The rise of secularism has divided people and created particular
tension between the two sides of the Creationism-Evolution education debate. I
think the most important questions regarding this tension shouldn’t be about proving
details right or wrong, they should be: is the clash merited and why does this
conflict exist? After all, people have been fighting over religion for as long
as it’s been around. I have never been religious, but I think anyone would
agree that wars fought for religious purposes rather than for humanitarian or
security concerns are terrible, terrible things. (War of any kind is terrible,
but is it necessary at times? I won’t get into that.) The Creationism vs. Evolution debate which has
flourished in the last century or so and has become a major political and social issue,
and something that Americans and people around the world will fight and even
die for.
I contend that the conflict inherent to this debate is merited and is in fact absolutely a
necessary battle. Everyone should be entitled to their beliefs, but what
happens when those beliefs negatively affect others and their opportunities?
Much like the principles that justify non-religious wars, such as safety and
humanitarian concerns, the Creationism/Evolution education dispute is one that
can have real negative consequences other than simply hurt feelings.
Many religious cultures and families give their children the
best education they can and all the support they need, generally accepting both
science and religion and allowing the child to form his or her own beliefs and
live as he/she sees fit. I have known plenty of people with varying commitments
to faith, some merely Easter Sunday mass-goers or casual Rosh Hashanah acknowledgers, some devout
practitioners of their religion’s daily routines and dogmas. What separates the
benign believer from the harmful or worrisome is the issue of tolerance.
What made Ken Ham’s
argument so offensive to me was that it was fundamentally intolerant. There are
so many ways to maintain faith and accept modern science but what Mr. Ham has
done is create a perversion of both. He has warped “science,” presenting and
teaching a doctrine that only allows certain aspects of science and history that
fit his worldview into it. This, in my opinion, is almost worse than the
archaic flat-out denial of evolution and science in lieu of strict dedication
to The written word. He is clearly intelligent and informed enough to
understand science and study it, yet he chooses to ignore or reject points and
proofs that cross some imaginary boundary he has in his head.
It is truly
unfortunate that people like Ken Ham have found “intellectual” footing in the
world and that there are actually living, breathing, thinking people who can read the material before them and come away
agreeing with him. However, I put that mostly on caustic and critical
secularists who are ignorant and intolerant of religious views. These are the
people who can’t accept that while, yes, someone has read the same science
textbooks as them, they simply choose to believe in their God in conjunction
with believing that, say, atoms exist. The Creationists who fiercely defend
their position have been driven to extremes partially by anti-religious crusaders who mock and
criticize those who have faith and choose to stand up for it. In typical
American fashion the two sides of the debate have been driven further and
further apart by the hostility and intolerance of the other side.
What really energizes the conflict between religious and secular individuals today is the rigid adherence
by some to the infallible nature of their organized religion. As I have said, I am not a
religious person, but I understand that others around me can have a belief,
which I think can be a wonderful thing. So long as that belief doesn’t affect
me or those I inhabit the Earth with, more power to them. What bewilders me is
when people treat the stories in books which were written, revised, and
translated over thousands of years as historical documents. The Bible you’re
holding wasn’t handed to you by God himself; realize that it was edited,
printed (there might even be typos), and ultimately written by a common, fallible
man or men many years ago. What we hold as scientific fact is periodically
proven wrong and updated or modified, why can’t the same hold true with religion?
Science will
always defeat religion in a debate of facts, there’s no way around it unless you're Ken Ham. However,
the two sides shouldn’t have to compete on the same field of play, as they can
both exist separately, if not as codependents. Faith shouldn’t need scientific
proof and science shouldn’t need the abolition of religion. A holy book is
meant to connect a man or a woman to a God, so let it. Instead of reading the
Bible or the Quran or the Torah as word-for-word fact or law, let it be an
introduction to belief and something to build on, not a set of instructions. If
religious texts weren’t expected to be fact, perhaps universal scientific education could
advance past two petty sides trying to disprove the other.
What blows my mind about last night’s debate is the
unwillingness by Ham to bend or revise Creationist science views in light of,
well, science. Why is Ham arguing a position rendered untenable by modern science?
His platform clearly relies primarily on the perpetuation of skepticism and,
far worse, on denial. I applaud Ham for trying to align science and his
religion, as that shows real creativity, study, and commitment to his faith,
but it’s really incredible that at no point can he and others like him not
accept that that structure is at the very least incomplete. Nye is not arguing
that there is no higher power or deity; he is simply arguing that some stories
put forth in the Bible (or other holy texts) are implausible. Ironically, can Ham’s scientific
mind not accept that the Bible’s words are to be taken as something
more than just facts on a page?
The important and
somewhat overlooked root of the Nye-Ham debate was not simply Creationism vs.
Evolution, God vs. Science; it was about the education on those subjects. Given
the importance of education I believe that my initial question over whether
conflict was merited. I think that parents should have the right to educate
their children on both topics, but they should not withhold information on
either issue. A kid should be allowed to pick up a Biology textbook or a Bible whenever he or she wants. What Nye was arguing was that Ham’s style of Creationism and
others like it withhold the full extent of science and limit the range of
knowledge available. That is simply unforgiveable. Children should know that
dinosaurs existed and that there is an amazing universe out there. They shouldn’t
be held back by a book or a faulty education system in the same way that The
Book shouldn’t hold them back from creating their own personal relationship a
God in any way they choose.
The biggest
hurdle in increasing social awareness and acceptance of science and allowing
unrestricted access to its benefits will be teaching that the structure of
science and the existence of faith can be compatible. In my mind that means
discouraging conflict between intolerant parties arguing for or against the
existence of God and recognizing that both sides can provide value to humanity.
Faith shouldn’t be something that is forced upon you or taken from you, it
should evolve or not evolve as any individual sees fit, as unencumbered by the
voices of those around them as possible.
