Darwinism was created. Creationism evolved.
“Darwinism” was created by an intelligent designer – Darwin.
“Creationism” evolved by natural selection through the countless ages of human thought. Pretty ironical, huh? Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
Although exasperating to both sides, as well as to observers, I am afraid the tussle between evolution and creationism will continue, pointlessly. It isn’t a discussion between comparable things, and neither side seems to understand either what the other side is talking about, or even the nature of the belief they themselves hold dear.
A fight between scientific fact and religious belief? Not really, but that assumption often accounts for which side people take. People who believe in the validity not just of science, but of the scientific method and discipline of thought – these people will choose Darwinism. People who make sense of life by investing in belief, belief in a loving God who created them with a personal mission for their life – these people will more probably embrace creationism. In neither case, (unless you happen to be a professional evolutionary scientist) is this choice of allegiance ultimately based on truly comprehensive knowledge of the topic, and careful skeptical scrutiny. It is more likely based on exasperation, frustration, and the fear that your opponent's view is not merely wrong, but undercuts and threatens the very basis of your life.
Creationists fear that Darwin reveals the world and their own lives as a mockery; a pointless, accidental joke thrown up by an uncaring mechanical universe in which the gradual progress towards decay and death is all that there is. It is a universe in which purpose and accomplishment seems to be impossible, and there is no reason for our existence. This has to be wrong. Any such view is unbearable. Intolerable. It just doesn’t fit with the joyous experience of life, in which everything we value comes about through purposeful action. Purpose is the key to the universe as we experience it. Apart from that, being monkeys is demeaning.
Darwinists insist that taking Creationism seriously at face value is putting blinkers over our eyes and returning to the dark days of superstition and compulsory, irrational belief. To place creationism alongside Darwinism, even as an alternative, let alone actually believing it, is to trash all the hard-won knowledge of how the universe really works, who we are, and the miraculous power of nature left to itself to produce conscious living beings of spiritual depth and potential. It is to throw out all the explanatory power of science over mysterious things that have led to civilization – to farming, writing and culture, medicine, metallurgy, ship and plane design, communications, safety from disease and violence, and freedom from the sort of tyranny that rages and ruins lives in theocracies around the world.
But each side makes the mistake of thinking that the other side is listening. They are not. Instead, they just keep shooting at their stereotypical imagined enemies: Darwinists, presumed to be claiming complete truth; - Creationists, presumed to be refusing to think. Not so.
Science, including evolutionary science, is not “an especially secure form of knowledge” as people often think, but a system of hypotheses that constantly opens itself up to being proven wrong, both in details, and in the grand conception. That is the strength of science – when it finds it is wrong, it changes. The search for truth is more important than loyalty, and vastly more important than worrying about what the consequences of truth might be. Science is doubting things that are obviously true.
Creationists are not interested in risking their faith in the Lord; they seek a theory that counters the atheistic dangers of Darwinism; robust enough, secure enough, reasonable enough, and backed up by enough evidence and confirming instances that it can withstand any attack that the Darwinists might come up with. It is the creationists who seek certainty, with a theory so watertight that it can explain everything that might ever be discovered, and thus can fully encompass all creation. Faith is being certain about things that are obviously false.
So, ironically, each side ends up suffering from the flaw it condemns in its opponent. The Creationists claim to be guided by faith, but are really grasping at absolutist certainty. Scientists claim the rigor of open thought and constant doubt, but don’t care to admit that science is precisely the project of trying to find explanations for things without involving God. That is just the basic rule of the game. God is ruled out a priori. And that is an article of faith. A choice.
It’s as if the Darwinists are playing cricket against the Creationists who are playing baseball, and every time anyone does anything, the other side cries “foul!” It really doesn’t get us anywhere.
I do wish they would leave each other alone. The two core propositions – that life evolved through natural adaptation and selection by the transmission of genes, all the work of nature without external interference - and that the world exists because there is a loving God who decided that it should exist and can fill our hearts with joy – you know, folks; - these are not incompatible. They arise from adopting different methods of enquiry. It’s when each side tries to imitate the other in order to discredit it that they make asses of themselves.
