Talking To Creationists

(Author's note: This is just the end of my last posting; I cut it off and made it a separate post to trim down the last one. So, if you didn't finish the last one, here is what you missed).

The evolution-creationism debate ultimately boils down to large masses of sheep who are concerned that accepting evolution will endanger their souls. Although I think that there are arguments that can be used to quell these concerns (see below), I do NOT subscribe to downplaying the fact that, compared to the general public, atheism and agnosticism are disproportionately common among biologists and paleontologists. It is disingenuous to pretend that non-belief is not a common side effect of the scientific mindset, or that there is not a perfectly good reason for this. Scientific non-believers, even the politically correct ones, usually have particular and explainable reasons for why they are not religious.

In order for evolutionists to have any claim of intellectual and ethical superiority over creationists (which is like shooting fish in a barrel), we have to be completely honest. It is highly disingenuous for supporters of evolution to try to create the impression that the views of obstinately persistent and articulate atheists like Dawkins and Meyers represent some kind of fanatical fringe within the scientific community.

As far as mollifying the fears of creationists, I would like to suggest trying the following tactics:

1. Distinguish between infallible God (or Bible) and fallible creationist speaker or writer. Creationists are perfectly happy pointing out that scientists are fallible human beings, and that the scientific method is based on the recognition that any belief held by scientists can be totally wrong...but they do not want to apply the same criteria to themselves. Rather, they try to make it sound as though they are personally speaking for an infallible God, and that questioning their beliefs is the same thing as questioning God. Point out the difference. If a creationist (or any believer) claims that God exists, or that He believes or did anything in particular, than I am not really questioning God if I doubt it. God didn't tell me those things. A human being did. I'm questioning them.

Likewise, although creationists like to argue that accepting evolution or questioning the Genesis creation story makes God angry and will endanger your soul, the Bible says no such thing. The Bible (for obvious reasons) expresses no opinion on the subject of evolutionary theory, but more importantly, it attaches absolutely NO importance to the Genesis creation story. The story is told, and then forgotten; the Bible does not say that you have to believe it at all, even though the Old Testament has fucking rules for EVERYTHING. Pretty much all Christians (whether they want to admit it or not) selectively interpret the Bible, which explicitly supports child abuse (and murder), spousal abuse (and murder), and slavery. If you are going to pick and choose which of God's explicit instructions you want to acknowledge, then why make a big deal about a story that He never attaches any importance to at all? Although creationists may argue that questioning one part of the Bible means questioning all of it, the Bible doesn't say that either. This is the creationist's insecurity, not God's, Jesus', or the Bible's.

2. If you believe that God is responsible for the apparently random and meaningless events that guide our daily lives, then evolution should be no particular problem. If I won the lottery, broke my leg, got killed in a car accident, or met my future wife on a spur of the moment trip to Flagstaff, most modern Christians would be perfectly happy to ascribe this to being part of God's Plan. If so, than God is perfectly happy operating through materialistic, mundane, and non-miraculous events and accidents. However, if you suggest that things were any different in the distant past, people freak the fuck out. Why? All evolution really suggests is that the same processes happening right now (like mutation, microevolution, pain and death in the natural world, etc..) have been happening for a long time, and that there have been long term effects. If you can honestly believe that a jet crashing onto a highway past the end of the runway and killing a child in he backseat of the car is part of God's Plan, what is the fucking problem with evolution?

3. Point out that, even if you yourself are a non-believer, there are many evolutionist scientists who are also Christians. Intellectual partitioning is one of the great talents of the human species. "That's different" may be the most destructive words in any human language. Some dictator slaughtering entire villages somewhere in the third world is an atrocity, but the Israelites doing it when they got to the Promised Land...that's different. God wanted it. That motherfucker who cut me off on the freeway needs to die in fire, but when I did it to that other asshole...that's different. He deserved it. Injecting religious claims into biology is irrational and absurd, but believing that God exists and that Jesus was his son...that's different. You get the idea. Although I am pretty convinced that the entire scientific method (and the fact that it works at all) is at odds with the religious claim that faith is a valid path to any kind of truth...evolution is not a particular problem for religion.

Suggesting these tactics may seem contradictory to what I talked about at the beginning of this post, but I don't think it so, as long as you are honest about your own viewpoints...it's just that your audience doesn't have to agree with them. Introduce them to the idea of intellectual freedom. Hearing and understanding something does not slave them to having to believe it, or to not believing it. You may be a non-believer, and may have very particular reasons for it, but it is at least possible to be a scientist and evolutionist who also believes in God.

Anyway...