Manitoban Article: The origin of life, the origin of strife

[trevor]

Thinking about the evolution versus creationism debate is difficult for me.  No, I’m not confused by the conflicting arguments presented by both sides.  I’m not offended by either party.  I’m not unsure of my own position.  I’m not even worried about the social ramifications of either stance.  No, what keeps me up at night is knowing that the debate continues to exist.

Scientific debate rarely attracts mainstream media attention.  Number theory, gravity, and general relativity, theories such as these elicited little to no discussion outside of their inner circles.  What makes evolution different?  An obvious inference is that evolution is debated because it is not good science, but this is woefully incorrect.

As a counterexample, let’s examine heliocentrism.  When Copernicus first posited that the earth revolves around the sun, he met with strong opposition from religious groups and the public as a whole.  It’s interesting that we now accept heliocentrism so readily when it was once the subject of contentious debates like those we see today regarding evolution.  The reason we accept it is due to education and the advancement of science; it’s not because of a convincing argument posed at a debate, and it’s not because the public voted and chose to accept it as their cosmological model.

If we say that the debate is, then, futile in the long run, why does it rage on?

On the creationist side, there’s one main culprit: the Discovery Institute.  The Discovery Institute authored a political and social action plan called the Wedge Strategy.  The first paragraph of the Wedge Document explains the their goals: “To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies,” and “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”   This plan has spawned numerous campaigns, including a campaign targeting public high schools called “Teach the Controversy.”  A US federal court and numerous scientific organizations claimed that the controversy was manufactured.

If the court agrees that there is no controversy, then why have defenders of evolution stepped up to debate creationists?  This has been at the center of my confusion for some time, and the best explanation I can come up with is naivety.  Science and religion exist in different realms; religious leaders are highly experienced with rhetoric, quote mining, and other techniques that influence listeners.  Some scientists still naively believe that empirical observations are enough to convince an audience.

The late Stephen Jay Gould was one of a growing number of scientists who refuse to debate the evolution vs. creationism issue.  He noted in 1985, “Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact — which creationists have mastered.”

Unfortunately, once some scientists engage in debate, the floodgates are flung open.  Later  refusals to speak in unwelcoming fora are seen by creationists as a weakness and proof that evolution is false.

At the same time, creationists have been fighting the same battle for over a century now.  Fundamentalists seem afraid to give an inch to science, as if society is on a slippery slope to anarchy.  Other than modern geocentrists, even the most fundamental branches of Christianity have made some concessions in literally interpreting the bible; how long until Genesis is seen as allegory?

This all begs the question: “So what? At least people are thinking about the issues.”  That is, simply put, wrong.

This debate is contributing to the fragmentation of society.  Those with a stance are labeled, and those without a stance may be scared off by the vocal minority in either group; who wants to take a side only to be lambasted by the other.

By participating in the debate, we are perpetuating a number of harmful myths.  First, both sides either claim or imply that science and religion can’t coexist.  Why not?  Theistic evolution is one worldview integrating the science of evolution into a religious framework.

Creationists contribute to the demonizing of change.  If something changes, then there must be something wrong with it;, and if given a choice, stick with what’s worked in the past.  The very tenet of the conservative movement that we are currently governed by is limiting change.  Yet to reject change is to reject learning.  We should strive to make positive changes every day – while accepting that negative changes will happen, too.

Atheistic scientists have to realize that having spiritual beliefs does not make a person less intelligent.  Unanswered questions far outnumber those science has answered; while religion or other forms of spirituality can provide answers to those questions that will lead some to happier lives.

If this or any other opinion piece changes your mind about which side you support, you need to do more research.  Find as much conflicting material on both sides of the argument and evaluate each objectively; learn how to separate rhetoric from information.  Above all, respect your fellow human beings.  Whether you believe we were created, or evolved from lower forms of life, we are all deserving of basic human decency.

[Steven]

So is this going to be printed as the "middle-of-the-road"  article as opposed to the hard evolutionist stance?

[trevor]

Correct.

[Dave (a.k.a. Wessty)]

I just got a copy of the Manitoban today and read the article. For me, there is something about reading an article in a paper or magazine that makes it "more" real. In any case, very good article. It hit the shelves today, so we should all get a copy and get Trevor to autograph his article.

Seriously though, I like the ideas presented. You don't often get a neutral opinion on that topic.

[cold]

Trevor,
If I may clarify your conclusion, we shouldn't bother debating with creationists?  The people who refused to debate (like Richard Dawkins) were/are great minds with plenty of media attention, and a statement can truly be made, but if we refuse to fight off the hordes their numbers are sure to increase.

T o m

[trevor]

Well, there are plenty of things to debate surrounding evolution/creationism, but debating whether or not evolution occurs is ludicrous.  Determining the scientific merit of a theory is not done at a debate, and empirical observations don't play well to most audiences.

To say that we have to 'fight off the hordes' is kind of condescending.  This isn't a battle, and if someone believes in creationism, it's not our job to 'show them the light.'  In fact, I would say if a creationist is over 25, they'll be a creationist for the rest of their life.

The solution is education.  High schools need to teach students about evolution, the meaning of the word 'theory' in science, and that evolution is not a belief.  Evolution doesn't necessarily have to encroach on someone's religious beliefs; the important part is that they actually know what evolution is and how it occurs.  Over time, once students move out on their own, they may rethink their religious upbringing.  Having a good foundation in science makes rejecting dogma much easier.

[january]

I'm just curious to know which Canadian schools are not teaching evolution? Or which American schools, for that matter? I have heard rumour, but I've never come up against such a curriculum myself. Not that my knowledge of the education system is particularly well-informed. I went to a Catholic high school, and evolution was never questioned. They were busier hammering us over the head with anti-abortion propaganda. Also, birth control is for whores. But no one seemed to question the inconsistencies between biology class and religion class. Mostly no one cared.

Also, St. Augustine was an atheist until he was almost forty I think. Then he got all saintly and stuff. So opinions can certainly change...Even Mother Theresa spent over half her life secretly questioning the existence of God. These were both very contemplative people, of course. Hell, even Bertrand Russell admitted for a moment that "the ontological argument is sound!!". I think so long as someone is rationally competent, she can switch beliefs.

I suppose I just found this article interesting because I'm not as aware of this strife. I do agree with you that it should not be a debate as such... There is something very tricky about using science to argue against the super-rational belief systems many people are not willing to part with. The very notion of argument presumes rational discourse. This is obviously not what leads people to believe in god or creationism or karma or whatever. Although I do think the rational faculty can overcome the super-rational, it seems that often times the reverse is just as possible.