So, apparently, something monumental happened this last week in the worlds of science and Christianity.
No, nobody cured cancer. No, nobody ended world hunger. Nobody ended human trafficking nor did they find the cure to the common cold. Instead there was a large and well publicised debate between the schools of creationism and evolution. Because, clearly, this is a very pressing issue within the world. <sigh>
I think you can probably pick up my attitude towards all this via that opening paragraph. This was, in my opinion, a waste of time for a topic which very well might be, in totality, beyond any scope of human comprehension. None the less, it happened, and there's been quite a bit of discussion come up afterwards.
If you have no idea what I'm talking about, let me try to explain. On the one side, there was Ken Ham, founder of the "Answer in Genesis" movement. As a creationist, Ham and others advocate for a very young earth. (Aprox. 6000 years old) This earth is the one which is spelled out, literally, within the Biblical book of Genesis. As such, Ham, very much, dismisses evolution as a system of biology.
On the other side, was Bill Nye, a popular television presenter over science. Nye was representing the view that science, as a system, has proven, to a reasonable degree that earth is millennia old and that life has been an evolutionary concept gaining and changing over time.
The debate was billed as the "Great Creation Debate." That descriptor, IMHO, couldn't be farther from the truth. There was nothing great about this debate.
To start with, neither of the presenters is an expert in their field. Yes, they know a lot, but both only have bachelors degrees. Don't get me wrong, a bachelor's degree can provide a really good foundation for a lot of things, but it doesn't make one an expert by any means. (Esp. when we're talking about things on an infinite spectrum.) Mind you, again, you can learn a lot of facts as an undergraduate, but you don't necessarily learn the tools to question, probe, or engage those facts of theorems. (That's what graduate and postgraduate work are meant to do.) So, thus, at it's base, this debate was really a situation where, in affect, it was simply two parrots chattering back and forth.
In fact, I think that's pretty much summed up in one of the quotes for the night. When asked what would change their minds given their respective views, Ham responded "nothing." Nye, responded "evidence."
And therein lies the problem. Both of these gents, well meaning though they might be, are incapable of actually engaging with the other. Ham, wants nothing to do with anything which might challenge his concepts of faith and actuality. Nye, wants nothing to do with anything which can not be explained via theorem and systems. The problem is that neither the world of faith nor the world of science are ever so cut and dry.
I'm not a scientist, I'll admit that upfront. However, I know quite a few scientists and I know that there are a slew of things in the world of the scientist which are inexplicable and require examination, comparison, and sometimes even a good dose of faith. Being a theologian, however, Ham's arguments are another story entirely. To be honest, it's one of those moments of "Oh lord, where do I start?" So, so, so many theological problems to cover...but I'll try to hit a few big ones here.
Foremost, you can't pick and choose which scientific theorems you like and which you don't. I sometimes half expect Mr. Ham to come out and say that he rejects the theory of gravity because that would mean that God wasn't holding us to the earth. What's the difference between that and evolution? Also, there seems to be a grande discontinuity in engaging and benefiting from some parts of science (medicine, technology, etc) and rejecting others. (Evolutionary theory.)
Second, arguing creationism, or Mr. Ham's style of creationism, is really a gross misuse of Hebrew literature. You think Genesis is literal? Okay, I can live with that. But how do you get around the rest of the book? I mean, okay, you can have a literal creation story, but so much of the rest of the book is a, as they say, "hot mess." (i.e.: It's been said to the point of triteness, but it's still a valid point: if Genesis is literal, then God seems to have been okay with populating the earth through incest. And no, you can't throw out the line of "Well, that was a different time, God's not cool with that now..." Nu-uh, doesn't work like that. You can't proclaim a God who's "immortal, invisible, God only wise..." and then say "But that God changed plans." Doesn't work like that. Biiiig problem here.) The thing, which Mr. Ham seems to forget, is that the Hebrews -much like other ancient societies- were oral traditions first and written ones only much later. That means that the representations of Genesis old though they might be -and we do have some VERY old scripts- are themselves only second generation sources. They were handed down by oral tradition over time and space. Certainly, I can't be the only one who likes to mess with "oral tradition" when I tell my own stories, now can I? (Not that I've ever told any whoppers at my local pub or anything.....ever.......at least this week...)
Finally, there's a glaring problem with your concept of God in Mr. Ham's world: You've figured out and defined how God must and did work. You, as the finite, have figured out that which is infinite. You have, in effect, set down parameters and boundaries for who God must be and how God must be. Call me crazy, but -esp. if we're taking Genesis literally- that sounds like a sure-fire way to get a lightning bolt on your arse in a hurry. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't work like that. Infinite defines finite and not the other way around. To paraphrase Augustine, "We see God as though looking through a dirty lens." That doesn't mean we can't have knowledge of God, just that we don't see the whole picture clearly and we must be cognisant of that. We must be continually searching, seeking, listening, and learning from God as to who God is and who we are in light of that.
To wrap it all up, I'm not saying either side is right. Really, I don't know. I'm getting older, but I'm not old enough to have been there in the beginning of all things. So honestly, heck if I know how we got here. To me, it's really not so important in comparison to some of the other things I mentioned earlier. All I know is this: for me, personally, my concept of God is big enough that I have no problem with a God who instituted and worked through evolution. I also trust and believe in science enough to think that it very well might be one of those guiding voices which is leading us to better consider who we are in light of that which is infinite.
But then again, the more I learn, the less I seem to know, so who's to say?
No comments:
Post a Comment