Doubter Or Bigot?
By Michael R. Bowen (07/01/03)
Having watched with interest in the ongoing argument about evolution, I have to say that I have my doubts.
Full disclosure: I am a Christian believer. And it's true that much of the criticism of evolution comes from Christian thinkers—but not all of it.
There are some points to observe about this so-called Christian Fundamentalist opposition to the theory. First, why is it acceptable to so airily dismiss the ideas of Christians? Why is it that Christian opinions on evolution are always considered ignorance?
If the defenders of evolution reject the Christian criticisms as religious bigotry, it must be noted that they are not so much defending evolution as rejecting religion. For these thinkers, the central virtue of the theory is not so much the putative elegance of its explanation, but rather that it puts God in His place. It takes Him out of the picture, removing all kinds of inconvenient implications. But Man, being what he is, will have a god. Whether he admits it or not, he installs himself in the vacant place. Yes, many vehement evolutionists appear to worship science, Earth, or Gaia, but they are erecting their vision in place of God. The man who condemns criticism of evolution as religious bigotry is himself a religious bigot.
Secondly, there are two kinds of atheist. The first has concluded almost casually, and usually at a young age, that there is no God. His conclusion was reached without crisis, without searching, through an almost negligent accretion of worldliness. The question for this man is closed, the answer self-evident, and the faith of others a mild lunacy. The second, and rarer, kind has asked the question because he really wants to know. Asking in this way is from the first an admission that the answer could be yes. For the first kind of atheist, the question of God is only rhetorical, while for the second , it's an honest query. The latter comes to the negative conclusion without a triumphal feeling or contempt for the ignorance of believers, because having asked the question honestly, he can understand how another could find a different answer. The first type of atheist simply drops God. The second looks for Him, but doesn't find Him. For the first, there is no question. For the second, there isn't exactly an answer, but a tentative conclusion: probably not.
When the subject of God is brought up seriously, it's the casual atheist who gets angry. It's as if, having dropped God, he is now being asked to pick up an inconvenient burden, or to disturb a comfortable arrangement. The questioning atheist can disagree without rancor. So it is with the evolution debate: there are those who really ask the question, and those who don't want the answer. The latter rail bitterly at Creationists and react with fury when evolution is questioned. With them we need not bother, because they are approaching a scientific question in an unscientific manner. But there are those, both religious believers and thoughtful atheists, who acknowledge that evolution is no more than a theory, a best guess from the limited mind of man.
Evolution could be right, but it could also be wrong, and we'll never know unless we are willing to really ask. As for me, having once asked the question and found to my surprise that the answer is yes, I'm more willing than before to question any theory, however sacrosanct. It's because I'm a believer that I'm a doubter. As for that rare second kind of atheist, he doubts because he has the wisdom—and the humility—to understand that we really don't know.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Michael R. Bowen
