Little Julie came home from first grade one day soon after
the school year had begun. "Hi, Mommy, I'm home. Mommy, where
did I come from?"
Mother was taken a bit off guard with the question. She
quickly thought back to her first grade experience and realized
that biological science was not part of the curriculum back then,
but she put that aside and forged ahead figuring that kids are
just more advanced these days. She began by talking about how
two people fall in love, decide to marry, and so on. There was
some detail about reproductive anatomy and physiology, but only
as much as a six-year-old might comprehend. Finally, after
almost a half-hour of discourse, she asked, "Does that answer
your question, sweetheart?"
Little Julie responded, "Well, I guess so. Jimmy, who sits
in front of me in class, came from Chicago."
Questions about our origins are not limited to six-year-olds, of course, and certainly not to the location of a hometown.
The opening chapters of the first book in our Bible, Genesis,
deal with it. There are actually two creation accounts found
there. There is the one about Adam and Eve in the Garden of
Eden, the narrative account that would have been used by ancient
Hebrew parents and grandparents when the question was raised by
some long-ago Julie or Jacob. That is preceded by the one we
read together a moment ago, which, as I hope you could tell by
the way we read it, was never intended to be a scientific
treatise on the way the world came to be, but rather an
instrument for use in worship - an antiphon affirming our faith
in the God who is the source of all we have and all we are.
So saying, as you probably know, some folks disagree with
that interpretation. In generations past, that might have been
understandable. It has only been in relatively recent times that
we have had the tools of biblical scholarship, archeology,
textual analysis, etc., available to us to enable a more accurate
reading.
But that more accurate reading has caused some problems. As
little Julie's question reminds us, we DO want to know something
about our origins, and up until about a century and a half ago,
we thought we knew. But then along came Charles Darwin and The Origin of the Species in 1859. Evolution. Natural selection.
That neat little package in Genesis One of six days of creation
came into question. People of faith took great umbrage at
Darwin's theories. Some were so offended that they convinced
their state legislatures to pass laws making the teaching of
Evolution illegal. Religion, science, and politics, all blended
together - a more toxic mix has rarely been brewed. And it all
came to a head 80 years ago in Dayton, Tennessee, as a young high
school biology teacher named John Scopes was convicted of
teaching the forbidden subject and fined $100, an amount never
collected, by the way, since the case was eventually thrown out
on a technicality.(1)
Most of us are familiar with the Scopes Monkey Trial
becaused of the immensely entertaining Broadway play and
eventually movie, "Inherit the Wind." The show was based on fact
but played fast and loose with details, as might be expected.
The result was that people left theatres celebrating the triumph
of science over superstition and, at the same time, thinking that
religious folks are slightly looney. More about that in a bit.
Of course, as recent headlines attest, the Scopes Monkey
Trial was not the end of the controversy. Most mainline
religious bodies quickly reoriented their thinking about the
origins of life in light of both Darwin and Genesis. Because
there was still little understanding of the use of the text as
something other than a scientific document, scholars resorted to
referring to the six "days" of creation as something other than
24-hour days - each day was an epoch of an indeterminate length
of time. That explanation would allow for the huge amounts of
time necessary for the evolutionary process to occur while still
retaining faith in the accuracy of the biblical account. As we
have seen, it turns out that even that bit of ecclesiastical
gymnastics was not necessary since we now know that the text was
never intended to give a scientific explanation for creation
anyway. We use the majestic cadence of wonderful poetry to
affirm our faith.
Look carefully at the verses again. Day One: "Let there be
light." OK. Where does light come from? The sun. But you will
notice that sun is not created in this passage until Day Four.
And the flora and fauna that we know so depend upon the sun
arrive on Day Three. Hmm. No need to press this further.
