Creationists vs. Evolutionists

There was an interesting story in The New York Times the other day (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/23/opinion/23wright.html?_r=2) that attempted to bridge the gap between those who believe in the theory of evolution, and those who subscribe to what has been termed “creationism” or “intelligent design.” It is not my intent to diminish the latter terms by putting them in quotations; it’s just that as time goes on, these terms have become more and more, shall we say, elastic. The author, a Mr. Robin Wright, tried to (and at times did) lay out a very compelling case that these two differing points of view were not quite as far apart as their most vocal adherents made them out to be. Let me try and tell you why I disagree.

As I was reading the article, it seemed to me that Mr. Wright had framed the creationism position in too positive a light. I mean, you almost got the feeling that if you believed in the first couple chapters of The Book of Genesis, all you had to do was open your mind a wee bit more in order to accept the premise that all God did was put everything in motion (think of a watchmaker who starts the pendulum swinging) and evolution was what followed. Oh, that it were so easy. On the other hand, I almost believed that the evolutionists had a concept of "higher purpose" that was one easy step away from intelligent design. Be still my heart.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I’d pay good money to get everyone to believe in that. There would be many a family conversation that would end on a much more friendlier note if the two sides could stop right there. As one who believes in the theory of evolution, I have absolutely no issues with the mild notion that maybe there was some higher power out there “getting the party started,” as it were. Unfortunately, I think Mr. Wright gives both sides too much credit. Wright mentions noted atheists like Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. And while each of them (according to Wright) may not have specifically alluded to some form of a higher power (think of a small ‘g’ god), Wright seems to credit each of these scientists/philosophers with embracing something akin to a higher purpose when discussing their theories of evolution. Now, while I think it’s a lot easier to believe in a higher power while still embracing evolution, that doesn’t mean any of these guys are going to sit down with the evangelicals any time soon and say, “You know, maybe you’re on to something here.”

The other side of this argument is even more problematic. Wright seems to imply that the only thing creationists have to do is accept the theory of evolution while holding fast to the notion that at some point “God” inserted a sense of the “moral self.” (I understand I’m simplifying Wright’s arguments more than a tad, but it’s a blog people, and we don’t have all night.) Again, a secularist like me doesn’t have a problem with this argument either, up to a point. If you want to tell me that God is a big old watchmaker who put the whole evolutionary thing in motion, I’m listening. But if Mr. Wright thinks that the evangelical/creationist crowd is even remotely open to this line of thinking, he’s lost his mind. Creationists, by definition, are not open to any idea that does not involve Adam, Eve, the Garden of Eden, and that poor Serpent.

And now that we’ve gotten to this point in our story, let’s really lay our cards on the table. To even attempt to bridge the gap between these two schools of thought (and I’m sure Mr. Wright is more than sincere in his effort) is a futile gesture at best. Why, you ask? Because on the one hand you have a truck load of people who have dedicated their lives to searching for evidence that they can either hold in their hands, or see through a microscope, or…well you get the picture. And don’t get me wrong; sometimes their tunnel vision for the “scientific” blinds them to modes of thought that have nothing to do with the practical. But for the most part, they don’t care, because it’s not their job. They’re just looking for what they can grab on to - for what they can prove. And when it comes to a topic like this, that’s okay. Because no matter what anyone tries to tell you, at it’s heart, it’s a scientific quest.

On the other hand, you’ve got a truck load of people who are theorizing about the beginning of man (a story whose many stages can be studied using the scientific method) based on a story. Now, I believe this story (the creation account by the J Writer in the Book of Genesis, and it’s subsequent text ending with the death of Moses) is one of the great works of literature known to man - second only to Shakespeare. But again, it’s just a story. It’s philosophy. In fact, I would argue that it's not even philosophy, it's just story telling. But what it definitely is not, is science. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t study and embrace it as a starting point for the questions of “Who Are We?” or “Why Are We Here?” But to wrap it up as a counterpoint to the theory of evolution is absurd. It demeans both sides of the debate.

In the end, neither side can counter the other on the other’s terms. The Dawkins’ and the Pinkers’ of the world can’t talk to the creationists about their thoughts on man’s purpose. Subsequently, the creationists can’t (at least if their honest with themselves) tell the evolutionists where the hordes of humans came from when all we have is Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth…well, you get the picture. It’s bad enough when supporters on each side of the debate attempt to call out the other. It shows they’re just looking for a fight. I’m not sure, but it might be even worse when we fool ourselves into thinking it’s a fair fight that should take place on the same battlefield.