|
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is freedom.
— 2 Corinthians 3.17
Let us discern for ourselves
what is right;
let us learn together
what is good.
— Job 34.4
The heart of the discerning
acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise
seek it out.
— Proverbs 18.15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Terms Of Finding Out
or How Important Is Truth To You?
|
Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.
(Job 34.4)
|
The Responsibility of Truth-Seeking
Tragedy.
It is a word that well describes the
suppression of knowledge. It is the direct result of a human
characteristic of ours that tends to encumber our minds and hinder
progress toward better ideas and more efficient ways of doing things.
This tendency can prevent us from giving up false ideas and accepting
ideas that are more knowledgeable, accurate, and truthful —
and are thus better than what was believed before them.
The problem arises when a specific
tradition becomes a dogmatic stricture that we cling to as being the
very will of God and causes a cessation of any and all progress in
that area. In such a case, the tradition becomes not only bad, but
|
Truth and honesty take precedence over tradition.
|
|
evil, for we have allowed tradition to take precedence over truth.
What is this terrible disposition that can and has prohibited our
advancement in knowledge? Some call it bias or prejudice or
closed-mindedness. It is this kind of an attitude that in a conscious
or unconscious form grows to become a full-blown intellectual
dishonesty and self-deception. These are the products of a
maladaptive pride.
Reassuringly, Christians consider honesty, in the sense of
truthfulness, to be vastly more important than tradition. Yet they
are so concerned with being sincere in their beliefs — traditions
— that they tend to lose sight of what exactly they should be
sincere about. They let sincerity in beliefs become more important to
them than sincerity in seeking truth. They take up the useless
practice of being sincere about being sincere, and in this way they
can deceive themselves into thinking they are following God's will
when in reality they are doing nothing more than following their own
human ideas or following the human mandates laid down by other human
beings who have set their ideas up as divine mandates.
There is no denying that those who make this kind of mistake are
sincere in their beliefs, but their sincerity in following truth has
been left behind. They have lost the real essence and purpose of
sincerity: honesty. Whenever we say we are sincere in
our belief in truth, we should most carefully try to determine whether
|
Truth-seeking is a dynamic process.
|
|
or not we are in actuality simply providing excuses for following the
traditions we have been brought up in and thus believe and follow.
We need to recapture that dynamism and
vitality that is an intrinsic part of a person who is actually sincere
in learning about and following truth, who is striving to be
open-minded, who wants to be intellectually honest. You see, if we are
actually sincere about following truth then we will actively search
for truth, eagerly accept truth, and earnestly follow truth — whatever
truth may be.
An open-minded person is not just a person who is open
to new information and different viewpoints; an open-minded person is
one who is open to new information and is ready, willing, and eager to
accept and guide themselves by an honest, rational evaluation of this
information.
A person who is intellectually honest is one who accepts
the facts, whatever they may be. The intellectually honest person must
|
Truth sometimes leads us where we do not want to go.
|
|
follow what she or he learns wherever it leads, no matter what
implications that knowledge has, and regardless of any doctrines or
beliefs that knowledge may challenge. The truth may lead us where we
sincerely do not want to go. But if we are genuine truth-seekers, we
must follow the truth anyway.
So if we can truly make ourselves
sincere, actually sincere, about truth-seeking then we must be
open-minded and intellectually honest, and that sincerity is
demonstrated in our lives by studying, learning, thinking, and more
studying (and truth-seeking, of course, knows no bounds). This will
produce the kind of faith in our lives that is living and dynamic, not
static and dead. It is not a faith in beliefs or even a faith in
faith, but it is a faith in truth whatever it may be. Some may say
that this kind of faith is a distressingly weak faith because such a
person's beliefs are always subject to revision and change. But I
believe it is, essentially, the strongest faith of all — faith in
reason and truth.
And Christians, especially, have taken
upon themselves the responsibility to be honest and truth-seeking.
