On the Flip Side

I like to think of myself as being open-minded about most things. Those who know me well would surely endorse that sentiment. I don’t mind disagreeing with others, and I even encourage a healthy debate on hot topics that traditionally stir up strong emotions from both sides of the argument. Perhaps I simply enjoy the challenge of getting a rise out of people on occasion by stirring the proverbial pot. But there was one occasion where my usual cool, composed demeanor slipped away and brawl nearly ensued with someone who vehemently challenged my faith and personal beliefs. It was a balmy, later summer afternoon, and the subject of that heated debate was evolution vs. creationism.

As I’ve mentioned in several writings here before, I am a trained scientist with many years of research experience. I am quite familiar with the scientific method, careful observation, and the difference between facts, speculation and theory. Most of my adult life has been rooted in science. Nonetheless, I am also a deeply religious person with a strong Catholic upbringing. I have no question about my faith or my religious beliefs. Yet, I am able to separate my religious beliefs from scientific observation about the world around us. The laws of physics and nature apply to all things throughout the known universe. This should not only apply to the earth’s rotation around the sun, but the mechanism of natural selection that has helped shape life on earth. There is enough empirical evidence to unequivocally support most scientific theories from Einstein’s relativity to Darwin’s evolution of species.

For me, there had been no conflict of interest between the two distinctly different disciplines of science and religion. Each has its place and serves its purpose. The way I view it, science covers the how, where and when – religion covers the why. I can accept a scientific theory (such as evolution) as a basic fact, for example, while maintaining my religious understanding of Genesis. For that reason, I can see both sides of the argument while maintaining some sensitivity to each. Initially during that infamous conversation, I felt I had been doing well in maintaining a subjective, but firm position against the unscientific nature of creationism. I did not attempt to challenge the belief system itself, but the validity of some of the “scientific evidence” purported by creationists – and violently argued by my opponent.

My opponent openly confessed that the heart of creationism was the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. It seemed like a perfectly valid statement to him. The problem was the assumption that the “supernatural” could ever be reliably tested or verified scientifically. It simply could not. His understanding of creationism was more in line with a religious faith than a scientifically provable theory or hypothesis. If the foundation of creationism were not grounded in the scientific method, then all supporting evidence must be carefully scrutinized for similar errors in logic.

Looking back, I may have succeeded in holding my ground, but only exasperated the matter by excessively defending my position. Rather than focusing on countering each of my opponent’s positions, I might have had more success by simply listening to what he had to say and shrugging it off later. My greatest regret was having lost my patience when the individual made personal attacks. By getting angry as a result of his wild attacks on my faith in God and accusations of holding “sinful beliefs” that “men came from monkeys” (of which I never said during the entire conversation), I was lowered to his level of character bashing rather than debate. I should have asserted my position that he was not necessarily wrong, but that creationism, like any other “scientific discipline” should be given the same rigorous scrutiny as the theories of relativity or evolution. If creationism were to be taken serious as a scientific explanation, it must be treated as such. On that argument, he might have actually agreed – albeit, to the demise of his own beliefs in the inherently unscientific nature of creationism. Perhaps from now on I will stick to debates as to whether my beer “tastes great” or does indeed have “less filling”.