What do creationists actually believe?

...or rather, What does a typical evangelical Christian creationist (intelligent and discerning in most other ways) actually believe?

As the Bush regime begins the process of becoming part of American political history most of us will hope the influence of American creationists will similarly be consigned to the past. Or at least creationist advocates will have smaller influence upon science education policy both in America, Europe and elswhere. But perhaps this hope is misplaced: we've only recently been reminded that creation myths are not the preserve of the Christian faith suggesting as long as the myths perpetuate themselevse they will sporn rhetoricians and polemicists in support. Or is that the other way round? Either way this is clearly a tired political inevitability of which we haven't heard the last.

But beyond the big political and social questions, how do individual believers justify creationism over the long run (with the overhelming evidence and expert consensus against them)? Do they simply put their fingers in their ears intoning "I can't hear you. God did it. Seven days. Tree of knowledge. Talking snakes. Free will --> temptation --> the fall man"? Well, no. Some might, but those who sense the inadequcy of just ignoring mainstream science will go looking for better reassurances than this. Enter the gothic imaginings of 'Creation Science'.

A recent exchange with a (sincere and undoubtedly intelligent) creationist prompted an attempted traversing on my part of the peculiar intellectual terrain well troden by creationists who've been busy at the business end of advocacy over the years. Yes, that's right, the immortal Dwaine "T" Gish of Googlewhack fame as the 'authority' on fossils and Henry Morris, the father of this curious discipline. Much has already been said about these characters and indeed the last time an academic offered something approaching a full critique in the 80s, the main points were well covered. For those already up to speed or uninterested, skip the next paragraph ;)

In a nutshell: the "case for" creationism is really an attempted critique of the theory of evolution, with extra helpings of myopia. First off, the earth is not 4.5b years old, but rather 10k. All conventional dating methods use flawed assumptions (i.e. rates of atomic decay in rocks and the speed of light through the cosmos are not more or less constant but have fluctuated wildly in the past). The fossil record is layered with organism complexity increasing through higher and higher strata, but this is evidence for a Biblical Flood because larger animals would have survived the deluge longer and were thus buried last. (There's more on this - don't ask!). There are appeals to everything from the principals of entropy to the alleged collapse of morality that ensues at societal level when 'evolutionism' (as they call it) becomes the dominant mode. Superficalliy pursasive to the naive and less-able. Polemical, dishonest and damaging in reality.

Much of this is familiar. But what I hadn't realised was the extent to which they've attempted to cover every angle. How do creationists respond to the charge that the overwhelming expert consensus regarding the history of planet earth is against them? Every trick in the book is used from the mis-reading of Kuhn to emotional blackmail. Even mutually contradictory strategies are pursued. Apparently "there isn't an overwhelming consensus". They usually announce this on the back of some heavy duty quote-ripping. (In a parody of the statement signed by several dozen nobel laureates on the essential facts of evolutionary theory, the Institute of Creation Research publishes the names of 20 scientists who converted to their cause (no matter that 15 of these held PhDs in engineering, food-science and educational practice)). But as this credential-mongering is offered with one hand, the other offers the conflicting theory that science is a closed shop and that anyone with evidence which would undermine evolutionary theory is ignored. The first tactic is disengenius, the second downright and demonstratively dishonest. To claim that both are simultaneously true enters 'square-circle' territory.

The strange thing about all this is that intelligent people are ever taken in by it. The reasons for for this will be many. Perhaps religious belief is compartmentalised and favoured when conflicts arise. Then again personal histories are complex. Etc. But there is one particularly ironic possibility I hadn't considered until only recently. Higher intellegence and greater mental farsightedness might actually lead someone towards creationism, if the will is strong enogh. Once irrevocably committed to Christian doctrine, the moderate and the extremist take different paths when it comes to whether or not the first part of the book of Genisis should be read literally. The moderate assumes that the apparent disconnect between the all-loving/all-powerful god on the one hand and the brutality and suffering of nature red-in-tooth-and-claw on the other can somehow be reconciled through deep theological cognition. The soon-to-be-'extremest', seeing that this is folly and that the pitiless indifference of human biological history can't be squared with their conception of god, rejects the science on foundational and technical issues which can be argued in perpetuity. This leaves their faith undamaged by modern philosophy, which, they may now comfort themselves, is premised on a false science. This mental agility, performed early on in life, is not required of the moderate. I should say however, this will only ever apply in a minority of cases. But interesting cases they are!

I think I've said enough on this for now. Sorry for the long post. And remember:

Knowledge Apples --> Talking Snakes --> The Fall of Man! ;)