Christians do not have the option of choosing whether or not to accept
|
Christians, of all people, have the duty to be intellectually honest.
|
|
certain facts. Christians cannot arbitrarily decide to accept the
facts they like and reject or ignore the facts that displease them.
Christians have pledged themselves to accept the facts, the knowledge
that they obtain, regardless of any traditional ideas or concepts they
believe in that may be called into question as a result of what they
have learned. Christians need to make sure that they are actively
pursuing an interest in truth rather than perpetuating their own
traditions and biases.
Unwillful ignorance can be excused (but
not overlooked — it should be corrected at the earliest opportunity).
Willful ignorance and rejection of facts is not to be tolerated, for
this makes a person a believer not of the pursuit of truth but a
believer of false traditions and false doctrines. This gives a person,
not a true faith, but a blind, unenlightened faith.
Those who will not critically evaluate
their own personal ideas have no legitimate claim to being honest or
open-minded. They are simply not sincere in seeking truth. They are
|
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (The Doobie Brothers)
|
|
sincere only in maintaining their own preconceptions regardless of how
new observations they make impinge upon those preconceptions. This is
utterly and completely hypocritical. Those who claim to be Christians
who yet reveal this attitude by their behavior have lost, no, have
willfully rejected any legitimate basis for being described as
Christ-like.
One sociologist put it this way: "There
exists an unfortunate, yet all-too-human tendency to try to preserve a
pet idea at all costs — even if it requires bending the rules of
rationality and common sense to serve one's own ends." Here is the
same idea stated very simply in the words of the poet: "What a fool
believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away."
Truth-Seeking Can Be Dangerous
Break the bonds of superstitious precepts
that have shackled your minds for so long.
Cast aside the chains of dumb tradition;
learn with earnest the words of finding out.
|
Christians, and fundamentalists
especially, are known for asking people to be open-minded, to study an
issue thoroughly in order to make unbiased and informed decisions, and
to be willing to lay down wrong beliefs and take up correct ones.
People are asked to view their beliefs and doctrines as hypotheses in
need of testing.
I fully agree with this attitude. Any
and all ideas should be subject to testing. A person should not be
willing to say the Bible is the measure of truth just because he or
she was brought up in that tradition. This idea needs to be tested. It
has been said that truth cannot contradict the Bible because the Bible
is truth. Is this assertion true?
One cannot truly claim to be honest and
open-minded unless she or he is willing to question and test their own
ideas, especially those they consider to be fundamental. Are we to
accept beliefs without examination or even without the means by which
to properly evaluate them? Is unquestioning acceptance better or more
important than honest inquiry? Are fundamentalists fairly applying to
themselves what they demand of others?
If we hold to some belief because it is
"traditional," "conservative," or "safe" then let us reexamine the
basis we have for such a belief. We should never accept an idea
because it is considered to be traditional, conservative, or safe.
Conversely, we should never reject an idea because it is considered to
be new, liberal, or dangerous. We should always base our attitudes,
beliefs, and actions on first, trueness, second, honesty (sincerity),
third, love, and fourth, pragmatism (expediency).
It is easy to let ourselves become
apprehensive of what is new and of things people claim are
liberal-minded. We seem to be inherently against change — even when
that change is for the better. We let our "fear of the unknown" (and
our fear of those who consider themselves to be more "conservative")
take priority over what should be our love for and sincerity about
what is true. Recall the biblical statement that "love drives out
fear"? No idea should be dismissed because "we've never done it that
way before" (often referred to as the seven deadly words) or because
"that's not believed in our church."
Is it true? Is it honest? Is it
considerate? Is it helpful?
There are many who may believe that this
is a dangerous path to follow. But if truth-seeking is dangerous, then
so be it. We don't have the right to ask, "Do I want to believe this
idea?", "Is this idea consistent with what my church teaches?", or "Is
this a dangerous belief?" What we should instead be asking is, "How
accurate is this idea?" and "What is the evidence for it?"
