HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary Too - May 16, 2008 - Printable Version
- Teaching Evolution in the Bible Belt
by Robin Buckallew
Those of us who teach evolution, whether in the Bible Belt or anywhere else, welcome all the help we can get in the increasingly hostile intellectual climate we are facing. Every year, a spate of new books comes out on the topic of evolution, offering the weary educator new resources with which to approach a difficult subject. These books vary in approach (and in quality of writing and information), but there are certain things you can almost be sure of when you open one. They will deal objectively and often exhaustively with all the arguments for and against evolution. They will discuss the various standard creationist arguments – sometimes with humor, sometimes with patience, sometimes with an evident sense of ennui. They will talk about how science is conducted, and why scientists always maintain a naturalistic approach to problem solving. And, in spite of the fact that almost all of these books are being written by people who lack a belief in a personal god, they will, in about 99.5% of the books, assure the readers that evolution is in no way incompatible with religion, and that acceptance of evolution does not lead to atheism. No less prestigious a group than the National Academy of Sciences takes this approach, and has been praised lavishly in the national press as a result. I will not join this chorus of praise, as this last is something that should forever be removed from the lexicon of evolutionary literature. There are many reasons why no scientist writing in support of evolution should ever say that the belief in evolution is totally compatible with religious belief. First of all, it is simply irrelevant. Truth or falsity of a scientific theory does not stand nor fall on whether or not it is popular or pleasant. If the facts support evolution (and they do), then the theory stands on its own merits whether it conflicts with religion or not. The constant generation of static lends an aura of relevance to what is really just so much noise in the background; this in turn generates that much more noise from the creationists, who have been handed a very large and meaty bone by tacit recognition that evolution could perhaps be destroyed by demonstrating incompatibility with religion. Those who seek to placate wounded religious sensibilities in reality only end up stoking the fire.
Second, it carries the dangerous suggestion that the worst thing someone could be is an atheist. In nearly every article on the subject of school boards rejecting attempts to write creationism into the science standards, some upstanding member of the school board will puff up their ruffled feathers and announce haughtily to the press that they are NOT an atheist, they just wanted to see proper science taught in the science classes. The press dutifully reports with indignation in their pen, or with their voice trembling with barely disguised anger, how this good citizen has just been insulted by the creationists by being called such a horrible, spiteful, and evil name. This is a dangerous game – it serves only to further marginalize an already despised minority, and does nothing to help educate the public about the issues.
Third, and most important, we should stop saying it because it simply isn’t true. Now, that is a rather bold statement, and will no doubt cause many to bristle with annoyance. But before you go stomping off in a huff, pouting about being misunderstood because you accept evolution AND you believe in God, hear me out. I will no doubt be vilified by many in the scientific establishment for saying it, and there are many who sincerely believe that what they are saying is the only right way to approach the subject. Of course, most of these people are non-believers, many have never been believers, and most of them live far outside the Bible Belt and rarely venture far outside their rarified intellectual circle long enough to soak up the true meaning of religion in America. Many of these people sincerely feel that any writer who acknowledges a chasm between religious practices and scientific discovery is doing great harm to the cause of keeping proper science in the science classes, and is giving a potent weapon to the other side. I think the exact opposite is true. I think the true risk lies in continuing to downplay the real discomfort many people feel in the presence of evolutionary thought.
One of the common statements made is that there are many religious people who have managed to accommodate evolutionary theory into their worldview without sacrificing belief in a supreme being, no matter which supreme being (s)he might believe in. I will not argue with this. I know many fine individuals who have a personal god and still are able to accept scientific findings without discomfort. It does, however, ignore certain rather inconvenient facts, such as the fact that the person writing this statement is nearly always someone who has no belief in God themselves, and in many cases, their disbelief is a result of what they’ve observed about the natural world. It also ignores the inconvenient fact that study after study has shown a strong inverse correlation between high percentages of citizens in a society accepting evolution, and high levels of individuals believing in God. Regardless of the various ways in which individuals manage to accommodate both science and religion in their worldviews, it appears that as a society becomes more scientific, it in general becomes less religious.
