The Story of How We Got Here

I’ve already touched on this a couple times, but no discussion of the conversation between religion and science could possibly be complete without a thorough examination of the debate between Evolution and Creationism. For years – decades, even – proponents of each side have argued, usually at high volume, for the veracity of their chosen side and the utter tripe of the other. Meanwhile, the great lot of folk in the middle, whether they ascribe to one model, the other, or some sort of fusion, wish that everyone would calm down a little bit, while perhaps, on occasion, discreetly cheering for one of the louder people on “their side” when he or she scores points. 

It’s an interesting dynamic, and a fairly modern one as well – this debate didn’t exist in a significant way until a few hundred years ago, at the rise of the modern scientific age. As discussed in the previous entry, one of the key shifts that changed the discourse was an increasing emphasis on factuality as the key arbiter of truth, and it was the dawn of the modern scientific age when we finally began to have some empirical evidence for our assertions. Science shifted from “natural philosophy” towards empiricism – and suddenly, what could previously be viewed as speculation became assertions of the way things actually were.

It was around this same time, for example, that one of the first great modern scientific/religious tiffs arose – that of exactly which heavenly body orbited which. The traditional assertion, of course, was that the Earth was the center of the cosmos, and everything else orbited around it. As astronomical observations became more precise, this model grew increasingly complicated as it tried to explain the ever-stranger paths the planets took through the sky. Eventually, some folks, e.g. Copernicus, realized that everything would be much, much simpler to explain if Earth was demoted from Center of the Cosmos to Orbiting Body – like the rest of the planets. This caused something of an outroar from the Church. Notably, this outroar was NOT because the heliocentric model lacked appropriate evidence or a rigorous test, but because it conflicted with the Church’s mythos.

Eventually, of course, as evidence mounted, it became clearer and clearer that the Earth was not, in fact, at the center of much of anything, and the Church finally admitted that maybe they’d gotten that one a little bit wrong. And so, thusly ended the first great conflict between newly-emerging empirical science and the long-established mythological Church. Well, not really ended, per se. It’s mostly laid to rest today by simple virtue of overwhelming evidence, though there are still a very small number of people who staunchly defend the geocentric model, absolutely convinced that God would not stick God’s glorious creation off in some random corner of the Cosmos. 

Obviously, the debate between Creationism and Evolutionism isn’t there yet – unless you ask a scientist, in which case it obviously is, or unless you ask a Religious fundamentalist, in which case it is, but the opposite. That was a confusing sentence. Let’s try again. There are a lot of folks on both sides of this particular debate who are absolutely convinced that they are correct and the other side is totally wrong.  I may turn off a reader or two here by saying that, factually speaking, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the Theory of Evolution. Even if Evolution has not in fact happened, then God has apparently seen fit to create a world that gives the appearance of having evolved over a lengthy period of time.

We find, unsurprisingly, that proponents on both sides tend to present their arguments to the broader public in a narrative format. They may argue facts and logic and reason, but ultimately, each side wants its story about the origin and development of life on Earth to be seen as the right story to believe – the proper myth for explaining the world around us. 

There is a book by one of my favorite Scientific evangelists, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, called Origins: Fourteen Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution. The introduction to the book is entitled “The Greatest Story Ever Told,” and it recounts the story of the origins of the universe from the Big Bang onward through the evolution of humankind. I found it very telling that Tyson titled the introduction that way – it reveals both the intent and the methodology of the entire book. This book is not meant as a factual explanation of observed phenomena. It’s meant as an exploration of a story – the establishment of a myth. Tyson bases his myth on factual evidence in order to give it more authority, but the facts are not the final purpose of the myth. What is the final purpose? To communicate to the reader the wondrousness of scientific exploration and discovery. Tyson’s description of the origins of the universe is sweeping and dramatic. He uses facts, but he weaves them into an intense sensory experience that leaves the reader thinking “wow!”

Interestingly enough, this is often the purpose of Creationists, as well – to leave the reader with a sense of wonder at the story and the powers behind it. Truthfully, I think this is the real source of the conflict between Creationism and Evolution – both sides believe they have an incredible, fantastic, meaningful story about who we are and how we got here. Both sides also believe that the other side’s story lacks the vitality of their own, and so they seek to assert their rightness, that their story is the only story that carries authority.

It’s a setup that promotes conflict rather than cooperation. I would love to see a shift in the discourse. There are, of course, contexts in which one story is more appropriate than the other. Evolution, for example, belongs in a Biology class, while Creation does not. But both stories are valuable, not only to the people who believe them to be factual, but to everyone. They both have lessons for us – things we can take away that change the way we see the world around us. They are both mythic, offering up insight into our complex, often frightening world. We can argue factuality forever and never really get anywhere productive with it. But, we can also find some common ground, because even though these two stories come from different sources, many of the themes they communicate resonate with one another. It’s really pretty cool, when you stop to think about it.