What To Do With the Evidence?
This brings out "the central difference
between evolutionary science and creationism: namely, whether we
require evidence for beliefs or whether we accept beliefs without
evidence. Beliefs, not proofs, are the issue. Both tenets of religion
and widely accepted scientific theories are beliefs. However,
scientific ideas require evidence of some sort before they can claim
to be convincing, whereas religious beliefs are frequently held
without substantiating evidence" (Bambach, p. 851).
Science is a process, a continuous
attempt to develop descriptions and explanations of nature that are as
accurate as possible. Scientific theories are not absolute truth but
are ideas "based on observations we regard as evidence. Scientific
theories unite the various observations we make in a coherent fashion
and are the most useful explanations we know for natural phenomena.
They are open to correction, improvement, or modification by new, more
effective ideas that unite a wider spectrum of observations or resolve
previously observed conflicts" (Bambach, p. 851).
"Creationists do not accept any of these
approaches in forming their ideas. Their beliefs are based on a
priori assertions and explain nothing about life on earth or its
history. Creationist beliefs about life and the earth are not open to
modification despite the accumulation of evidence from observations of
nature. Creationists believe that their views are correct without any
supporting evidence and that other ideas are false even though
supporting evidence for them exists" (Bambach, pp. 851-852).
There is the story of a graduate student
in biology who, after having spent years in locating and classifying
all of the insects within a given geographic area for her dissertation
research, was about ready to hand in her report and complete her
degree. Suddenly and unexpectedly she came upon a new kind of insect
which had previously been missed. You know what she did? She stepped
on it!
Although evolution does not attack
religion, it does pose the problem of what to do when convincing
scientific conclusions come into conflict with the beliefs people hold
based on tradition rather than evidence. Science works, most of all,
because as a social process, its practitioners collectively maintain
a loyal allegiance to truth-seeking. Scientists, as a group, strive to
be true to the empirical evidence as they find it. And every person,
whether a scientist or not, who claims to be intellectually honest
simply cannot allow himself or herself to "step on the bug."
Intellectual Honesty Outweighs Your Biases
The declarations of those who call
themselves "scientific" creationists have been heeded and mimicked for
too long. This demonstrates an unfortunate bias that some people have.
Another story concerns "two men, a
Protestant and a Catholic, who happen to notice a priest entering a
brothel. The Protestant clucks his tongue and smiles smugly as he
reflects on the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church. The Catholic beams
proudly as he reflects on the fact that, when a member of his church
is dying, even in a brothel, he is entitled to the Holy Sacrament, and
a priest will enter the brothel to administer it" (Aronson, p. 199).
What this illustrates is that people usually come up with
interpretations and explanations that fit their beliefs and
prejudices.
A creationist is a person who is a
fundamentalist (one who believes in the infallibility of the Bible)
who believes that the origins of the universe, the earth, and
humankind as described in the first two chapters of Genesis are
historically and scientifically accurate, and most creationists also
believe that the vast majority of geological and paleobiological
history was produced in a worldwide flood also as described in
Genesis. People with a fundamentalist background want to accept what
the "scientific" creationists say before they ever take a look at the
actual scientific evidence one way or the other (if they ever do).
Let's consider the situation without
mincing the matter. Assuming, for the moment, complete ignorance of
science and its discoveries, fundamentalists (definition above) want
to say that science reveals, simply in more detail, the same thing
they read in Genesis. Before they have looked at the scientific
evidence, they already know that the basic thesis of evolution is
strongly dissonant with one of the religious doctrines they have been
taught and have accepted. Before they even begin to look at the
evidence for evolution, then, their minds have already automatically
(subconsciously) "shut off" any real consideration of evolution. Their
minds are biased.