Simply note there is a beautiful poetic parallel:
Day 1: Light . . . . . . . . Day 4: Sun/Moon/Stars
Day 2: Waters/Sky . . . . . . Day 5: Fish/Birds
Day 3: Dry land/Vegetation . .Day 6: Land animals/People
Was this science? Of course, not. It was faith. It was
the ancient theologian's way of saying what we ourselves say in
our creed: "I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth."
Back to the issue at hand. During the past generation, we
have seen the rise of an extremely conservative social and
theological wing of evangelical Christianity in this country.
The growth began after 1960 when the Federal Communications
Commission stopped requiring that radio and television stations
give a certain amount of air time to non-profit entities like
churches. Mainline denominations had been the beneficiary of the
former policy; those on the fringes, if they wanted air time, had
to pay for it like any other commercial advertiser. Once the
policy changed, the mainliners opted out of paying for the time
(one of the worst mistakes ever made by the church, in my
estimation) while those on the fringes happily jumped into the
void. The results are history.
Courtesy of television, the most public personalities have
become well-known - Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James
Dobson, for example. Their priorities are plain for all to see -
no abortion, no same-sex marriage, prayer in public schools,
appointment of conservative judges, etc.
In an effort to further its agenda, the Christian right
aligned itself with the Republican party and has shown its clout
by making a difference in both local and national elections.
Right next door to us, we find the Ohio Restoration Project, an
emergent network of nearly 1,000 "Patriot Pastors" from
conservative churches across the state. Each has pledged to
register 300 "values voters," adding hundreds of thousands of
like-minded citizens to the electorate. There is the Texas
Restoration Project in President Bush's home state. The
fledgling Pennsylvania Pastors' Network has signed up 81
conservative clergy so far(2) (not including yours truly, in case
you were wondering).
One of the places these folks are targeting is the school
board. For example, earlier this year a federal district court
judge ordered a board of education in Georgia to remove stickers
from biology textbooks that stated "Evolution is just a theory,
not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." The
interesting thing is that no one disputes that evolution is a
theory - in fact, the chapter on evolution is titled, "The Theory
of Evolution." So why the fuss?
The author of the science book in questions says, "The most
misleading part of the sticker was its concluding sentence: "This
material should be approached with an open mind, studied
carefully, and critically considered." Wait a minute. Just one
subject in a science textbook is to be approached with an open
mind and critically considered? That means we are certain of
everything in biology except evolution? Nonsense. What that
sticker should have said is what the textbooks make clear:
"Everything in science should be approached with critical
thinking and an open mind."(3)
The judge ordered the stickers removed because they served
no scientific or educational purpose. The purpose they did serve
was to confuse students about the difference between theories and
facts. Theories in science do not become facts - rather, they
explain facts. Please remember that. Theories in science do not
become facts - rather, they explain facts.
At the local High School in Dover, Pennsylvania, south of
Harrisburg, administrators recently appeared before ninth-grade
biology classes and read a statement. "Evolution is no more than
a theory," it read, "and as a way to explain the origin of humans
on earth, 'intelligent design' theory is just as valid."
In response, Alan Leshner, who heads the American
Association for the Advancement of Science wrote, "The statement,
approved by the Dover school board was brief, but the intent is
revolutionary. It seeks to discredit the science of evolution,
backed by nearly 150 years of research and accepted by an
overwhelming majority of scientists worldwide, and to encourage
the acceptance of intelligent design, a theory with strong appeal
to many religious people, but no backing in actual evidence or in
science."
What exactly IS "Intelligent Design?" This simply asserts
that the natural world is so complex that it could not possibly
have developed on its own through a process of evolution.
Somebody must have been behind the design. We who are people of
faith can easily say AMEN to that...with one major limit: I would
be very uncomfortable with that affirmation if it includes
scientific details. For example, an "Oh, by the way, and the
designer did it in six days."
