Finding a Middle Ground in the Evolution Wars

Earlier published column -- republished here

Faith in the Public Square
Lompoc Record
October 16, 2005

Perhaps like me, you find the battles being fought in school board meetings and science classrooms across the country distressing, and even disturbing. The actions of the Dover, Penn., school district in mandating mention of ”intelligent design“ in biology classes and the Kansas state school board decision to downgrade evolution in its state science standards have made headline news.

It appears that the scientific establishment is under siege by the religious community. But is the reverse also true?
Are the lessons being taught in science classrooms providing stumbling blocks to the development of faith among our young people? Dover and Kansas may seem far away from Lompoc, but the debate goes on even here, in churches and classrooms, living rooms and in barbershops. God or Darwin, these seem to be our only choices, but are they?
This debate is not new, of course. Since 1632, when the church banned the book containing Copernicus' theory that the earth revolved around the sun and sanctioned Galileo for providing experimental confirmation of Copernicus' ideas, certain elements of the religious community have been at war with certain scientific theories. With the publication of his theory of natural selection in 1859, Darwin stirred the controversy which led, in this country, to the Scopes trial of the 1920s.
There is of course, a middle ground between two extremes - an atheistic scientific naturalism and an anti-science religion. It took some time, but today most Christians aren't threatened by the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo. Likewise, since the time of Darwin, many theologians have tried, I think successfully, to reconcile Darwin and faith. It is unfortunate that this ”middle voice“ is in danger of being overwhelmed by the partisan nature of the current debates.
I write as a pastor and theologian, not as a scientist. But I am not afraid of, nor is my faith threatened by, science. Science may force me to rethink some of my conclusions and beliefs, but I am comfortable with the theory of evolution because it works. It is the foundation upon which many of the advances in the physical and natural sciences, particularly in the medical field, since the 1860s have been made.
The proposed alternative - ”intelligent design“ - has received political support from President Bush and many evangelical Christians, but it not a scientific theory. Rather, it is a philosophical statement, which insists that gaps in evolutionary theory and the complexity of the universe require an ”intelligent designer,“ who may or may not be God. What proponents of intelligent design have yet to offer is a compelling and testable scientific theory that explains the facts on the ground.
The question of design merits investigation. Recent earthquakes and hurricanes can raise questions about design, even as complexity raises questions of an unguided evolution. But both science and religion would be better served if the conversation moved from debate to dialog. Their relationship need not be adversarial.
The scientific and religious communities come into conflict when they speak of things about which they are not equipped to speak. Scientists are no longing functioning as scientists when they make claims about the ultimate nature of reality. Religious adherents err when they turn their sacred texts, written for theological purposes, into a template for scientific inquiry. Genesis does not offer scientific theory, but it does offer a wonderful statement about the meaning and purpose of creation, which is something scientific theory is not equipped to handle. On these matters, science is silent, and rightly so. Unfortunately this silence has been interpreted some religious quarters as antagonism toward religion.

It is healthy to debate the merits of science and faith. The questions of intelligence and design and their relationship to science are worth pursuing, but not in our science classrooms. Continuing the battle in its present form diminishes both science and faith. Is it any surprise that in this fractious climate America is falling behind the rest of the developed world in science? Is it any wonder that many people swear off faith in God, because it would seem that to embrace God is to deny science?There is a middle path that can lead to fruitful dialogue. Let us choose our path wisely.
Dr. Bob Cornwall is pastor of First Christian Church of Lompoc.
October 16, 2005

Comments

Mike L. said…
Well said!

Evolution is still causing so much stress and arguments both inside and outside the church. It makes we want to give up sometimes. I might if it were not for people like you, Bob. I'm glad there are a few voices in the wilderness that seem to be able to reconcile these issues and remain faithful to our traditions.

Image what will happen in 20 or 30 years when science has even more knowledge of the human brain. Issues like the soul, ecstatic religious experiences, and consciousness are going to become the new battle grounds if religious conservatives continue to place their faith in a "God of the gaps".

Popular Posts