Now, being biased is not always the
terrible thing people usually think it is. A bias is simply a
preference that a person has developed for something. But we need to
constantly keep in mind that our beliefs will, obviously, affect our
interpretations and judgements of ideas and events, because in matters
of importance a bias can become a hindrance and may even become a
tragedy. A bias, in this case, is a preference or inclination that
inhibits impartial judgement.
The difference between the open-minded
individual and the closed-minded one is, if the open-minded person is
unjustly discriminating against other persons or ideas, she or he is
always open to correction and willing to change; however, the
closed-minded individual is not. So to deal with our bias in such
instances we must: (1) make ourselves aware of the bias, (2) learn why
we have the bias and what has caused it, and (3) consciously attempt
to overcome the bias so as to try to render impartial judgement. Since
bias can cause our minds to automatically disallow any acceptance of
ideas that are different from what we have grown up with or simply
taken to heart, to try to be impartial and intellectually honest we
have to consciously realize our bias and try to approach these ideas
with an open mind.
Intellectual honesty is difficult, but
it is worth it — we are pursuing truth. As the saying goes, the mind
is like a parachute — it functions properly only when it is open.
In all honesty, then, as we begin to look at what science has discovered, we
start out looking at it with certain preconceived ideas, with certain
prejudices. When a fundamentalist listens to the "scientific" creationists, he
or she is already predisposed to accept what they say because they agree with
the fundamentalist conception of the world. Because of this, fundamentalists
have tended to be uncritical of the claims of the "scientific" creationists.
And, basically, fundamentalists have also rejected the findings of science out
of hand, without even considering the actual evidence. Of course, since
"scientific" creationists claim to be fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalists
assume they have been honest in what they have said. We can understand if they
make honest mistakes, but in no way whatsoever can we accept outright deception
— but this is exactly what "scientific" creationists have perpetrated upon
us. The trust of the fundamentalists has been misplaced.
"Scientific" creationists use facts in a very unscientific (not to mention
dishonest) way. Facts are either twisted into meaninglessness, simply denied
altogether, or fabricated from never-never land. Indeed, this is where
"scientific" creationists betray the fact that their brand of creationism is not
scientific at all but is based completely on a religious doctrine — and a
false one at that. Their method is not to take their belief and make it
correspond to the evidence; they take the evidence and force it to correspond to
their belief.
Some Relevant Facts
The idea of evolution is derived from a number of facts and natural explanations
built on those facts, and of itself encompasses many facts and natural
explanations. But before I begin discussing some of the facts relevant to this
discussion I want to clarify my use of the word "fact."
|
In the scientific sense, facts must be propositions
agreed upon by individuals who have repeatedly applied rigorous, controlled
methods of direct or indirect observations. All but the most trivial
facts...begin life as hypotheses and graduate to 'facthood' as knowledgeable
individuals come to agree upon them. The rotation of the earth was once a
hypothesis; it is now a fact. Facts are merely hypotheses that are well
supported by the available evidence. The difference between a fact and a
hypothesis, then, is a matter of degree, a matter of how much evidence there is.
Yet people who have a vested interest in opposing scientific conclusions often
claim that whatever they oppose is merely a hypothesis or a theory, not a set of
facts.... [C]reationists say that evolution is a theory, not a fact, and hence
unproven. However, nothing in science is ever proven in this sense. There are no
immutable facts. Every scientific claim is a hypothesis, however well supported
it may be.... [We simply call it a fact when there is so much evidence for it]
that it is hardly imaginable that it could be false.
|
|
Paleobiologist Niles Eldredge gives an example of this progression of certainty
in an idea we describe as fact (pp. 29-31):
|
Consider the statement "The earth is round." Is it a fact, an hypothesis, or a
theory?...[T]o most of us, that the earth is round is a fact. But why? How many
of us can perform a critical experiment to show that the earth really is round?
