Wiccan Creationism, Part 1
What is perhaps not clearly evident is that Wicca is, or rather should be, a creationist religion. The simple reason for this is that, as I will demonstrate in this paper, the evidence against evolution and for creation is so strong that almost no scientist puts stock in the now defunct theory of Darwinian evolution.
When we think of creationism and creationist attempts to disprove evolution, the usual image that comes to mind is a Christian fundamentalist - there are similar critics in Hinduism and Islam, to be sure, but most of those heard from are Christians. This, however, is the first time I have ever seen such a position articulated by a Wiccan. As we shall see, however, there is really nothing new or interesting here - the author, Ashtaroth, even acknowledges that the arguments were taken from an evangelical Christian source.
To begin with, we see the claim that "almost no scientist puts stock in the now defunct theory of Darwinian evolution." Although it might appear in various guises, it is common to read something along these lines in creationist literature. Creationists are forever proclaiming that Darwinism is on the ropes, that evolutionary theory is a sinking ship, that no one in the sciences really believes it anymore, that it only continues to be taught because of a conspiracy of scientists dedicated to defending atheistic orthodoxy, and so forth.
It's all utter nonsense, to be perfectly honest, and it's no less a falsehood coming from a Wiccan creationist than it is coming from a Christian creationist. The most generous conclusion I can draw from the above is that Ashtaroth simply took the claims of Christian creationists at face value and didn't bother to do any sort of independent research to try and confirm whether they were actually true or not.
The simple fact of the matter is that evolutionary theory has been confirmed to such a high degree and has such great explanatory power that it is the central organizing principle of the biological sciences today. Modern biology is basically unthinkable outside of the context of evolution and that is why it is accepted without reservations by pretty much every working scientists in the life sciences. It also isn't really questioned in the other natural sciences, either, like physics or chemistry.
Evolution is taken as a fact - and while there might be disagreements about some of the details of how evolution proceeds, there are no disagreements about the idea that it does occur and that it is the explanation for the diversity of life on our planet. Ashtaroth's claim is exactly the opposite of the truth, which is that "almost no scientist puts any stock in any other attempted explanation for the diversity of life - especially creationism."
There exist two types of evolution: microcosmic and macrocosmic. Microcosmic evolution simply describes the abilities of various life forms to adapt to their environment and is accepted universally. Macrocosmic evolution proposes that life began in the "primordial soup" devoid of intelligent cause and is the source of contention between evolutionists and creationists. It is important to recognize the difference between the two as creationists do not deny microcosmic evolution.
This is perhaps the single "new" thing that appears in Ashtaroth's article - and that's not saying much. In most creationists literature we can find attempts to distinguish between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution." This has become necessary because creationists cannot dispute the fact that changes in life forms do occur, so they try and argue that these changes are "micro-evolutionary," an event which is very different from the "macro-evolutionary" changes which scientists say occur.
Unfortunately for creationists, there are no logical or biological barriers between the small changes that get grouped under "micro-evolution" and the larger changes that get grouped under "macro-evolution." Insofar as biologists uses these terms, it is generally to refer to changes that rise to the level of speciation or not - and there is no question about the fact that speciation does occur because it has been observed in the field and in the laboratory.
I have no idea where Ashtaroth got these ideas here about "microcosmic" and "macrocosmic" evolution; I suspect that they were simply made up. There is certainly no parallel distinction between two types of evolution in evolutionary theory - and that's important because the purpose of this article is show evidence "against evolution."
Now, what Ashtaroth describes as "microcosmic" evolution is simply what evolutionary theory is: the change in allele frequency in a population over time in response to environmental pressures. That's it. That's evolution. Ashtaroth's concept of "macrocosmic" evolution does not exist in standard evolutionary theory - what he is describing is abiogenesis, the study of how life might have developed from non-life. It's obviously a related topic, but it's not the same topic.
Ashtaroth is wrong that this is the "source of contention" between evolutionists and creationists. It is a source of contention, but largely because creationists have been misled and have been misleading others about the idea that abiogenesis is a part of evolutionary theory. Ashtaroth is also wrong in his description of the state of abiogenesis research, a description which I have not bothered to reproduce here because there is simply no point. Research into how life might have originated has gone quite a bit further than Ashtaroth is aware of - but I think that it was made clear earlier that he relied far too much on the writings of creationists and far too little on independent research with scientific sources.
This is a response to the article "Evolution vs. Creationism: A Witch's Perspective" which can be found at Witchvox. Part 2 will appear tomorrow.
Read More:
Comments
No comments yet. Leave a Comment