The Da Vinci Code is opening up some interesting contrasts—like creationists who suddenly find scholarship and expertise in a discipline to be worth something.
Just to correct one false impression: the blogger that led to the article does plainly state that he “has no truck with creationism”. However, one of the authors of the article itself is more lukewarm, and is willing to credit the empty noise of ID with some value and gripes about those authoritarian scientists, who he thinks ought to be more humble. The irony alert is still valid.
As long as we’re talking about accuracy, the article appears in Catholic Online. The Catholic church is mostly anti-ID, and the church as a whole has a history of valuing scholarship and intellectual activity, which is one of the big ways it contrasts with fundamentalist American churches.
I should clarify that I’m not a fan of Catholicism (or religion at all for that matter), but I didn’t see any evidence for lumping the interviewees into the creationist camp, or evidence that they’ve supported any ID tripe. Which kind of undermines the thesis of the entire 1000 word post.
Or maybe this lack of attention to detail was meant as meta-irony to critique ID books?
OK, in addition to having to make the faux pas of a third comment in a row, I also embarrassingly have to admit that yes indeed these interviewees should be lumped into the ID camp. It took reading some fairly offensive posts on Mark Shea’s blog, but I finally found the evidence:
http://www.markshea.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_markshea_archive.html#113759807971523131
Glad Charlie found Mark Shea’s post…I was going to point it out. Just a clarification: Chris Heard apparently doesn’t have a “truck with creationism” – I was simply pointing out that I found the Catholic Online article when I was perusing Heard’s site…there was no intention to lump him with creationists. I was trying to give him credit for a) having an interesting blog that I would suggest going to; and b) sourcing a story that I turned into my own post. Hopefully I didn’t do him more harm than good…
I think I’ve clarified all that in an addendum to the post. Mark Shea, if not an outright creationist, is clearly in the “I question the credibility of scientists in the discipline” on the ID issue, but is in the “I accept the credibility of historians in the discipline” camp on the Da Vinci code nonsense.
It’s all about the group of experts you want to believe and in what context. Remember that creationists will claim historians are credible whenever they agree with their beliefs. Otherwise they are Christianity destroying atheists bent out to make every child a rapist, gay or both.
Also, the original on-linker (Higgaion) doesn’t like Intelligent Design either:
http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/2006/02/id-and-religion.html
At least Mark Shea is acting in a manner consistent with his blog’s stated mission: “So That No Thought of Mine, No Matter How Stupid, Should Ever Go Unpublished Again!”
This is perfect. Could someone please compile a list of scientists who support this book as completely factual. I’m sure it could be done. Then we could petition schools, in the name of acedemic freedom, to “teach the controversy” between Catholics and Dan Brown fans. You know, a “balanced treatment” of both sides so students can learn to “critically analyze”. To be clear, I’m not suggesting we teach about the Da Vinci Code, but students should be made aware that there are problems with the historical truths presented in the Bible.
Will, I just wish I had said that first. It is exactly what I thought, let’s have fans of two fictional books battle it out. And at least one of them involves a known hoax.
Since when people use a fiction book as a reference for anything?? Making people think and decide about issues they’d probably never heard of before is one thing and using fiction as history is another.
Not really, the ways in which the church has ignored evidence and punshed dissenters is quite legendary. They are fundy in their own way even if on some avenues they are less strident in their views. Once they establish a dogma, it’s there and no amount of evidence will change it.
Since when people use a fiction book as a reference for anything??
I was duly impressed when my carpenter’s assistant told me she was using primary sources in research for a paper for her community college anthro class.
Turns out by “primary sources” she meant “Clan of the Cave Bear”.
Raven T. ,primary sources can be anything, from grandma’s rantings to local papers, merchandise orders or personal diaries. It depends on what you need the source for.
What I meant is that if I’m going to write an essay about italian art,for example,fiction is the last thing I’d put in my references list.
I must have failed to get my point across, cp, because I was actually agreeing with you; I was just relating an anecdote about someone who didn’t realize the difference. At the time, I was impressed that she was using primary research sources about ancient humans, right up until the moment I learned what she thought “primary sources” means.
To be quite clear, I agree with you, and would not consider “Clan of the Cave Bear” or any other fiction a primary source for a paper for anthropology or any other academic discipline.
correction–literature, maybe; I don’t know enough to comment about research in that area. But certainly not in the sciences, at any rate.
“Not really, the ways in which the church has ignored evidence and punshed dissenters is quite legendary. ”
Well…yes really. Look at all the great universities and colleges throughout Europe and the US. What has become legendary is the critique that the church is this big, bad oppressor of dissent especially in the sciences. A critical reading of history will show that it is simplistic (faith-based)to categorically buy this argument, though it makes for quick, short sound bites and pronouncements in our enlightened age.