How many of us have ventured high enough into the upper reaches of the earth's
atmosphere that we could really see the earth's curvature? Most of us have seen
photos of the earth taken from satellites, space ships, and from the moon
itself. Clearly the earth is round. But the relatively few vocal "flat earthers"
have a counter even for this: the spectacular achievements in space of the past
twenty-five years are all an elaborate hoax — nothing more. The stills and
film of a round earth are fakes.
Now, if the earth is round, it is probably safe to assume it has always been so
— at least since the dawn of human history when we can pick up a written
record of mankind's views on the question. Yet the roundness of the earth was
certainly no generally accepted fact when Columbus set sail with his fleet of
three ships. Only after the globe had been safely circumnavigated a number of
times without a single ship dropping off the edge did the roundness of the earth
start to take on the dimensions of credibility we deem necessary for a notion to
become a fact.
Yet Eratosthenes, a Greek living in Ptolemaic Egypt in the third century B.C.,
showed that the earth could not be flat with a simple yet conclusive experiment.
His predecessors had already suggested the earth was round because it cast a
curved shadow on the moon. And ships sailing toward an observer appeared on the
horizon from the top of the mast down, also suggesting the earth is curved.
Hearing that the sun shown down a well at Syene (now Aswan) at noon on the
summer solstice (the longest day of the year), Eratosthenes measured the angle
between the sun's rays and a plumb bob he lowered down a well in Alexandria,
some six hundred miles north of Aswan, precisely at noon. That there was an
angle at all in Alexandria was inconsistent with the idea that the earth was
flat. The phenomenon could only be explained if he envisaged a ball-shaped
earth. Using simple trigonometry, Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of
the earth to be the equivalent of about 28,000 miles, a respectable
approximation to the 24,857 miles our modern instruments give us today. Columbus
was aware of this and of later calculations, and used them in his navigation.
Certainly the universe is the way it is notwithstanding what we may think it is.
Is the proposition that the earth is round a fact, an hypothesis, a theory, or a
downright falsehood? It is an idea that has been variously considered all four.
It was first called a wild idea, then a necessary conclusion (albeit accepted
only by a few Greek savants); its respectability as a credible idea grew with
the Renaissance. Now most of us proclaim it as fact — all attempts to
disprove it have utterly failed. Flat earthers notwithstanding, we now even have
direct confirmatory photographic evidence that the earth is a sphere. But a
round earth is still an idea, although it is an extraordinarily powerful idea.
So what of [the] remark that evolution is only a theory? The answer is this: all
of science is an interplay of ideas and observations. To label something a
theory in science is really to call it a complex idea. And that is what science
is all about: ideas.
|
|
All of the following fall into this category of fact, which are relevant to our discussion:
| 1. | |
The universe is approximately 14 billion years old. |
|
| 2. | |
The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. |
|
| 3. | |
Life has existed on the earth for at least 3 billion years. |
|
| 4. | |
Major forms of life now on the earth did not exist in the past. |
|
| 5. | |
Major forms of life on the earth in the past no longer exist today. |
|
| 6. | |
The forms of life on earth today have descended from the forms of life that existed in the past. |
|
Evolution: Fact and Theory
At this point it is important that we understand a fundamental distinction in
the ideas of evolution that creationists have purposely obscured. A simple
analogy will help clarify this distinction.
I believe everyone is aware of the fact that when a ball is thrown up, it comes
down (unless, of course, some force is applied to it to keep it up). Humans,
I'm sure, have consciously recognized this fact for many thousands of years,
but it was not until very recently (17th century) than any kind of an accurate
description of the forces and motion involved in this thing called gravity was
made. Even more recently these theories (we usually hear them called laws) were
revised by Einstein to include relativity. But if we step back for a moment we
can see that none of these theories actually tell us much about gravity itself.
They are descriptions of how things are influenced by gravity, not descriptions
of gravity. Few people are aware that physicists today are working on hypotheses
about gravity itself.
