origins -- either evolution or creation.
In particular, he accepts a common understanding of science,
in that it is godless.
And also, a common understanding that evolution is a godless natural process.
But a major theme of this course will be to challenge common terms and definitions,
and to replace them with more precise academic terms and definitions.
More accurately, using academic terminology,
Huxley's position is known as Scientism.
And Scientism is a conflation of number one,
first-rate science; number two, a secular philosophy,
that is a non-religious philosophy; and number three,
humanist ethics, whereby humans decide what right and wrong are.
The term conflation comes from the Latin preposition con,
that means together; and the verb flare, meaning to blow.
Think of when two people are blowing into a balloon.
The air molecules from both individuals completely mix together.
Therefore, the term conflation refers to the careless collapsing and
comingling of distinct ideas into one undifferentiated concept.
The problem with Julian Huxley is that he blends together science, secular philosophy,
and humanist ethics, giving the impression that this is
science and the view held by all scientists.
Let's now consider the other half of the science versus
religion and evolution versus creation dichotomies.
And I will offer you an example of what many people commonly
understand to be the meaning of the terms religion and creation.
Henry Morris is a creation scientist and
the founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
This view of origins is also known as Young Earth creation.
Creation science claims that creation in six days,
6000 years ago, can be proven scientifically.
In Quote Three, Henry Morris writes, "After all,
there are only two basic worldviews,
the God-centered worldview and the man-centered worldview.
Creation or evolution." So here again,
we have a world-renowned individual trapped in the origins dichotomy.
Continuing, Dr. Morris writes,
"There is no evidence whatever for the evolution of
one kind of organism into a more complex organism.
There are no proven scientific evidences that the Earth is old.
Divine revelation from the creator of the world,
(Morris is here referring to the Bible),
states that he did it all in six days, several thousand years ago."
Henry Morris then claims,
"The Bible is a book of science.
The Bible does contain all the basic principles upon which true science,
that is creation science, is built."
In other words, according to Morris,
what's being taught in all universities today regarding
a very old universe and biological evolution is simply false.
Typical of discussions regarding origins,
Henry Morris then makes a statement about ethics,
"If there really is a great personal Creator behind the origin and meaning of all things,
then we urgently need to know Him and to order our lives according
to His will as revealed in His inspired word."
Morris here embraces biblical ethics,
in that only God determines morals and values,
and these are revealed in the Bible.
And if there's any doubt about where Morris is coming from, he concludes,
"Satan himself is the originator of the concept of evolution."
Let me offer some comments.
Like Julian Huxley, it's obvious that Henry Morris is
trapped in the evolution versus creation dichotomy.
He has a common understanding of the term religion,
which for him means that the Bible reveals science and origins.
For Morris, the word creation refers to God creating in
six literal days about 6000 years ago.
And, of course, Morris believes that his view of origins
is the godly and Christian view of origins.
But let's be more accurate,
and let's use academic terms and definitions.
Henry Morris's position is known as fundamentalism,
or more precisely, Christian fundamentalism,
and it is another conflation.
It's a conflation of number one, Christianity;
number two, origins in six days,
which is based on a very strict literal interpretation
of the first chapters of the Bible;
and number three, biblical ethics.
It's worth knowing that Dr. Morris was a wonderful Christian.
But here's a question I'd like you to think about.
Is it possible to be a fully committed Christian and not
accept a literal reading of the biblical creation accounts?
In this course, we'll try to answer this very important question.
End of episode.
Denis LamoureuxAssociate Professor
