From Genesis to Genetics

From Genesis to Genetics

John A. Moore

I had high hopes for this one. Just published (2002), subtitled The case of Evolution and Creationism, it naturally caught my attention. The “blurbs” all sounded good. But my hopes were falling fast before I got past the preface.

This book does nothing to move us ahead, nothing to bring reason or enlightenment to the evolution vs. creation debate. My first clue should have been the subtitle itself, when we see the term “creationism” rather than “creation”. That usually clues us into a certain intellectual position, one of disrespect for the “ism” side. Here, again, we find an author who comes assuming evolution is a “fact”, and (divine) creation is merely an “ism”, read “fanaticism”. As if there isn't also an “evolutionism” in this world!

Unfortunately, all of Mr. Moore's ideas are mired in the mid-20th century. He represents all creation thinking with a simplified KJV version (which you and I know is not appropriate) of Genesis, and his entire essay reads like a comic book caricature. Even his scientists are flat as comic book drawings, idealized super heroes. You can imagine how those on the “other side” are drawn: the usual simple “Christian fundamentalists”. Now mind you, because we're all good guys and not intolerant “fundamentalists” on our (us science folk) side, we don't so much scorn them as pity them, and hope that this book will rescue from their lack of wisdom and intelligence.

Indeed, like a comic book, this book portrays the world in black and white simplicity, where the modern super heroes of science must hold the lines against the resurgence of the medieval Creationists. He seems to think they are staging a comeback, even overcoming some of the fortresses of public education. Here are a few quotes that show you the background and plot of his story:

Scientists, supported by the nation's courts, demand that teachers present evolution - and only evolution - as the accepted scientific explanation for the origin of life's diversity. Creationists, on the other hand, demand that educators exclude evolution from the curriculum - but if educators must teach it, they should also be required to teach a competing theory, called creation science, as a “logical” alternative.

Scientists, apparently as one monolithic voice, make the apparently sensible demand that only their metaphysical belief system be taught. Why, it's so reasonable a demand that even the nation's courts, which we know are infallible apolitical and non-biased arbiters, side with them. But creationists, also caricatured as one simple think-alike crowd, want to banish the good guys and substitute something so bad it even needs to be excepted from “logical”. Though he does tacitly acknowledge a few different varieties, later - like intelligent design, young earth and old earth creation theories, etc. - generally they still get lumped together as a single straw man to be refuted as he takes his own one simplified understanding of the Scriptural creation account to task. As I said, this resembles comic book characters fighting out a comic book version of good and evil.

He continues:

Many school boards, principals, and biology teachers [are caving in]…. some educators find them selves asking: “Does it really matter if children never learn about evolution?”

Now that is a fair question. As you should know, I personally do think they should learn about it, but honestly and fairly represented. Recognize that evolution is but a theoretical paradigm, still plagued with many fundamental questions and issues, and it is no more scientifically testable than a creation hypothesis when it comes to most of the questions Evolutionists want it to answer. But more to the point of that question, for most of us in every day life and careers, including careers in 99% of the sciences, it doesn't really matter whether creation or evolution is the truth of our origins.

However, predictably he answers the question differently:

Yes, I believe that it matters a great deal, for much more than evolution is on trial. A very important principle is at stake - the principle that the science curriculum in the schools should reflect what scientists have accepted…

Now what is the difference, here? According to Moore, one religion - one set of beliefs about the origins of all the universe and life is called “science” - and it should be state established and proselytized. The other shouldn't. Mr. Moore doesn't even see the parity here: that he has a set of beliefs just as a creationist has a set of beliefs; that he thinks the evidence he recognizes bears his paradigm out just as a creationist does. In his mind there is no alternative even possible (that is being dogmatic), let alone one worthy of being heard about and independently evaluated and accepted or rejected by the rest of his species. This is ethnocentrism, egocentrism, and hypocrisy. There is no open mind, here, as he continually insists we must all have. No open mind, here, as he insists is the one fundamental ethic of science. No open mind, here, as he insists a democratic society must have. There is only a man very afraid that his own religion might not remain the official state religion.

But, like a comic book hero, he has good intentions - he must save the world:

…our public schools seem to be in danger of jettisoning scientific procedures at just the moment when we need the tools of science most to help us solve a host of social and environmental problems. In fact, the data and methods of science must be used if humanity is to have a relatively benign future.

Never mind that so many of the problems we face were created or exacerbated by science, shouldn't he at least recognize that some folks think our best hope is getting some of that other religion back into public education? Anyway, you can see the comic book storyline plainly here. If humanity is to at least survive, scientists must ride to the rescue. Well, maybe they really can help us with some of the problems we face, but what's the issue of creation versus evolution got to do with it? A scientist can do great science in almost every single discipline and field, and still believe in God and divine creation.

Mr. Moore, I'm afraid, is just another circuit-riding preacher trying to convert us to his church. Well, any Christian worth his or her salt should try to convert him, too, I guess. So it's OK he preaches at us. I only wish he had something new to bring to the table. I love to hear new ideas, new thinking, new revelations about God or the creation, but Moore has nothing new to add. He's merely handing us one of his side's comic book type tracts.