What is gravity? How does gravity make itself known? How does one mass know that
another mass is exerting a force upon it when there is apparently no contact
between them? A hundred years ago questions like these could never have even
been considered critically because there did not exist the means by which to
explore them. We now live in a very exciting period of exploration where the
technology needed to test these incredibly fantastic ideas is being built before
our eyes! Laboratories such as miles-long particle accelerators (like Fermilab
in Batavia, Illinois) and gigantic underground tanks of ultra-pure water are
being used to conduct experiments relevant to investigating various theories
regarding the actual nature of gravity. Hopefully, within the next twenty years
physicists should learn enough (both in terms of experimental information and
in the development of the proper mathematical sophistication). [However, note
that when I originally wrote this essay in 1983, I had written "by the end
of the century" instead of "within the next twenty years." So my
earlier optimism was clearly misplaced. Gravity is clearly a very complex aspect of
reality.]
What's the point? Gravity is a fact, I'm sure all will agree. However, it should
be clear that the theories of gravity are not. We do not know for sure yet how
gravity works, but this does not cause us to doubt the existence of gravity or
what it does. A falling apple is not going to suddenly suspend itself in midair
pending the outcome of experiments in an advanced physics laboratory. There are
theoretical constructs to try to explain what gravity is, there is the law of
gravity that high school students learn in their physics classes that describes
how gravity influences the motion of objects, and there is the fact that,
ultimately, what goes up must come down.
Ideas about evolution have this same characteristic: Living things have changed
(and are changing) through time, while our theories about this process of change
try to explain and give details about how it works and how it explains the
history of living things and life as we see it today.
Apples fall. How?
Living things change. How?
So, there is the fact of evolution and there is the theory of
evolution (there is actually more than one theory, as the dynamic scientific
criticism and debate among ecological and evolutionary biologists and
paleobiologists makes clear), and this is the fundamental distinction that must
be clearly understood. The general fact that living things change and have
changed is unquestionable according to all of the evidence that we have
available to us today. However, as with any healthy scientific endeavor, the
theories of evolution are attacked, criticized, changed, revised, and improved.
(The theory of evolution proposed by Lamarck was rejected long ago, except in
the Soviet Union where it was kept alive through political appeal and authority
and set Soviet biologists, especially geneticists, behind for decades. Using
political tactics to dictate science has always been bad for science and for
those doing the dictating. Unfortunately, creationists in the United States have
not learned this historical lesson.)
Science Does Make Progress
For decades there has been little or no room for doubt. The evidence is
conclusive. To reject the general concepts of an ancient universe, an ancient
earth, and biological evolution in order to cling to creationism is to accept
unsupported and unsupportable fantasy. Indeed, all of the basis tenets of
creationism that are able to be tested have been tested and have been shown to
be wrong.
Creationism is not recent at all. Recall that, in the Western world, the vast
majority of naturalists involved in investigating reality for the last several
centuries were people who took the Bible for granted. Creationism began as
"the default position." Our scientifically-based understanding of the
world around us came after several decades of quite dedicated research that
forced the early creationists to drastically modify their basic
biblically-derived positions to views that actually began to reflect what they
were learning about the world based on objective examinations of the world
itself.
The creationists of today frequently try to pretend that their views have come
along as if based on new scientific developments. But, to the contrary, their
views are quite old, and they ignore all of the scientific research of the last
two hundred years in order to maintain their biblical fundamentalism. They
ignore much of the scientific research made even by the early creationists of
the 18th and 19th centuries (let alone the scientific researches of the 20th)
that by intellectual honesty forced them to move away from a literal
interpretation of Genesis.
A person who in this day and age denies the fact that living things have changed
during the 3-1/2 billion year history of life places herself or himself in the
same category as those who denied the sphericity of the earth at the end of the
16th century (many decades after Magellan circumnavigated the globe) and is much
like the few "flat-earthers" who still exist today who deny the
sphericity of the earth base on their very strict adherence to literal
interpretations of the Bible.