Listen to Steven Pinker, a professor of Psychology at
Harvard who was interviewed for TIME magazine's cover story last
week on this very issue:
It's natural to think that living things must be the
handiwork of a designer. But it was also natural to
think that the sun went around the earth. Overcoming
naive impressions to figure out how things really work
is one of humanity's highest callings. Our own bodies
are riddled with quirks that no competent engineer
would have planned but that disclose a history of
trial-and-error tinkering: a retina installed backward,
a seminal duct that hooks over the ureter like a garden
hose snagged on a tree, goose bumps that uselessly try
to warm us by fluffing up long-gone fur. The moral
design of nature is as bungled as its engineering
design. What twisted sadist would have invented a
parasite that blinds millions of people or a gene that
covers babies with excruciating blisters? To adapt a
Yiddish expression about God: If an intelligent
designer lived on Earth, people would break his
windows. The theory of natural selection explains life
as we find it, with all its quirks and tragedies. We
can prove mathematically that it is capable of
producing adaptive life forms and track it in computer
simulations, lab experiments and real ecosystems. It
doesn't pretend to solve one mystery (the origin of
complex life) by slipping in another (the origin of a
complex designer).(4)
The debate is not over, of course. Earlier this month, when
President Bush was asked about intelligent design, he answered,
"Both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can
understand what the debate is about." This sounds reasonable
until you realize that, as the president's own science adviser,
John Marburger, admits, there is no real debate. "Intelligent
design is not a scientific concept," Marburger admitted,
committing a bit of candor that will probably earn him a trip to
the White House woodshed.(5)
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that this issue makes
Christians sound like Luddites. I mentioned "Inherit the Wind"
earlier and the disquieting sense it left that Christians are
kooks. Well, this week, the satirical internet journal, The
Onion, published a piece datelined Kansas City, Kansas, where a
week and a half ago, the school board passed new guidelines that
encourage public school teachers to teach a variety of theories
about the origins of life, downgrading the centrality of the
theory of evolution. It reads,
"As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public
schools continues, a new controversy over the science
curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern
state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For
Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the
long-held 'theory of gravity' is flawed, and they have
responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent
Falling. 'Things fall not because they are acted upon
by some gravitational force, but because a higher
intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down,'
said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education,
applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts
University. Burdett added, "Gravity -- which is taught
to our children as a law -- is founded on great gaps in
understanding,'" and they are calling on public schools
to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory.(6)
Silly, of course, but again it raises the image of
Christians as kooks. That helps no one.
Intelligent design: the controversy. Actually, there IS no
controversy, at least among the vast majority of the scientific
community. The November Issue of the National Geographic last
year asked on its cover in large print: "Was Darwin Wrong?"
Inside in equally large type the answer is announced: "NO. The
evidence for evolution is overwhelming." The controversy is not
scientific, it is political.
"Mommy, where did I come from?" That question will be asked
forever, and we will continue to learn more and more. The Webb
Telescope, set to launch in 2011, will help astronomers peer back
in time to when the universe was a toddler, a mere 200 million
years after its birth in the "Big Bang" that took place 13.7
billion years ago. Who knows what we will learn?
Can we believe in both God and science? Absolutely. One
does not rule out the other. Never has, never will. Just
remember,
This is my Father's world,
And to my listening ears
All nature sings and round me rings
The music of the spheres.
This is my Father's world:
Oh, let me ne'er forget
That though the wrong seems oft so strong,
God is the ruler yet.(7)
Amen!
1. More details are available in a sermon of mine from several years ago:
http://www.presbyterianwarren.com/creed04.html
2. Susan Page, "Shaping politics from the pulpits," USA TODAY, 8/3/05
3. "Sticker Shock,"
http://uumiddleboro.org/Previous%20Sermons/Sermons-2005/sermon%2002-06-05.htm
4. Francis Collins, "Can You Believe in God and Evolution?" TIME, 8/15/05, p. 34
5. Jonathan Alter, "Monkey See, Monkey Do," Newsweek, 8/15/05, p. 27
6. http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4133&n=2
7. Maltbie D. Babcock, 1901
click and send us mail