“Creationism” evolved by natural selection through the countless ages of human thought. Pretty ironical, huh? Who says God doesn’t have a sense of humor?
Although exasperating to both sides, as well as to observers, I am afraid the tussle between evolution and creationism will continue, pointlessly. It isn’t a discussion between comparable things, and neither side seems to understand either what the other side is talking about, or even the nature of the belief they themselves hold dear.
A fight between scientific fact and religious belief? Not really, but that assumption often accounts for which side people take. People who believe in the validity not just of science, but of the scientific method and discipline of thought – these people will choose Darwinism. People who make sense of life by investing in belief, belief in a loving God who created them with a personal mission for their life – these people will more probably embrace creationism. In neither case, (unless you happen to be a professional evolutionary scientist) is this choice of allegiance ultimately based on truly comprehensive knowledge of the topic, and careful skeptical scrutiny. It is more likely based on exasperation, frustration, and the fear that your opponent's view is not merely wrong, but undercuts and threatens the very basis of your life.
Creationists fear that Darwin reveals the world and their own lives as a mockery; a pointless, accidental joke thrown up by an uncaring mechanical universe in which the gradual progress towards decay and death is all that there is. It is a universe in which purpose and accomplishment seems to be impossible, and there is no reason for our existence. This has to be wrong. Any such view is unbearable. Intolerable. It just doesn’t fit with the joyous experience of life, in which everything we value comes about through purposeful action. Purpose is the key to the universe as we experience it. Apart from that, being monkeys is demeaning.
Darwinists insist that taking Creationism seriously at face value is putting blinkers over our eyes and returning to the dark days of superstition and compulsory, irrational belief. To place creationism alongside Darwinism, even as an alternative, let alone actually believing it, is to trash all the hard-won knowledge of how the universe really works, who we are, and the miraculous power of nature left to itself to produce conscious living beings of spiritual depth and potential. It is to throw out all the explanatory power of science over mysterious things that have led to civilization – to farming, writing and culture, medicine, metallurgy, ship and plane design, communications, safety from disease and violence, and freedom from the sort of tyranny that rages and ruins lives in theocracies around the world.
But each side makes the mistake of thinking that the other side is listening. They are not. Instead, they just keep shooting at their stereotypical imagined enemies: Darwinists, presumed to be claiming complete truth; - Creationists, presumed to be refusing to think. Not so.
Science, including evolutionary science, is not “an especially secure form of knowledge” as people often think, but a system of hypotheses that constantly opens itself up to being proven wrong, both in details, and in the grand conception. That is the strength of science – when it finds it is wrong, it changes. The search for truth is more important than loyalty, and vastly more important than worrying about what the consequences of truth might be. Science is doubting things that are obviously true.
Creationists are not interested in risking their faith in the Lord; they seek a theory that counters the atheistic dangers of Darwinism; robust enough, secure enough, reasonable enough, and backed up by enough evidence and confirming instances that it can withstand any attack that the Darwinists might come up with. It is the creationists who seek certainty, with a theory so watertight that it can explain everything that might ever be discovered, and thus can fully encompass all creation. Faith is being certain about things that are obviously false.
So, ironically, each side ends up suffering from the flaw it condemns in its opponent. The Creationists claim to be guided by faith, but are really grasping at absolutist certainty. Scientists claim the rigor of open thought and constant doubt, but don’t care to admit that science is precisely the project of trying to find explanations for things without involving God. That is just the basic rule of the game. God is ruled out a priori. And that is an article of faith. A choice.
It’s as if the Darwinists are playing cricket against the Creationists who are playing baseball, and every time anyone does anything, the other side cries “foul!” It really doesn’t get us anywhere.
I do wish they would leave each other alone. The two core propositions – that life evolved through natural adaptation and selection by the transmission of genes, all the work of nature without external interference - and that the world exists because there is a loving God who decided that it should exist and can fill our hearts with joy – you know, folks; - these are not incompatible. They arise from adopting different methods of enquiry. It’s when each side tries to imitate the other in order to discredit it that they make asses of themselves.
©2004 AJM
posted by Andrew Massey | Thursday, December 23, 2004
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home