People have been learning about the related biological, geological,
paleontological, and astronomical evidence and have been building on it for over
200 years. The evidence over all this time has simply grown and continued to
corroborate biological evolution on an ancient earth in an even more ancient
universe. Anyone who wishes to see the evidence can do so simply by
taking the time and effort to look (at the natural world as well as in the
scientific literature). Indeed, Christians who have done so professionally as
scientists — even the great majority of those who would be religously
predisposed to ignore or distort the evidence — have accepted the facts of
evolution on the ancient earth.
My purpose in this essay has been to describe the attitude that, with its
honesty, curiosity, practicality, and effectiveness, drastically affects
important fundamentalist beliefs. The effects are a natural consequence of the
attitude of truth-seeking. And you can't impugn the attitude of truth-seeking
without rejecting intellectual honesty altogether.
What About Genesis?
The emotion-laden aspect of this subject is how these ideas affect certain
religious beliefs, specifically beliefs about the Bible.
First of all, we should realize (and I think we all basically do) that no
understanding, interpretation, or belief about the Bible or based on a biblical
text can contradict any facts (extremely well confirmed ideas) and be a proper
understanding, interpretation, or belief. In other words, what we believe about
the Bible and ideas in the Bible must be in accordance with any facts we have
pertaining to the subject under consideration. Truth cannot contradict truth.
(As a practical matter, the fundamentalist approach has shown itself to be
exactly the opposite: The biblical fundamentalist methodology says that no
understanding, interpretation, or belief about anything can contradict the Bible
in any way and be a proper understanding, interpretation, or belief. Of course,
this involves a circularity of "reasoning" that assumes a belief and
then proves the belief by using the assumption, but fundamentalists refuse to
acknowledge, or even address, this disparity with legitimate reasoning.)
In many translations, Genesis 1:1 states, "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth." This can allow some question as to whether or not
the creation of the heavens and earth was an event that preceded the
"creation week" of the rest of Genesis 1 by some indeterminate period
of time. However, Exodus 20:11 tells us that "in six days the Lord made the
heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them." Taken together,
the statements from Genesis and Exodus imply that the heavens and the earth were
created on the first day. So we have the following table from Genesis, chapter
one:
| Day 1: | | space, earth, light, day, night |
| Day 2: | | firmament |
| Day 3: | | dry land, plant life (land) |
| Day 4: | | sun, moon, stars |
| Day 5: | | water animals, birds |
| Day 6: | | land animals, humans |
Referring back to the six aspects of reality I previously mentioned (an ancient
universe, an ancient earth, and the fossil record) we realize that the fact of
an ancient earth precludes the idea that the days of the creation week can in
any way be historically literal. The creation events stated in the first chapter
of Genesis are in incorrect order compared to what has been learned from
astronomy and the fossil record. Thus, even trying to interpret the creation
week as "one day equals one long period of time" does not produce a proper
correlation with reality.
Here are some specific examples:
| ♠ | |
Galaxies and stars existed for several billion years before the sun and the
earth formed.
|
|
| ♠ | |
From other scientific investigations that have been made (such as regarding the
sun's generation of energy, and the decay of radioactive elements on the earth
and moon) we know that the sun, moon, and earth were formed about the same time.
|
|
| ♠ | |
Genesis says the earth was at first covered by water and then land appeared,
when the reverse is what actually took place (as the earth accumulated with
cataclysmic collisions of the matter that condensed to form our solar system).
|
|
| ♠ | |
Grasses appeared long after fish. (Unlike fish, grasses have a very
recent appearance in the fossil record). Birds appeared long after land animals,
not before (again, according to the fossil record). And we could go on and on.
|
|
So what is the Genesis creation account an account of? Genesis reflects the
primitive cosmogony of the Israelites. This is the plainest, the most obvious,
and the most natural understanding of the creation account.
This explanation is rejected by fundamentalists, not because of any evidence
that contradicts the most natural explanation or that supports the
fundamentalist viewpoint, but because of their personal prejudices. It goes
against the basic concept of fundamentalism — biblical infallibility —
so they deny the most reasonable explanation.
