We can’t find any news this weekend about The Controversy between evolution and creationism, so we’ll have to create our own.
We were thinking (more or less) about some half-remembered snippets of old Western movies involving conflicts between American settlers and American Indians. Yes, we know that nowadays they’re called Native Americans, but for this essay we’ll use the old term. It struck us that there are some loose analogies between Indians and creationists. This is quite a stretch, but bear with us.
What made us think along these lines was the way the Indians (at least as portrayed in movies) were so insistent on rejecting reality. They imagined that they could appeal to their tribal deities and be immune to the Cavalry’s gunfire (see Ghost Dance). They practiced tribal medicine. They generally rejected all of the science and technology that the settlers enjoyed — unless (according to the movies) they could find some rascals who would sell them guns.
As with creationism, attitudes about American natives have fluctuated wildly over the generations. The concept of the noble savage has gone in and out of fashion. It seems to be back in these days. We have no knowledge of such things, and therefore we have no opinion, but if you want an example of when that concept was really out of fashion, take a look at Charles Dickens’ The Noble Savage written in 1851. Rough stuff indeed. Dickens was a man of his time. Were he around today, we’d like to see what he’d say about creationists.
It should be obvious by now that your Curmudgeon is no expert on native Americans. We admit it, and we openly declare that we’re relying on Hollywood stereotypes. Our ignorance isn’t important because it’s the idea — true or not — of Indian reality-denial that made the connection for us between Indians and creationists. All that we’re doing here is using the Hollywood image of Indians as an excuse for another anti-creationist rant. As you know, we’re contemptuous of creationists because they’re the supreme masters of reality-denial, refusing to accept evidence that contradicts their mythology.
Is there anything other than reality-denial to our analogy of Indians (Hollywood style) and creationists? Yes, and here the analogy gets a bit stronger. The Indians were resentful that the Americans were moving into and taking over what had for ages been exclusively their territory. We can’t blame them for that. The analogy here is that creationists are resentful of how science is moving into what they assume is their territory — understanding and explaining the world. Unlike the Indians’ attitude toward their lands, the creationists are totally unjustified, because reality has never been theirs.
Creationists only imagine that the task of explaining reality belongs to them. That attitude exists because for thousands of years they had no competition. Now they do, and their millennia of explanatory efforts aren’t holding up very well in comparison to the discoveries of science. Instead of embracing the new knowledge, they reject it — and wherever possible they attack it. Creationists’ behavior is worthy of Jefferson’s seldom-quoted phrase in the Declaration: “the merciless Indian savages.”
Where are we going with this little essay? Not very far. In fact, we’ve probably said way too much because, as we’ve already admitted, we know nothing about Indians except what we’ve seen in the movies, and we’re using that image only as metaphor. But we note that cultures based on reality-denial don’t have a very good success record when they compete with better-informed societies. Perhaps the creationists could learn something valuable from watching some old movies.
So there you are. That’s what happens around here when there’s no news to report. From now on we’ll leave the Wild West to John Wayne.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think today’s creationists have much more in common with the Cargo Cults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum
“Reality-denying” is not, I think, a fair term to apply to American Indians. Reality changed more quickly than they could. Many people have found themselves in that position, like the Khoisan with the Bantu or Tibetans with Chinese, or the Hopi with the Navajo and the Anasazi before them.
Perhaps taking a day off would be a better move when there’s no news to report.
Hm, a lot of mines possible to step upon in this area. However, I doubt that we’re as likely to be hit with political correctness here as in many other blogs, so why not have a go at it?
First, one of the grievances of the American colonists was the fact that the British wouldn’t allow them to move into the territories still held by “the merciless Indian savages.” The Brits weren’t necessarily all that concerned about the Indians, however, they weren’t interested in fighting them again, as they had in the “French and Indian War” (“Seven Years War” in Europe).
Second, it’s probably fair to say that religious claptrap being taught as truth to Indian kids on the reservations is not considered to be nearly so bad as teaching religious claptrap as truth to kids outside of reservations. You know, it’s “cultural” and “Native Americans are so religious” and other rather racist nonsense, even if better than “Indian savages.” Still, education is probably going to be largely up to the tribes on the reservations, in accordance with treaties, so the legal issues aren’t really in contention (at least not as far as I know).
