'Middle ground' muddled?

Janet M.C. Tanaka's letter regarding the "middle ground" between Fundamentalists and "noble scientific antireligion nonbelievers" (September/October 2007) begins reasonably enough, but closes with a question that I think demolishes much of the original argument.

"[H]ow would you explain biological evolution and plate tectonics to a bunch of--by our standards--sheepherders?" Tanaka asks. This would seem to be the wrong question. To my way of thinking, the real question is, "If God (or whatever) was interested in humans understanding such concepts, why would he/she wait until relatively recently in human history to reveal such information?" What purpose is served by keeping humankind in the dark for so many millennia? If God can only "speak to his/her prophets in a language that was appropriate to their times, places, and understanding" doesn't that (a) detract from the notion of God as supernaturally powerful, and (b) suggest that God was purposely keeping from us the very knowledge which we now find so useful?

Tanaka's position suggests many problems and questions. What purpose was served by keeping humans in the dark for so long about the true origins of species, the shape and makeup of the Earth and the solar system, the reality of physics, etc.? By what mechanism are modern humans able to grasp concepts that our ancient forebearers could not? Has God improved our brains since ancient times? Doesn't it seem unlikely (and more than a little cruel) that God would now smile upon us gaining knowledge which he/she spent millennia keeping from us?

Adam Zar

Madison, Wisconsin

COPYRIGHT 2008 Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale Group