The origin of life, the origin of strife

Finding the middle ground

TREVOR BEKOLAY

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 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 U.S. 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 naiveté. 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 versus creationism issue. He noted, “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] are very good at.”

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 the Book of Genesis is seen mainly as allegorical?

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 co-exist. 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.

Trevor Bekolay is a fourth-year computer science student and creator of the Manitoban Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists (MASH) student group.