Imagine you live in a country in which everybody has blond hair. As a matter of fact, you've never seen any other color of hair, so (if some other color existed somewhere else) you wouldn't know how to describe it. I, on the other hand, live where everyone has black hair, and I have the same level of knowledge about non-black haired people as you do of non-blonde people. Now, imagine we are both corresponding with the same woman in another country, and we get into an argument about what color hair she has. She won't tell us. I think her hair is black -- how could I think otherwise? For similar reasons, you think it is blond. Stupid argument, isn't it?
I'm a scientist by training, and a believer in God by conviction. I've steered clear of the evolution vs creation controversy because (in the terms it is usually argued) it is an argument equally as stupid as the above hair color "debate." If you are a "scientist" who doesn't believe in God, then you've automatically ruled out any God influence. It's stupid to argue with people who will never accept your basic premise. If you consider yourself a "christian," yet wrongly believe that the Bible says the earth is only 6000 years old, you show your ignorance of what the book really says. You also blindly ignore the clear evidence of "science" that is right before your eyes. It's stupid to argue with faulty information. It's doubly stupid to argue with the "scientists" who don't accept your basic premise that there is a God. It's triply stupid in this case because what "facts" the "scientists" have are much, much better than the non-facts that you can unload from your arsenal.
I studied evolutionary theory in college, and I believe in it -- when it is (to use a biblical expression) rightly divided [2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version; also when "handled accurately" (New American Standard), or when "properly presented" (Beck)]. I also believe in "intelligent design," although not in the exclusive "religious" way that it is frequently defined. I find absolutely no contradiction in believing in both. Here's why:
While the Bible records that God made all species, it doesn't say HOW he made them. He could have created everything individually and instantaneously in six of our 24-hour days (he is God, after all), but the Bible doesn't say he did -- or, that he didn't. The apostle Peter pointed out that "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8). On the other hand, God could have just as easily "created" them in evolutionary fashion over millions of years. They would still be his creations, wouldn't they? We would still be humans, and (if you believe Christian propaganda -- which, by the way, Science generally does) we are still a little "higher" and "better" than the other animals. Since we can't know the actual mechanism God used, isn't it rather pointless to argue about it?
Regardless of your religious leanings, let's be serious for a moment. It takes little or no scientific training -- just open eyes -- to realize that changes are going on around us, from the molecular (the scary changes in cancer cells) to the geologic (earthquakes and volcanoes). We don't have to look farther than our own homes to see how animals have changed their behavior (eating seeds from a bird feeder, eating cat food from a dish) and plants have changed their growth form (mowed lawns, shrubs trained to grow in certain directions) as a response to their environment. From a few basic breeds, thousands of different kinds of dogs, cats, and sweet peas have been "created" by genetic manipulation -- sometimes to the point that some dogs look almost as much like cats as cats do, and sweet peas don't look like sweet peas, anymore. You don't have to change a dog into a cat to see that processes of "evolution" are occurring, either as a response to need or as a result of purposeful manipulation. It is tougher for most of us to picture a fish developing legs and climbing up a bank and growing wings and flying away, but who can say what can happen when the needs and the mechanisms interact? Nobody can PROVE that part of the "theory" of evolution, but nobody has yet disproved it, either.
Having acknowledged the changes going on around us -- and the potential changes that could occur in the future or that might have occurred in the past -- I don't have to completely buy into the great mega-theory of the origin of the Earth and all its species from a big bang and a single cell. As a scientist, those parts of the theory still are too theoretical for me. Plant and animals species are so diverse, so interesting -- so beautiful -- that -- as a scientist with a trained, inquiring mind -- I find it impossible to believe that it is all just the result of "adaptation" and "survival of the fittest." Because I believe in God, I find it easier to see a rational hand at work in creation than I can see this all starting from some cosmic accident. (And, by the way, where did the cosmos come from?) I can't prove the hand of God at work, but Science cannot disprove it; all Science can do is deny there is a God. God/no God; black hair/no black hair. Not much room for a serious discussion, is there?
*********************************
So if it's all so stupid, why is the unprofitable argument going
on -- and heating up? Maybe because we intelligent humans are
not as intelligent as we think we are? Or maybe...
For those people who think that the Bible speaks unequivocally of a near-instantaneous "Creation," the need to keep the argument going seems to be a manifestation of an age-old fear that the "wisdom of the world" is at war with God. Putting the best spin possible on their motives, they feel they have to protect their children from non- or anti-christian teachings. At another level, they seem to be in haughty denial that we amazingly intelligent people could have evolved from monkeys, or from any other "lower" form.
For those "scientists" who can't acknowledge a force greater than themselves, the argument seems a petulant rejection of anyone that would dare raise "mythology" against their rationality. But, again, putting the best spin on motives, some scientists (including many who have no trouble believing in both God and Science) are in the fight because they see attempts to introduce creationism, intelligent design, or any other religious explanation of life into the teaching of science as a polluting of the true scientific process.
