They almost make me a creationist

I'll admit that I have no time for creationists. I think they positively ignore the data - lots of old bones of animals that haven't been around for a long time - in favor of a reading of the bible that isn't strictly compelled by the text. St. Augustine, for example, had a version of evolution. St. Thomas Aquinas also knew that some animals must not have been created when all the other animals were created based on people's observations of the data found in nature.

Flies, for example, as St. Thomas knew from the best scientific observation of his day, were generated from putrefaction (decaying meat) and so could not have been created with the other living animals.

Alright, so the science of St. Thomas' day was not "state of the art modern." The point is that St. Thomas was entirely comfortable with the idea that the Bible had to be understood in the light of observation; St. Thomas certainly disagreed with any notion that we had to tailor our observations to fit our flawed understanding of the Bible.

Yet, when I read the mean-spirited hectoring of uber-Darwinists P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins, all that goes away and I find myself becoming more and more sympathetic to Creationists.

Part of my reaction is that I respect religiously motivated Creationists who are fighting a quixotic battle to preserve something they think is good in the light of the advances of science. Myers and Dawkins and others seem to be engaged in nothing other than a kind of intellectual bullying.

Of course, their intellectual bullying is a symptom of the peculiar "social autism" that they are afflicted with; what Mark Shea compares to a "bag lady screaming at traffic." So, in a perverse way, Myers and Dawkins merit our sympathy, as well.

It is terrific, nonetheless, to see that Dinosaur scientist Robert Bakker - author of "The Dinosaur Heresies" - understands the reaction that Myers, Dawkins, et al. provoke in normal people. From this interview, here is an excerpt:

[Switek] Finally, as someone who works with the "bones of contention" and the fossil record, what do you think about the current controversy surrounding evolution in the United States? How can we do a better job of communicating science to the public?

[Bakker] We dino-scientists have a great responsibility: our subject matter attracts kids better than any other, except rocket-science. What's the greatest enemy of science education in the U.S.?

Militant Creationism?

No way. It's the loud, strident, elitist anti-creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins and his colleagues.

These shrill uber-Darwinists come across as insultingly dismissive of any and all religious traditions. If you're not an atheist, then you must be illiterate or stupid and, possibly, a danger to yourself and others.

As many commentators have noted, in televised debates, these Darwinists seem devoid of joy or humor, except a haughty delight in looking down their noses. Dawkinsian screeds are sermons to the choir; the message pleases only those already convinced. Dawkins wins no converts from the majority of U.S. parents who still honor a Biblical tradition. Hitchcock is a far better model. He had his battles with skepticism. He did worry that the discovery of Deep Time would upset the good people of his congregation. But Hitchcock could view three thousand years of scriptural tradition and see much of value - and much concordance with Jurassic geology.

He really is a heretic.

[Via Mark Shea]