« Friday Pot Blogging
Main
Report of a Very Bad Teacher »
November 11, 2006
Archaeology, Evolution and Fundamentalism
Christopher O'Brien of Northstate Science has some very interesting things to say about Biblical Archaeology in the context of the exchange between James K. Hoffmeier of Trinity International University and Ronald Hendel of UC Berkley in the last couple of issues of Biblical Archaeology Review. Here's a sample,
The first [observation] is that I question whether the whole minimalist/maximalist debate in biblical archaeology is really a construct of biblical fundamentalism more than it is a theoretical debate in archaeology. Supposedly “minimalists” see the Bible as offering little or no history verifiable through archaeological research. At the other end of the spectrum, “maximalists” see the Bible as mostly historical, documenting people, places and events frequently verified by archaeology. Although I have not read every piece on this subject, I simply don’t see those accused of “minimalism” defining themselves that way. What I generally see instead is maximalists defining any archaeology that disagrees with biblical literalism defined as “minimalist”.[snip]
Secondly, I see the same selective interpretation and quotation mining among those criticizing the axis of minimalism as I do among creationists and intelligent design activists criticizing evolution. Hoffmeier’s letter, far from convincing me that Hendel was incorrect in his assessment of Biblical Archaeology, suggests quite the opposite. Typical of those who seek to defend the theological nature of the Bible as historical in and of itself, what Hoffmeier doesn’t reveal about his sources’ positions on the matter is far more enlightening than what he actually cites.
At this point Christopher has a very interesting discussion of the use of quote mining, particularly from Dever. He goes on to say,
I have often made the case that a methodological and philosophical connection exists between those who engage in traditional “Biblical Archaeology” and those who advocate Intelligent Design and other forms of Creationism (and by extension, why archaeologists should engage in the evolution-intelligent design debates and not eschew their responsibilities to their biology brethren).
I think that minimalism is more (and in another sense, less) than a construct of biblical fundamentalism. The minimalists have provided fuel to the construct by their own selective use of archaeological evidence. I have often thought that some members of the so-called Copenhagen school have combined evangelistic Christianity with postmodernism in order to remove the Hebrew Bible from any historical context and they have done it for purely theological reasons. It's just easier to propagate their religious dogma without any historical baggage. I do agree that the methodologies of the maximalists often closely resemble the methodologies of creationists. Since my abnormal interests include Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and evolution, I hope I am on the right side of the main issue Christopher outlines. Read his whole post; it is abnormally interesting.
Posted by Duane Smith at November 11, 2006 1:26 PM | Read more on Archaeology |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1934
Comments
Hey thanks for linking to my post. I think we're both on the same page with this...although in writing on the subject I'm not sure I fully conveyed my thoughts. I think archaeology benefits from textual inferences, but the approach taken is one of, shall we say, a type of methodlogical naturalisn - a predominately theological text may provide lots to investigate archaeologically, but demonstrating that Sodom exists as a real location with walls, structures, etc. is one thing; that God destroyed Sodom is an entirely different thought process and the two are not necessarily connected. "Maximalists" of course would say that one presumes the other. I would agree with Dever and others that historical texts are not purely "social constructs" - hell, Schliemann showed that even the Iliad is not pure mythology. My primary issue is that for maximalists even a single pot linked to a Canaanite exodus would be sufficient evidence to say Christ's resurrection was real! Prove even a little of anything biblical and the rest must certainly follow! It's too bad that the theological issues heavily influence (if not outright dictate) our interpretations of a fascinating time period in human history.
Posted by: Christopher O'Brien at November 11, 2006 5:08 PM
The search for truth can take many paths. When truth has been found, truth will not contradict itself.
Posted by: Dan Wingfoot at November 11, 2006 5:45 PM
We (archaeologists) have not been avoiding the Intelligent Design Creationism conflict. Well, I haven't.
Since the analogy of archaeology to creationism was introduced by Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen in their 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin New York: Philosophical Library, then again in
Bradley, Walter L., Charles B. Thaxton
1994 "Information and the Origin of Life" in The Creation Hypothesis: Scientific Evidence for the Intelligent Designer, J. P. Moreland, (ed). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press
The argument that the identification/recognition of artifacts can be substituted as an arguemnt that an "intelligent designer/creator" exists has been promoted to a core dogma of IDC. For example, "There now exists a rigorous criterion--complexity-specification--for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. Many special sciences already use this criterion, though in a pre-theoretic form (e.g., forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). (Dembski 1998, “Science and Design” First Things #86 October 1)"
So, we po' "pre-theoretic" archaeologists have been used.
I responded some years ago, with the resulting effort published in Why Intelligent Design Fails. I was very glad that this was also a featured part of the Dover "Pandas" trial last year.
There are some interesting parts of this issue to general archaeology; What is the proper status and use of documents in archaeology? or even more basic, "How do we 'know' what is a built' object?" And, "What is 'built' anyway?"
However, these discussions have no place in the creationist v. science discussion.
Posted by: Gary Hurd at November 12, 2006 4:53 PM
Gary,
Thanks for stopping by. What you say and the background you give is exactly correct. I do think that there may be a special responsibility on the part of Syro-Palestinian archaeologist to participate in the creationist/evolution debate because Syro-Palestinian archaeologist beat heads with fundamentalists within their own field on quite a regular basis.
Posted by: Duane at November 12, 2006 6:19 PM
I want to let my New World interests flow a bit.
I see a foundational problem in archaeology (one with considerable literature) of what do we do with documents? The religious issues, while powerful, are no different theoretically for Israel or for Maya. A solstice observatory in the Colorado Desert is no less an interest than one in Mesoptotamia.
The so-called "intelligent design theory" cannot actually priovide a systematic method to detect "design." Is it possible to build such a theory without reference to observed built objects? Why isn't a spider's web "designed?" It certainly is according to IDC. (Evolutionary models provide a taxonomy of spiders independent of web, or even silk production. None the less, such taxonomies map directly to web categories. Ergo, web is a biological function, not volitional design. But notice this isn't a "design" detection. This also applies to beaver dams, observed by Dembski to be "designed.")
Posted by: Gary Hurd at November 12, 2006 8:41 PM
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.
Send me an email if it is important.