Here’s an interesting story of including Indian myth in an effort to make science relevant. I doubt that we’re really going to get a very full story of Indian education from the media, including from the internet, as there’d be little stomach for noting nonsense that might be taught. Yet this story looks encouraging. However, there is no analogy between relating science to Indian myth with science thereby being illuminated with a positive light and any kind of similar relationship between Genesis (or with John moreso for IDists) and science, because of the deep antagonisms between creationist Christianity and science.
I’m not wholly without sympathy with creationists trying to preserve their own culture and religion against threats. The trouble is that, where evolution is involved, their sentiments and frequent legal maneuverings conflict with other important cultural (and often religious) and legal expectations, such as freedom of religion, and the government providing a good education to children.
The fact is that it is the sense of fair play and of considering “both sides” (as if there were only two, but most creationists only acknowledge two) that creationists oppose. Creationists are offended that science is taught in schools which contrasts with the dogma taught at home and in churches. Also, because science is so capable, the dogma loses out in many cases. Indeed, there is no problem with “both sides” being presented at all in society at large, but we can’t teach religion in public schools, and, there’s nothing to teach about creationism/ID except variations of “God did it,” anyhow.
Surely, if ID/creationism were so obviously true, it would have no problems against the mere “materialistic science” taught in schools? Yet it does, even though it’s pretty obvious that strong denialism has been instilled into many fundamentalist kids. There is nothing about denying evolution a voice in the lives of many kids that can be called “American fair play” or whatever the well-poisoners appeal to in order to push their denialist message into schools. I know that personally, for I had a creationist upbringing and religious schooling, and it always struck me as wrong as a kid that we weren’t supposed to learn the case for evolution, since creationism should be able to make a better case than evolution could (and yes, I did think that creationism could, until I was 15 and more capable of rightly considering these matters).
I think that the Indians over the course of the Indian wars in which both sides engaged (clearly the Indians were provoked in most cases, of course, but both sides were in fact quite savage) were not in any position in which to learn about science. They were quite conservative, really, however they also had no real cultural or intellectual experience of the Enlightenment, and needed effective technology (guns, of course) far more than the methods of science. Hence, they were not exactly prone to learning science.
There should be some sensitivity accorded to Indians and to fundamentalists regarding their cultures and their concerns. I can see no reason, though, to praise any case of Indians teaching myth as history or science (does this happen?), even though I do suppose that treaties leave that up to the tribes within their reservations. And the fundamentalists cannot demand more than a certain amount of religious tolerance, and I would argue even some religious respect, from the schools, as the latter teach (let us hope) the “science side” to kids whose parents really want them to have no meaningful exposure to evolution.
“Protecting” their kids from science and its conclusions is contrary to the culture that the vast majority of fundamentalists espouse, and it does not allow the children to choose their own destinies. If the kids do value their culture and religion more than truth and science, then they can deny the latter as much as they may wish. But what right has any fundamentalist to demand that their children deny science for no more reason than that they have never been taught it, or because IDists have succeeded in poisoning the wells of learning at taxpayers’ expense?
Gabriel Hanna says:
After I wrote the thing, I liked the analogy of territory-invasion a lot more than reality-denial.
“Cavalry’s gunfire”
I mean, there probably wouldn’t have been any gunfire from Calvary until 1948.
Ed Darrell said:
1848 is good enough. I was thinking of George Custer.
Ed’s point is that Custer had a cavalry, while gunfire at Calvary (Golgotha) would be likely enough during the armed conflict surrounding Israel’s independence.
Okay, okay. I’ve finally figured it out. Ghastly typo. Probably Christmas related. All fixed now. Thank you, gentlemen.
Ah, creationists think they own everything. Now I see why Galileo is rolling his eyes. Darwin doesn’t look very happy about it either. Someone wipe the smirk off of Ben Franklin’s face please. Bad hair day for Issac Newton. (I forgot who the other dudes are.)
I should leave the corrections to Glen.
S.C., of all your 2000+ posts this may be your worst writing. Yes, it was quite a stretch, too much in my opinion, to use Hollywood stereotypes of Indians as analogues of creationists.
Yours is the only blog I read every day. Generally I enjoy what you write and the comments of the regulars here. I know you respect reason more than most creationists do.
The Bicycling Guitarist says: “this may be your worst writing.”
You’re probably right.
One lesser post out of two thousand gems is pretty good.