Evolution threatens Christianity

Evolution threatens Christianity

Q: Rick Perry, at a campaign event this week, told a boy that
evolution is 'just a theory' with 'gaps' and that in Texas they teach
"both creationism and evolution." According to a 2009 Gallup study,
only 38 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution. If a
majority of Americans are skeptical or unsure about evolution, should
schools teach it as a mere "theory"? Why is evolution so threatening
to religion?
So-called "reality TV" has done the world a grave disservice. I don't
just mean because the vast majority of such programs are
mind-numbingly tedious, but because they have given people the idea
that reality is something that can be decided by popular vote. In a
"reality TV" show, the winner is decided through a popularity contest:
the person who gets the most votes from viewers emerges triumphant.
Anything less like reality it would be hard to imagine - when it comes
to facts about the world, at least.
In the real world, facts are stubborn beasts. They are supremely
unmoved by whether we like them or not. We may sternly disapprove of
the idea that stepping off the window ledge of an apartment on the
14th floor will result in our death; we may go further, and resolutely
contradict all claims to that effect, clinging religiously to our
belief that such activity is nothing more than an enjoyable and
exhilarating way to spend an afternoon; but neither our disapproval
nor our disbelief will make the slightest difference to the real-world
splat.
And it is the same with evolution. Evolution is a simple fact. We can
choose to remain ignorant of it, we can stick our fingers in our ears
and refuse to think about it, we can even rail against it and shout
and scream that it is not allowed to be true. But facts are facts, and
will not go away just because we don't like them. We don't get to vote
for our preferred method of having come into existence as a species,
any more than we can choose to have been delivered by stork rather
than conceived and born in the usual way.
The primary role of the school is pretty straightforward: it is to
educate. It is to give young people the opportunity to learn as much
as possible about the world, on the basis of the very best knowledge
we have. Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of
allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate
itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information
that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful
betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and
who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education
itself.
Remember that 'ignorance' is not an insult, but merely a term for
'lack of knowledge'. Many of the people who protest so vociferously
against the teaching of evolution do not understand how overwhelmingly
strong the evidence for it is; and many of those who proclaim "But
it's only a theory" do not understand that the scientific and everyday
usages of the word 'theory' are very different. In everyday English,
'theory' can mean something vague, a hunch, a guess. In scientific
English, it is almost as far from that meaning as it's possible to
get: in science, a theory is the best explanation for a set of facts.
It carries real weight: in science, nothing can be called a 'theory'
until it is very well established indeed. Science has its own term for
what, in a non-scientific context, the rest of us might call a
'theory': the scientific term for a suggestion, a best guess,
something that seems plausible but has not yet been shown to be
reliably true, is 'hypothesis'. You will never, ever hear a scientist
talk about 'the hypothesis of evolution', for the simple reason that
evolution is long past that stage. Evolution is a theory in the
scientific sense of the word - tested, researched, explored and
supported by masses and masses of evidence. There may still be
specific details that are not entirely agreed upon; but the fact of
evolution itself is not disputed by any reputable scientist. (If you
are in any doubt about the evidence for evolution, I highly recommend
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins or Why Evolution is True
by Jerry Coyne , because both authors have explained comprehensively,
beautifully and very accessibly just why we can be so sure that
evolution really is a fact.)
To deprive children of this knowledge, or to water it down so as to
pretend that it's just a wild guess, is to deliberately deprive them
of one of the most powerful and illuminating pieces of knowledge that
humans have ever acquired. It is to deliberately keep them from what
we know to be the truth. It is to conceal from them their true
identity, and all meaningful knowledge of their roots. To suggest that
creationism is in any way a rival 'theory' is to confuse reality with
myth. Creationism is to evolution what Santa Claus is to frazzled
parents frantically buying and wrapping presents for their children at
Christmas. There comes a point in our childhood when we must let go of
the fantasy of Santa Claus; and there comes a point in our
civilization when we must let go of the fantasy of creationism too.
Evolution is science, and should be taught in science classes.
Creationism -- let us be very clear about this --is a purely religious
doctrine, with no scientific underpinning whatsoever. Indeed, all the
evidence points very strongly to its being false. It therefore has no
place in a science lesson. Science proceeds on the basis of evidence,
religion on the basis of faith, and any teacher who tries to teach
faith-based dogma in a science class is clearly demonstrating her
unsuitability for the role.
But of course evolution poses a problem for Christianity. That's not
to say it poses a problem for all Christians, since many Christians
happily accept evolution: they see Genesis 1 as merely a metaphor, and
declare that if God chose to create us using evolution, that's fine by
them. I used to be this kind of Christian myself; but I must confess
that my blitheness was only possible because I had only the vaguest
possible idea of how evolution works and certainly didn't know enough
about it to realize that unguided-ness is central to it. While I
welcome anyone who recognizes that the evidence for evolution is such
that it cannot sensibly be denied, to attempt to co-opt evolution as
part of a divine plan simply does not work, and suggests a highly
superficial understanding of the subject. Not only does evolution not
need to be guided in any way, but any conscious, sentient guide would
have to be a monster of the most sadistic type: for evolution is not
pretty, is not gentle, is not kind, is not compassionate, is not
loving. Evolution is blind, and brutal, and callous. It is not an
aspiration or a blueprint to live up to (we have to create those for
ourselves): it is simply what happens, the blind, inexorable forces of
nature at work. An omnipotent deity who chose evolution by natural
selection as the means by which to bring about the array of living
creatures that populate the Earth today would be many things - but
loving would not be one of them. Nor perfect. Nor compassionate. Nor
merciful. Evolution produces some wondrously beautiful results; but it
happens at the cost of unimaginable suffering on the part of countless
billions of individuals and, indeed, whole species, 99 percent of
which have so far become extinct. It is irreconcilable with a god of
love.
Evolution poses a further threat to Christianity, though, a threat
that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. Evolution means
that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are
wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the
creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air.
Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all
future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no
fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need
for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or
the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to
gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal
life in the first place.
Christianity is like a big, chunky sweater. It may feel cozy, it may
keep you warm, but just let one stitch be dropped and the whole thing
unravels before your very eyes. Evolution is that stitch. Evolution
destroys the loving creator on which the whole of Christianity
depends. I can quite understand why the evangelicals throw up their
hands in horror at the very idea of it and will do everything in their
power to suppress it. But they can throw up their hands all they like:
it won't make any difference to the reality. All that will be achieved
by their determined efforts to keep young people misinformed about it
is that another generation of Americans will be condemned to
ignorance, unable to understand the world around them properly, and at
a real disadvantage when having to deal and compete with their peers
from more enlightened countries. Willful ignorance is a choice;
evolution is not.
Paula Kirby wrote this response to Governor Perry for On Faith, the
Washington Post's forum for news and opinion on religion and politics.
More On Faith and evolution:
Richard Dawkins: Gov. Perry, evolution is a fact
Panel debate: On evolution, can religion evolve?
Under God: Perry says evolution a 'theory' with 'gaps'
Rabbi David Wolpe: Study evolution, find God
Susan Thistlethwaite: The theological case for evolution
PAULA KIRBY  | AUG 24, 2011 3:26 PM