Another common argument is that there are “many” scientists who accept both evolution and are religious. While there are indeed scientists out there who fit this description, and many of them are very good scientists indeed, there are some problems with the statement as a whole. First of all, the fact sort of depends on how you define the term “many”. Survey after survey after survey has been done of religious views in America. A number of surveys have addressed the religious views of certain professions, including scientists. The highest number that has ever been assessed of scientists holding a belief in a personal god is 40%. This may qualify for the descriptor of “many”, but it is still far below the number of believers in the population as a whole. And the surveys have other problems that render the numbers somewhat suspect. It appears the number 40% is arrived at by including high school science teachers in the mix. It is not standard practice to include high school science teachers in the group labeled “scientists” for other reasons, and their presence could very well be skewing the results of this survey. It certainly doesn’t lend too much support to the premise of acceptance of evolution fitting with religion, since it has been shown that about 95% of high school science teachers in America can’t pick out the proper definition of evolution on a multiple choice test. This isn’t too surprising, since few college science programs require a course in evolution to get a degree. In addition, the survey doesn’t ask the scientists if they accept evolution, and since there are a growing number of scientists (many sponsored by the Reverend Moon) who are going to college to get scientific credentials to add some oomph to their creationist books, this is a serious lack indeed. It could be that the number is skewed to 40% by the presence of some who don’t accept evolution – and that group certainly cannot be used to argue that evolution and religious belief are compatible, in any case. In addition, further studies that have been done of eminent, practicing scientists have dropped the number down to around 10% at most, and when the members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences are polled, it is found that only about 3% of them believe in God. This makes it somewhat suspect that this particular elite group is coming out in support of the proposition that acceptance of evolution is compatible with religious belief.
Perhaps you are mentally murmuring to yourself that none of the above supports my bold statement that it is not true that acceptance of evolution is not incompatible with religious belief. You’re right. All the above does is suggest that there may be some circumstances in which scientific thought and non-belief appear to be strongly correlated. I will, however, hold stubbornly to my statement, and this is why: for many devout, Bible-believing Christians, the acceptance of evolution is simply incompatible with the God they believe in. I have been confronted rudely on occasions by students who insist to know that I am a Christian, but begin by informing me that a person can only be a Christian if they reject evolution, and accept the account in Genesis literally. For this reason, no matter what I might say or do, I could never be a Christian in their eyes. Their very definition of Christianity precludes that possibility. For these people, religious belief and evolution are totally incompatible, and all who accept evolution are non-believers. This brand of religion is, and always will be, strictly incompatible with evolutionary thought. The statement that evolution is not in conflict with religion is an affront; it is a slap in the face to everything they hold dear. It is saying to them “You are worshipping the wrong God” or, at the very least, “You may be worshipping the right God, but you are worshipping him in the wrong way”. For this reason, I say that the statement that evolution is not incompatible with religious belief is an arrogant, insolent, and wrong-headed statement. It may not be incompatible with YOUR religious belief, but it is certainly incompatible with THEIR religious belief, and they are sick of hearing non-believers tell them they don’t know the right way to worship the God they believe in so devoutly.
The single worst thing any evolutionist can do in defending evolution is to maintain that there is no conflict between evolution and religion. Every statement of this sort simply adds fuel to the fire of the pious. For all of us out here trying to teach evolution in the Bible Belt, and trying to douse the fires of creationism that threaten to turn our classrooms into battlefields, it is high time for scientists who have never spent any real time in the devout central and southern states to stop shouting at those of us who have lived out our lives here that we don’t know what we’re talking about. It is time to devote ourselves solely to addressing the factual inaccuracies of creationism and intelligent design, let evolution stand or fall on its own merits. Leave the decisions on what religion is to those who are practicing their religion in their way. If we cannot reach them through the reason and the logic of our arguments, we will never reach them by suggesting that theirs is the wrong God. In fact, we will only continue to fan the fires that are already threatening to totally engulf the scientific enterprise in this country. Though I dislike being rude, and there are certain things my mother told me I should never say, I think on this occasion I will depart from the rules of common courtesy, and just say, to the National Academy of Scientists and all others who would ring in on this issue, “Just shut up already.”
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).