As both trained scientist and educated believer in God, I find a lot to criticize in what I hear scientists putting forth as "fact," when in fact it is still all "theory." Still, I find the arguments against teaching creationism in science classes far more compelling than any arguments I've heard in favor. As a believer in God, I suppose I should believe that my theory of how life began is the best one. But in a world where people have many different explanations of how the world came into being, how do I keep from presenting those alternate views along with my own? Surely I don't want my ideas of creationism presented in class alongside -- and given equal credence with -- some of those really weird mythologies? You may see this as just a war between "science" and "christianity," but there are hundreds (thousands?) who could get involved in the stupid argument, if they wanted to.
I could write many pages on what I feel is "wrong" with both the "theory of evolution" and the "theory of creation," but to what purpose? For most of the fighters, it's still the black hair--blond hair argument: stupid and unresolvable. My opinion is not likely to mean much to anybody who feels the need to keep the argument going on the current terms. However, if there's anybody out there who would like to get past this impasse and get on to more important things -- religious and scientific -- I can offer a few words of advice.
TO THE RELIGIOUS FOLKS:
First off, stop listening uncritically to all the babble around
you. If you believe your Bible, then believe that God has given
you a mind of your own and is able to help you cut through all
the crap and really hear his voice. Second, re-read the first
part of Genesis a time or two, praying sincerely before, during
and after reading it for Holy Spirit guidance in interpreting
the words. Third, find some of those Old and New Testament scriptures
that make it clear that God's time is not the same as our human
time, and that might suggest to you that the Bible doesn't really
say that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Fourth, it wouldn't
hurt to read a little bit of information on what the theory of
evolution really is about. After you've done that, you might find
yourself wondering what all the fuss is about. Maybe you can let
others argue creation vs. evolution, and you can get on to pursuits
that are less divisive and more spiritual.
But maybe you still see problems, and aren't ready to turn your and your children's' minds over to the scientists. What can you do to keep from wasting valuable time on something that neither you nor the scientists can "prove?" Well, how about putting things in perspective? What does it really matter to you or your kids if you eventually find out for sure (but of course you won't, unless you eventually pass through those pearly gates) that the evolutionists were wrong or right, or that the creationists were wrong or right, or that they both were partly wrong but partly right? How is it going to change your life? We are being told lots of things every day -- in school and out -- that aren't true (or that aren't completely true). Why single out this one issue? For example, kids get a slanted view of history at school, on the TV, and from you. It will ever be thus. You can do your part by being educated enough to help them and yourself put things in perspective. Do your kids a favor: be an adult -- be a parent -- quit confusing them about creation vs evolution being a spiritual issue. If they hear something at school or anywhere else that doesn't seem right to them, or to you, just talk to them about it. Talk about evolution just like you'd talk about any other subject. For instance, what if they read in one book that Abe Lincoln's greatest objective in the Civil War was to free the slaves, but then in another book they read that Lincoln cared little about emancipation and was mainly concerned with keeping the North and South united as one economic entity? If you knew your history, you'd be able to discuss the apparent discrepancies, and maybe make your child a better citizen in the process. I don't think this discussion of Abe's motives would come to dominate your life, and become a threat to your religion. Well, how about this for a conversation starter if your son has heard something in a science class that doesn't gibe with his religious training: "Well, Billy, we don't know if that's the way God created us. The Bible doesn't tell us for sure. Some christians like to think that the world was really created in six 24 hour periods, but the Bible doesn't tell it quite that clearly. Some other christians think that God made us over a longer period of time -- maybe using evolution -- but the Bible doesn't tell us that, either. What do I think? Well, I know that God made us some way, so I have some trouble with the teachers who take God completely out of the equation, but on the other hand you're hearing one pretty rational theory of how life began. Sometimes your teachers may sound a little too positive about all the details of evolution -- you know, sort of forget that it is a 'theory,' and that it can't be fully proved -- but they are giving you the latest in scientific belief. Learn it like you learn anything else, and in the future use it as it fits in with all the other things you hear." Hey, you've just been a rational, reasonable parent, and haven't done any violence to your or your child's religious faith. And you've left a little time to talk about Jesus, and how he came to save the world, if you want to.
TO THE SCIENTIFIC FOLKS:
Keep up the fight to keep "creationism" out of the science
cirriculum; I'm with you. But you can do a lot to cool this discussion
without compromising your "science." You don't have
to alienate every religious person who enters your sphere by adamantly
proclaiming there is no God. That's your "belief," but
you can't prove non-existence. (And you might ask yourself why
many scientists don't have a problem believing in God.) If the
subject of religion comes up, can't you just say something like:
"Well, there are many religious beliefs about how the world
was created, but what I'm teaching in this class is a theory based
on the combined evidence from studies of geology, biology, physics,
astronomy, etc. It's the only theory we have that we can really
subject to accepted scientific process, and scientific process
is what we're learning in this class." Then, if you really
want to be magnanimous, open, honest, and "scientific,"
you might go on and say something like: "I'm presenting theory
to you. Theory by definition can't reach the level of absolutely
provable fact, but it is not just a random hypothesis -- a lightly
tested idea about how something might have occurred. It is a picture
built on information derived from much study and from many branches
of study, and that holds together better than anything else we
have. Maybe someday there will be another theory, but currently
this is the one that does the best job with the facts we have."
*************************************
Gee, I feel better now that I've solved everything. Now, can we
get on with life?