Post 8: Evolution III

    Last week while on Spring Break I saw something that made me laugh. I was wondering around the Boston Science Museum waiting for my science crazy family to get all their science craziness worked out so we could go get some food when I stumbled upon a dwindling crowd who had sat in on an evolution skit. The skit was put on by a local comedy troupe, but other than that I didnÕt know anything about it. As I walked into the skit area, though, I noticed two slightly old-fashionedly dressed, short people talking to the costumed actors. I hadnÕt yet realized what I was walking in on, so I took a few more steps and suddenly found myself watching a seemingly crazy pair of religious fanatics firing questions at the actors about evolution as the actors patiently tried to explain that they were not scientists so they lacked the knowledge to answer the science based questions. When I recognized what I had walked in on, I immediately turned around left, snickering quietly to myself at the religious fanatics mistake. So I laughed. But I wish I hadnÕt.

    I do feel that a belief in evolution does not exclude a belief in God or Jesus, that the two are compatible for most modern interpretations of the Bible which do not take the words or stories literally, especially many of those from the old testament. I think that everyone, though, is entitled to his or her opinion and has the right to speak his or her mind. We emphasize tolerance so much that often when we see someone else being ÒintolerantÓ we immediately condemn him or her. In my case, I condemned the man and the woman arguing against evolution as stupid and intolerant. However, while I walked around the exhibits in meditation, I decided that I had stooped lower than the couple. While they were fighting for something they believed in, I was just following a popular train of thought. They were talking to the actors about something they had portrayed. Even if the actors claimed ignorance, the coupleÕs questions may have prompted the actors to reconsider portraying things they did not understand fully. And further, the couple was fighting a losing battle, but they were still sticking to their beliefs. I had simply succumbed to the all-to-easy escape of acting like I expected myself to act. The man and woman were unpopular, something no one likes to be. But they believed something so strongly they were willing to sacrifice their acceptance for it. By condemning those who do refuse to acknowledge evolution and insist on a strict interpretation of the Bible, we make ourselves the intolerant ones. And more, we are normally ignorant of their full story. We, in turn, are the actors throwing our hands up and saying, ÒIÕd have to be a scientist to answer that.Ó And ignorance isnÕt a valid excuse.

    After all that, I want to make it clear that I donÕt believe what the people were saying so much as respected what they were doing. I think that evolution and religion are compatible to all who accept a loose translation of the Bible.
ÒÉThat life is not as idle ore

    But iron dug from central gloom,
    And heated hot with burning fears,
    And dipt in baths of hissing tears,
    And batterÕd with the shocks of doomÉÓ
    I feel that the missing link isnÕt so much some random fossil left undiscovered, but rather the link of emotion. Do the apes from which we possibly evolved feel emotion? Do they feel it to the depth of a human? Or are they just the Òidle oreÓ? Maybe monkeys and apes feel emotion and so do our dogs and cats and other pets, but what about snails and lobsters?  Finally, StudebakerÕs Using GodÕs Design to Communicate Faith asserts that ÒÉthough they [Christiains] know they cannot prove GodÕs existence to anyone, they can show some reasonable evidence as to why they believe this is trueÓ (262). This is a critical statement that I feel separates science from religion. While the two can coincide and indeed work together, I donÕt feel that the scientific method should ever be applied to religion. The point isnÕt to prove something or some God exists. If that could be done, there would be no purpose in faith. Science is not based off of faith but off of fact and observation. According to Paul Krugman, "...scientific trught is determined by peer review, not public opinion..." (270). This difference is very important and helps keep the two separate.