On the Origin and Continuity of Life
Someone compared life to a ride on a commuter train. From our point of origin to our destination, we interact with people, enjoy the passing landscape, read a newspaper or a few pages of a book, and react to whatever sensory or cognitive events we encounter. We are not concerned with the design and manufacture of the train, nor are we concerned with the ultimate retirement of the train from age, mechanical malfunction, or any wreckage in which we are not involved.
Life is more complex. Whether one is a biologist, a philosopher, a person of faith, or all of these, the human curiosity does not tolerate the serenity of incomprehension. I have recently (and currently) participated in a group discussion exploring the origins of the universe and human life—Evolution, Intelligent Design, Creation Science, and the literal biblical account of the creation.
History and current media coverage has framed the question of origins as a conflict between a literal interpretation of Genesis and a single chapter with a title that would include the word Evolution in a high school textbook. I came to this discussion group as a person of faith in a fundamentalist church, a philosopher and writer, and someone who spent 24 years on school boards, and a lifetime in the education of children. I also came as someone with no scientific knowledge beyond basic required college level courses in biological and physical sciences.
I was fortunate to have attracted a diverse group to the group discussion—a person who has done extensive research in writing a book; a person with knowledge in Intelligent Design; people from the medical profession; a newspaper columnist; educators; people who are active in their churches; and people who come from family backgrounds in which they have experienced ideological conflicts between science and religion.
For many, the image of evolution and creation was shaped by the Scopes Trial in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. The Butler Act, prohibiting the teaching of evolution, was introduced by a legislator influenced by an itinerant preacher in East Tennessee, and passed by the Tennessee legislature.
Science teachers in public schools teach under some pressure. Our textbooks are selected by teachers and curriculum specialists in the local school district from several options approved by the State Department of Education. The introduction of the words Evolution, Darwin, or Darwinism to impressionable young minds has the potential to initiate parental opposition to the textbook and classroom instruction. Our schools are obligated by law and logic, to neither refute nor affirm any home or church teaching in matters of faith. The great majority of the teachers I know are people of faith and professionals who come from among our friends and neighbors, but whose views on religious doctrine or ritual may differ from those of some parents.
The fundamentalist assumption that the Bible is the inspired Word of God is the basis of theology in most Christian churches. Secular academia and many liberal Christian theologians would insist that the Genesis account is non-scientific and was written as a narrative consistent with the comprehension of its time. Most contemporary people of faith are content to accept the findings of Darwin and the publication of his writing as scientific documentation of biological change without being a challenge to, or denial of, a Divine creative force. The conflict has come from our divergent views of our image of God. The story of a God taking a handful of clay and forming a living being, created in His image, is part of religious tradition, but not part of scientific academia.
The concept of Divine creation gave rise to the term Creationism, viewed by many as antithetical to the term Darwinism, which is equally a misnomer. The courts have ruled in all instances that the introduction of creationism as described in the Bible is religious content. More recently the introduction of Intelligent Design to the science classroom has also been subjected to judicial scrutiny. In fairness, I would not attempt to explain the concept of intelligent design nor try to defend the scientific integrity of its content.
The reason for the controversy is in the introduction of the phrase intelligent agent which they say differs from natural law from which people of faith have come to accept the complexity of science within the handiwork God. Proponents of intelligent design assert an informational design without which human life as we know it could not exist. Advocates of ID reject or refute some parts of textbook evolution.
The conflict, as I see it, is two-fold. In order to find a place in the public school classroom, proponents have to define intelligence and the agent and the design in secular scientific terminology. Intelligent design has to differentiate itself from creation science. So far, intelligent design does not have textbook status and has support among a small group of scientists, and limited support in the larger scientific community. Concurrently within the political community, legislatures with conservative evangelical majorities are introducing legislation to give equal status to multiple theories of scientific origins. Some people see this as greater freedom of classroom instruction; others view intelligent design as a continuation of creation science which gave impetus to the Butler Act and the Scopes trial and national attention and ridicule it received.
I would like to believe that any and all advancements of secular scientific knowledge will eventually find a way into textbooks and into the minds of our student population. I would also hope that all who believe in an omnipotent God would not deny him the tools of his handiwork. As a philosopher, educator, and person of faith I would prefer the influence of politics and religion would never infringe our access to scientific and historical knowledge or the free exercise of our faith.
Tags: Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Socrates Cafe
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
January 22, 2012 at 4:20 pm
One can always hope that young (and old) minds will open to the possibility of seeing the handiwork of God in scientific discoveries. There is benefit in appreciating the story of Creation as well as appreciating how scientific discovery helps us understand the world around us. We can appreciated both without being antagonistic. Only those with closed minds will tightly hold onto one view while disregarding the other.