In my opinion, refusing to accept evolution is akin to refusing to accept gravity. Through the years, I have engaged in various debates over this topic and found the exercise to be mostly a waste of time. Just like the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate on Tuesday night was a waste of time.
It is true that many individuals who object to evolution are
very misinformed about it. They confuse evolution (an explanation of how life
developed on earth) with theories about the origin of life (evolution is silent
on this subject). Many also incorrectly believe evolution means that humans
developed from monkeys. Instead, evolution simply states that humans and other
primates share a common ancestry.
For a long time, I believed that clearing up misinformation
about evolution would result in "ah-ha moments" and we would all live
happily ever after. Perhaps, Bill Nye thought the same and today he is probably
disappointed. Individuals who hold on to creationism despite all the scientific
evidence do so not because they lack intelligence; not because of ignorance.
They hold on to their belief because it satisfies an emotional need. They need
to believe that the Genesis story is the absolute truth.
What drives this need? Many things, I suppose. A common
theme I found while discussing evolution with creationists is a fear that if the Genesis
account is untrue, then their whole belief system is undermined. Unless they
believe that everything in the Bible is true, then everything becomes suspect.
And how does one choose what to believe literally vs. what to assign to
allegory?
Believing that Adam was created from dust is a choice. There
is no evidence to support it any more that there is evidence that Adam was created
from clots of blood as stated in the Qur'an. Why believe the Bible and not the
Bhagavad Gita? Why believe the story of Noah's ark and not believe Shinto
myths? It is a choice that people make. Most of the time it is a choice driven
by our parents, community or geography. A child born and raised in Saudi Arabia
is most likely to accept Islam as the true religion than a child raised in
Tibet. There is not magic. There is no mystery.
If Bible literalists were honest with themselves, they would
realize that they already cherry pick what to believe in the Holy Book.
Passages in the Old Testament ordering the stoning or mutilation of individuals
for infractions are ignored. The New Testament clearly approves of slavery, yet
Christians today rightly abhor the institution . The very existence of so many
different Christian denominations demonstrates that all believers pick and
choose what to believe in the Bible. It is always a matter of choice.
The Old Testament contains two conflicting creation stories.
In the first account, God created the universe in six days while the second account implies that the universe was created in one day. Animals, fruit trees were
created before or after Adam and Eve depending on which Genesis chapter one
reads. The very presence of two accounts of how the universe was created should
give pause to those who want to believe that every single word in the Bible is
true. Instead, they choose to ignore the inconsistencies or claim they don't
exist because their belief is not driven by fact but by emotion.
Talking about carbon dating, the fossil record or genetic
sequencing will not address the reason that is driving individuals to reject
evolution. It would be more constructive to have a debate about what believing
in creationism means to religious people.
What do they fear would happen if tomorrow they were to
accept evolution? What would change in their moral code if they accept Darwin?
Would Jesus' message of love, forgiveness and compassion be less powerful if they were to accept that the earth is older than what
"young creationists" say? Would their view that man was made in the
image of God be tarnished if they were to acknowledge that humans and other primates share a common
ancestry? These are
the questions that should be debated. Having one more Scopes Monkey trial is
just pointless.
