Mainly I just wanted to write about this as an excuse to use this great illustration by Eric Chapman from our local paper, The Pantagraph. Pardon me, but I think Jesus and Darwin as professional wrestlers is just genius. (click the picture to embiggen)
There was a long time when the whole issue seemed to be pretty much settled and creationists were a fringe belief that stayed in the background. But with the decline of science education (most people don’t really know what science is, or the difference between science and technology) and national paranoia focused on Islamist fundamentalism, creationism is back – in a slightly more polished wrapper called “Intelligent Design,” or ID…
The idea behind ID is that certain anatomical features of many species are too complex to have evolved because their logical sub-structures convey no survival benifit to any predecessors and thus could not be promoted by natural selection. (…and therefore some intelligence must have designed them, but we’re not using the “G”-word) This concept has the rather stout title of “Irreducible complexity” and sounds as if it would be really a big problem for evolutionists. ID arguments also often make the claim that scientists are beginning to reject evolution in large numbers.
Online this has turned into something of a smackdown. Some of my favorite bloggers on both sides of the issue have completely lost patience with the other side, and take the other side’s hostility as evidence that they are substituting emotion for factual objectivity.
It usually goes something like the following. I’ll use the initials YEC and EB for “Young Earth Creationist” and “Evolution Blogger” for the characters, and try to exclude some of the less reasonable approaches. I’ve seen this many, many times:
YEC: “Hi! I am a seeker after truth. Evolution is only a theory, and it can’t be true because eyeballs are too complex to have evolved to their present state (or there aren’t any transitional fossils, or any of a dozen other common creationist claims) Bet you never thought of that, huh?!”
EB: Having heard all this before, patiently explains the difference between a hypothesis and a theory, and that not only has irreducible complexity been found to be a bogus idea, but that eyeballs in particular may have evolved independently several times (or that there are indeed many transitional fossils, and so on.)
YEC: Brings up a dozen more related misconceptions.
EB: Finally tires of explaining and getting nowhere.
YEC: Declares victory and writes entry on his own blog.
YEC & EB: think to themselves “What a jerk!” and move on.
A day or two passes, and EB finds another YEC in his comments, with the same misconceptions, half-truths, and outright gibberish. This time, he is less patient. The YEC senses his discomfiture and moves in for the kill:
YEC: “Hah! You’re just hiding behind scientific orthodoxy because you’re afraid of the truth!”
Both sides do the same thing as last time. The next day (and nearly every day) another YEC drops in with the same garbage as if he were the first person to ever raise a question. By now the EB’s patience isn’t just worn thin – it’s gone.
EB: “Oh, look! Another YEC idiot babbling in my comments! Well, YEC, you just don’t know enough for us to have a meaningful discussion about this.” (add profanity and sarcasm in liberal doses depending on age of EB)
YEC: “Well, there you have it. Evolution is revealed as a defense against the claims of God!” (or words to that effect.)
If you’re a creationist and you’ve read this far, you might think I have no sympathy for the YEC, but that is not true. In fact, I think I can explain the EB’s hostility in more helpful terms. Let’s use the characters, “CB” for Christian Blogger and “ASA” for atheist smart-aleck.
ASA: “Communion is just like cannibalism! Christians are cannibals! Hah! I bet you never thought of that, huh?”
CB: patiently explains the symbolic meaning of communion as a sharing of the sacrificial redemption by Christ of sinful humanity.
ASA: trots out Webster’s dictionary as if it were the final authority on everything in the universe, says “You Christians are all superstitious idiots!” and leaves.
CB: thinks to himself “What a jerk!” and moves on. But the charm of this encounter wears mighty thin by the fifth ASA, or the tenth ASA, who stops by CB’s blog to dispense the same junk. Eventually, CB stops being polite, if he ever was originally.
(I’m not sure how common this second kind of encounter really is – do atheists visit Christian blogs to try and evangelize? I suspect Christians are more into evangelism than atheists generally are. But this is only for illustrative purposes.)
So here’s what worries me: in this climate, is there any way to get back to where Americans can even stand each other again? Whether it’s gay marriage or global warming, or evolution/creation or R/D – we really seem determined to lump those who disagree with us into the category of total idiots, and the disagreers seem determined to prove us completely right.
I am not suggestion we should not hold passionate opinions – but I’d be lying if I claimed to have a way to reconcile that with the need for national dialog.
