Meh
The Creation of Adam (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There are two topics that keep cropping up, kind of “near” me these days and I cannot be bothered to engage with them.
And yet here I am, writing about them, almost against my will.
Scottish Independence and Creationism.
If I were at a dinner party this evening and was sitting between a vocal pro-independence person and a loquacious creationist, I would struggle, I really would.
*enter my son*
*son reads post so far over my shoulder*
SON: “Do you want Scotland to be independent? Yes or no?”
* Sanstorm weeps*
*exit son*
With the independence thing, I want to know (kind of) the actual arguments for independence because on the face of it, to me, it seems like a daft idea. I reckon I’m as Scottish as the next person, with a special interest in the language, the land, the literature and the history – but I was born in England. I don’t feel oppressed in the least and figure that our population is microscopic – and the politicians seem bent on providing everything for “free” – which has got to be short-sighted, surely. As it can’t really be free. And who is going to pay the taxes when we all get on the easyjet and leave?
All the media seem so far has shown is people getting emotional about Scottishness, which I don’t so far see as incompatible with unionism.
But, as I say, I feel “wrong” and know nothing of any substance to defend my apathetic stance in a dinner party context.
The creationist thing is a more vague gripe. The other day I went to google “Why are Creationists Creationists” and the google suggestions before I got to the second “Creationists” were less than complimentary. I get why Baptists are Baptists. I get why Catholics are Catholics. I get why Presbyterians are Presbyterians – but the Creationist thing leaves me… wondering why one would find Creationism central enough to ones faith to describe oneself as Creationist.
Again, I feel “wrong”, but I don’t think that it matters.
In a similar way to my Britishness and Scottishness mingling happily in my political core, I have no problem with whatever science says and whatever the bible says. Whatever various scientists say, there is room for God. Big bang, evolution – whatever – “God created the heavens and the earth” however he did it, I reckon. I don’t see how generating theories about pre-history helps spiritually. I get how it helps scientifically, but spiritually, I am happy to go with whatever seems scientifically sensible and to marry that to my faith that God is in control, no matter what.
So, with the referendum looming in a year, I weary at the thought of the necessary debate that I’ll have to listen to and take part in until I get to cast my vote. I just wish someone impartial would do the maths and hand me it on a post-it note, so I knew what the sensible vote would be.
And with the Creationist thing – each to their own, but I don’t get it. And am not interested in getting it, unless I am missing some point that I can’t even see.
In a way, it would be a relief not to get any comments on either of these topics, as I am not interested in discussing them in real life.
Right, I’ll go and get back on my very comfortable fence (by whatever means it came to be), swathed in tartan and sip some English tea.
Wee Scoops 
By definition you are a Creationist because a Creationist simply believes that there was a Creator. However I understand that you are referring to literal bible Creationists or Young Earth Creationists? I think for people with that mindset they worry that pulling at any thread could make the whole thing unravel so it’s preferable just to ignore the entirety of scientific endeavour across a range of disciplines.
I would like to say I don’t mind that kind of attitude per se (although I do, I abhor wilful ignorance) but it’s a vitally important issue when people misrepresent or attempt to devalue Science in order to pursue their religio-political agenda. “Teaching the Controversy” (boak) being a case in point.
Do I need to google that?…
It’s okay to go “meh” now and then. And whoever made you believe you need valid arguments to hold an opinion? If that were the case, wouldn’t most politicians be out of a job?
Now that’s a good question: are valid arguments required to hold an opinion? If that was a dinner party topic of conversation, that would be okay 🙂
Isn’t it great to have a blog so that you can write about what you want to? I get your feeling of Meh, it’s yours and it is your’s to have. I’m with you.:)
Yes. It’s therapeutic to vent.
😀
I’m tempted to write you paragraphs of “me too’s!” But I will save you the grief and say simply “I know what you mean.”
Great post. Thank you.
Oh, you’re welcome.
🙂
Scotland. Discovers oil. Gets poorer.
Asked. “Do you want to control what happens in your country?”
Answers. “No, can`t be bothered.”
We`re a strange wee nation.
On Salmond. I will paraphrase Churchill`s comment on democracy.
“Alex Salmond is a very bad form of government. Unfortunately all the alternatives are so much worse.”
Creationism occurs when people believe the “word of god” has to be all truth…..or all lies. The current Christian Bible is only a starting point. It is always good to remember it was written by bronze age goat herders. Maybe they didn`t know everything.
Hola Miguel.
Thanks for all your entirely valid observations. Do you get a vote?
I will be in Scotland to vote.
It will be the second time I have voted in my life.
I vote only in referendums. I do not vote for politicians. It just encourages them.
I believe that if voting for politicians really changed things we would not be allowed to do it. 😉
I think I vote for referenda over referendums. But I think I’ m outvoted.
Difficult questions with no easy answers. Such is life.
That’s my way of respecting your desire for no comments.
Of course, I could have written ‘No comment’; or no comment.
I like that you think.
Indeed. C’est la vie.
Where to start? Hmmm. Scottish independence? Well, that might result in lots of good stuff for Scotland, but it also would result in us losing quite a lot of good stuff too. I’ve yet to hear a compelling case that what we might gain will be greater than what we will lose. (And from a purely selfish point of view, I’m pretty sure that University research funding (i.e. my job) would be worse off if we go it alone.)
Creationism. Here I could go on for hours, if you’d let me. I really do think there is a problem in your stated opinion: “I am happy to go with whatever seems scientifically sensible and to marry that to my faith that God is in control, no matter what.” – because what appears scientifically sensible (for the moment, at least) is that evolution will only work if nobody is in control. ‘Guided evolution’ (a theological halfway house between scientism and creationism) does not work. So we end up with two basic options (1) that God intended us to be pretty much as we are, and made us that way (i.e. human evolution is false) or, (2) that we are the way we are entirely due to evolution, and that if there was a God who started the whole thing off, then he had no control over what kind of animals would evolve, and which would become intelligent and self-aware.
The biblical viewpoint is that humans are the pinnacle of creation, indeed, we are the very reason for creation. God made the universe for us, not the other way about. But if evolution is true, than our current form is just a transient phase and something ‘greater’ will be along in the future after we have evolved further. So we are not the peak, or the pinnacle of anything. Indeed, some random chance in time gone by (like the famous asteroid of 65 million years ago missing the planet) might have led to intelligent sauropods being the dominant species of this planet, and homo sapiens might never have evolved at all.
But, the issue is complicated by the assertion that Jesus incarnated as a human in (relatively) recent human history, so we are special. He didn’t incarnate as a homo habilis or a neanderthal. So that makes us special, right? Jesus incarnation as a human ‘validates’ the claim that God intended to create us, not something else.
And so on, and on, and on. There is a phenomenal amount of stuff to wrestle with here, if you actually dig into it. But I’ll stop there.
Feel free to invite me to a dinner party sometime and sit me next to a creationist. That could be fun! ;o)
Oh, if you have that dinner party, can I come too!? I’d even promise not to say a word. (But I might involuntarily nod in appreciation of the issues Rickster brings to the table.)
Och, he’d be too busy hoovering up the kebabs 😉
I don’t follow your logic at all. But hey. Meh. As they say.
*tries not to comment further*
Both your arguments against a guided evolution both totally don’t resonate with me at all. Maybe it’s because I studied English. But philosophically, I don’t see a problem with either your point 1 or point 2 of why guided evolution is a fail.
But anyway … *lapses into Walt Whitman*