To my surprise, "evolution vs. the Bible" continued in college as well--although mostly in dorm room bull sessions rather than in the academic classrooms. The arguments put forth by each side may have had a bit more sophistication; but they essentially they were the same ones used in those first experienced in junior high.
In general, at least at my liberal arts college, the acceptance of the theory of was more than a foregone conclusion in the hard, natural sciences (especially biology). Questioning "evolution" had all the rationality of rejecting arithmetic in physics or the alphabet in English composition.
The further one got from majoring in the hard sciences, however, one generally found students, with the exception of the atheists, pretty much believed in evolution but also believed in varying degrees in the possibility of divine purpose guiding the direction of evolutionary change.
As we come to the present day, the evolution vs. creationism dispute still has makes its periodic appearance in the popular media. While coverage is heavily tilted in favor of the theory of evolution, still champions of each party took their appointed roles in slugging it out. Most of the time, it appears that these are instances of "let's you and him fight" for entertainment purposes rather than matters to be taken seriously.
In all this, we, who have no trouble synthesizing evolution with faith handed down from the
saints, behold in shirking embarrassment fundamentalists who insist that every word in Scriptures is literally true and therefore evolution is a lie. Worst of all, these fundamentalists take to the battle ground and fight for the teaching of creationism in the schools. To the extent evolution must be taught, they insist that it should be emphasized that evolutionary theory is just that: a theory. Gee, we say to ourselves, don't these "uneducated rubes" realize that their passionate machinations only become cannon fodder for those (especially those pesky "new atheists") who regard all religion the province of dupes and fools? They're giving us sophisticated Christians a bad name because we will invariably be lumped in with them.
The late paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed a way this issue could pacified between to two warring camps. The solution to the supposed conflict between science and religion he called it the thesis of non-overlapping magisteria.
A magisterium refers a domain of teaching authority. And Gould's thesis maintains that "the magistium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral values. According to Gould, since these two magisteria do not overlap there is no real conflict (or at least there should be) between science and religion. As Gould envisioned it, science studies how the heavens go and religion studies how to go to heaven.
Gould's peaceful world for science and religion pleases some and some are less than convinced.
One of the practical problems is just where would this magistium be located among all the religions found on earth. It is doubtful each would accept one central magistium. The likelihood is that each would maintain their own teaching authority. And each has its own concept of how the "heavens go" and man's place in them. Likewise, as in Christianity, progressives get many of their cues from science--a sort of syncretism in which the faith is harmonized with modern science which in the least has implications in morality and the propose of the faith.
Others such as Richard Dawkins, the world-renowned evolutionary biologist and "new atheist", has little patience for religion. If humanity is be guided then it must be done exclusively by science and not the dead hand of the primitive superstitions of the past:
[I]t
is completely unrealistic to claim, as Gould and many others do, that religion
keeps itself away from science's turf, restricting itself to morals and values.
A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and
qualitatively different kind of universe from one without. The difference is,
inescapably, a scientific difference. Religions make existence claims, and this
means scientific claims.
Indeed, many if not most atheists and scientists believe that the demonstration that earth is not the center of the universe as many faiths had taught invalidates them entirely. This world is in a remote corner in the vast expanse of the universe and is not even the center of its own galaxy. The earth is a minor speck among the great heavenly bodies--lost in the cold hollow space. By direct implication, mankind itself is not the center of the universe. Thus no imaginary supernatural being could have any overarching interest in the destiny of mankind. And given that now know how the universe came into being through natural means and we understand a lot of how works, no supernatural being is needed to explain creation, the laws by which it operates, and how mankind came to be. All the great questions of religion and philosophy which have bedeviled mankind in its brief history have been answered--obviating the need for either.
This summation of the wisdom of science is nothing more than radical materialism. It is also philosophical naïve in that it acts as if philosophy has never explored these contentions long before Galileo and his invention of the telescope. It would be as if no music existed before Elvis.
Nevertheless, it should become clear that many have another agenda in the teaching of evolution in schools. They believe the theory of evolution would free children of religious superstitions which shackle their lives--leading them to a freedom of a world guided by reason. (That one doesn't necessarily follow the other is a real life reality which strikes them as a logical impossibly.)
 |
| Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan |
Fundamentalists in their own way sense this underlying schema amidst claims of merely restricting religion to outside the classroom so that teachers could keep an uncluttered focus on the education of their students. Education belongs in the classroom. The inculcation of religion belongs in the Churches and homes. What concerns fundamentalists in many other ways along with the teaching of evolution is that the schools are covertly subverting the authority of their faith by which they are raising their children. In the theology shared by most fundamentalists, the Bible is without error and if one item in the Bible is not true then the Bible can no longer be trusted. If the schools are successful in convincing their children that the theory of evolution is true--that men and women were not created by God as they are now--then the axe has been laid to the root of the tree. The children's faith would be on its way to being killed.
Most Lutherans outside the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods have little sympathy for this "all or nothing" theology of the Bible. We have been taught what the Bible is and what it is not. That is, the Bible is not a science or history text. The concerns of the ancient writers of the books of the Bible were many and varied but living up to our modern concepts of science and history were not among them. Those modern understandings didn't exist and it would be unreasonable to expect the Scriptures to reflect the ideas, concepts, and standards of our time--contemporary notions which themselves are in constant flex.
Still, what does all this add up to? Why do the proponents for the teaching of evolution press so hard? By far the lion's share of students will never hear about the problems of harmonizing quantum mechanics with Einstein's theory of reality. I would say that a few would ever hear about string theory or its implications. Real life experience shows that many successful professionals and craftsmen can excel and contribute to the advancement to their chosen fields and not believe in evolution.
On the other hand, why do those who resist the teaching of evolution (or at least demand "creationism" be given equal time) fight so hard? Again, real life experience shows that many, many Christians believe in evolution (or at least tolerate it being taught to them) yet also stick to "otherwise" orthodox Christianity. In actual practice, evolution doesn't appear to be all that threatening to the spiritual life of Christians.
I would suggest that the conflict over evolution is actually a proxy war over a much deeper issue. Both the champions and opponents of the teaching of evolution know something most of us choose to ignore or (most likely) deny. We tend to believe that the primary business of schools is education. It isn't. The chief task of our K-12 schools is socialization and enculturalization. This means more than bringing up our children to be good, contributing, knowledgeable citizens. It is about making our children aware of the nature the world they live in and what moves that world.
The real issue is this: are we simply products of necessity and chance? Or are we beings created by an all-powerful and loving God? The affirmative answer to either of these questions is not a piece of trivia among all the other issues and choices. They have a direct bearing of how decisions are made and how life is to be lived. Even only by implication, the answer we impart to our children is destined to shape their entire beings.
The belief that the theory of evolution means there is no God is shared by a number larger than you would expect. For many of us, this is a false dichotomy--one does not follow the other. But the basic question on the true nature of reality is one we cannot afford to pass over. What we teach our children does matter and it means we have to consciously decide what that will be. Beings by chance and necessity or beings created by a loving God? There is little neutral ground between the two. At the same time, atheism or theism, neither are the natural default positions in instruction.
We can stand back and laugh at how the champions and opponents of the teaching of evolution wrestle with this question from the wrong end of the bull. But we are gravely mistaken to think there is no bull.