Is this demonstrative of open-mindedness? Is it intellectually honest to deny it
in such a manner? Of course not! It's about time fundamentalists put their minds
in gear and start thinking about and considering ideas that at least correlate
with the facts that are known rather than running along in neutral, content and
satisfied with an unrealistic (and dishonest) picture of the Bible.
If we have any real respect for the Bible we must allow it to speak for itself
regarding the ideas, beliefs, customs, and living patterns of the various
cultures that the biblical writers depict. It is in their failure to do this
that fundamentalists display a grave disregard for the biblical writings.
Don't Criticize What You Don't Understand
I don't expect anyone to reject biblical fundamentalism and accept evolution
based on what I have said in this essay. I do expect every person who makes any
claim to being an honest person and who wishes to attack astronomy, geology, and
biology to find the relevant evidence, study it, and assess it with the attitude
that has been advocated in previous paragraphs.
This is the responsibility and duty of anyone who wants to make a legitimate
claim to being a truth-seeker.
I have looked at the evidence. I have studied it. I have constantly held before
myself the ideal of intellectual honesty in a struggle to utilize it as
completely as possible. As a result, I am not a fundamentalist any longer (even
though I strongly held to that viewpoint at a former time). I cannot accept the
idea that the Bible is some kind of an inerrant document and remain an honest
person. Genesis is not and cannot be expected to be scientifically or
historically accurate. The Bible cannot have been inspired by God in the manner
fundamentalists believe.
I make no claims with regard to knowing the precise way in which the Bible came
about. Knowledgeable theologians and critics have wrestled with that problem for
centuries. I'm not about to say I know. What I do know, however, is that
anything we believe about the Bible must accomodate the much more certain
knowledge that we have obtained, for otherwise our belief would only be
dishonest and deceptive.
The intellectually honest person simply cannot accept a religious belief by
faith when he or she is aware of the abundance of evidence that controverts such
a belief. The intellectually honest person must be free to pay more than lip
service to the fullest possible use of reason. The intellectually honest person
must be free to wonder about and question the fundamental religious doctrines
that most people take for granted. The intellectually honest person must be free
to search for and explore the reasons behind and the assumptions underlying such
beliefs. The intellectually honest person must be free to decide for herself or
himself that any particular belief is fallacious or nescient, if indeed such is
the case, free to reject such a belief, and free from having to constantly worry
about censure, reproach, and ostracism when she or he does so.
How can a person be truly spiritual and morally responsible without the
freedom to seek the truth and the responsibility to be intellectually honest?
Honesty and curiosity about truth should give us the power to free ourselves
from our prejudices and the discipline to accept what we learn.
At one time I was a fundamentalist, but I was also a person who questioned my
own ideas, ideas commonly accepted among fundamentalist Christians, to examine
the bases of my beliefs and to test whether or not my own beliefs were
reasonable and correct. I was willing to lay my beliefs on the line by
questioning them, checking them out, and being willing to discard them if I
found that they had an insufficient basis.
As my examinations progressed and developed, I discovered that fundamentalism
did not fit into the mold of reality. This change in my beliefs took place,
incidentally, through my intensive study of the creation-evolution controversy
and ended up drastically affecting the very core of my ideas about religion,
life, existence, and people. During this whole process of my studying and
thinking and rethinking I have always tried to be critically honest in my search
for truth.
I have chosen the path of intellectual honesty.
References
- Elliot Aronson. 1980.
- The Social Animal (3rd Ed). San Francisco: W. H. Freeman &
Company.
- Richard K. Bambach. 1983.
- "Responses to Creationism." Science 220: 851-853.
- Niles Eldredge. 1982.
- The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. New York:
Washington Square Press.
- Douglas J. Futuyma. 1983.
- Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution. New York: Pantheon Books.
|
|