	Home Back To Index Of Reviews From Genesis to Genetics by John A. Moore I had high hopes for this one. Just published (2002), subtitled The case of Evolution and Creationism, it naturally caught my attention. The “blurbs” all sounded good. But my hopes were falling fast before I got past the preface. This book does nothing to move us ahead, nothing to bring reason or enlightenment to the evolution vs. creation debate. My first clue should have been the subtitle itself, when we see the term “creationism” rather than “creation”. That usually clues us into a certain intellectual position, one of disrespect for the “ism” side. Here, again, we find an author who comes assuming evolution is a “fact”, and (divine) creation is merely an “ism”, read “fanaticism”. As if there isn't also an “evolutionism” in this world! Unfortunately, all of Mr. Moore's ideas are mired in the mid-20th century. He represents all creation thinking with a simplified KJV version (which you and I know is not appropriate) of Genesis, and his entire essay reads like a comic book caricature. Even his scientists are flat as comic book drawings, idealized super heroes. You can imagine how those on the “other side” are drawn: the usual simple “Christian fundamentalists”. Now mind you, because we're all good guys and not intolerant “fundamentalists” on our (us science folk) side, we don't so much scorn them as pity them, and hope that this book will rescue from their lack of wisdom and intelligence. Indeed, like a comic book, this book portrays the world in black and white simplicity, where the modern super heroes of science must hold the lines against the resurgence of the medieval Creationists. He seems to think they are staging a comeback, even overcoming some of the fortresses of public education. Here are a few quotes that show you the background and plot of his story: Scientists, supported by the nation's courts, demand that teachers present evolution - and only evolution - as the accepted scientific explanation for the origin of life's diversity. Creationists, on the other hand, demand that educators exclude evolution from the curriculum - but if educators must teach it, they should also be required to teach a competing theory, called creation science, as a “logical” alternative. Scientists, apparently as one monolithic voice, make the apparently sensible demand that only their metaphysical belief system be taught. Why, it's so reasonable a demand that even the nation's courts, which we know are infallible apolitical and non-biased arbiters, side with them. But creationists, also caricatured as one simple think-alike crowd, want to banish the good guys and substitute something so bad it even needs to be excepted from “logical”. Though he does tacitly acknowledge a few different varieties, later - like intelligent design, young earth and old earth creation theories, etc. - generally they still get lumped together as a single straw man to be refuted as he takes his own one simplified understanding of the Scriptural creation account to task. As I said, this resembles comic book characters fighting out a comic book version of good and evil. He continues: Many school boards, principals, and biology teachers [are caving in]…. some educators find them selves asking: “Does it really matter if children never learn about evolution?” Now that is a fair question. As you should know, I personally do think they should learn about it, but honestly and fairly represented. Recognize that evolution is but a theoretical paradigm, still plagued with many fundamental questions and issues, and it is no more scientifically testable than a creation hypothesis when it comes to most of the questions Evolutionists want it to answer. But more to the point of that question, for most of us in every day life and careers, including careers in 99% of the sciences, it doesn't really matter whether creation or evolution is the truth of our origins. However, predictably he answers the question differently: Yes, I believe that it matters a great deal, for much more than evolution is on trial. A very important principle is at stake - the principle that the science curriculum in the schools should reflect what scientists have accepted… Now what is the difference, here? According to Moore, one religion - one set of beliefs about the origins of all the universe and life is called “science” - and it should be state established and proselytized. The other shouldn't. Mr. Moore doesn't even see the parity here: that he has a set of beliefs just as a creationist has a set of beliefs; that he thinks the evidence he recognizes bears his paradigm out just as a creationist does. In his mind there is no alternative even possible (that is being dogmatic), let alone one worthy of being heard about and independently evaluated and accepted or rejected by the rest of his species. This is ethnocentrism, egocentrism, and hypocrisy. There is no open mind, here, as he continually insists we must all have. No open mind, here, as he insists is the one fundamental ethic of science. No open mind, here, as he insists a democratic society must have. There is only a man very afraid that his own religion might not remain the official state religion. But, like a comic book hero, he has good intentions - he must save the world: …our public schools seem to be in danger of jettisoning scientific procedures at just the moment when we need the tools of science most to help us solve a host of social and environmental problems. In fact, the data and methods of science must be used if humanity is to have a relatively benign future. Never mind that so many of the problems we face were created or exacerbated by science, shouldn't he at least recognize that some folks think our best hope is getting some of that other religion back into public education? Anyway, you can see the comic book storyline plainly here. If humanity is to at least survive, scientists must ride to the rescue. Well, maybe they really can help us with some of the problems we face, but what's the issue of creation versus evolution got to do with it? A scientist can do great science in almost every single discipline and field, and still believe in God and divine creation. Mr. Moore, I'm afraid, is just another circuit-riding preacher trying to convert us to his church. Well, any Christian worth his or her salt should try to convert him, too, I guess. So it's OK he preaches at us. I only wish he had something new to bring to the table. I love to hear new ideas, new thinking, new revelations about God or the creation, but Moore has nothing new to add. He's merely handing us one of his side's comic book type tracts.