Maybe There IS No Debate Part 1

 

Having followed the conflict between creationism and Darwinism for some time and having become a debate buff on the spectator end, I’ve decided to engage in perhaps the most quixotic venture of all and wade into the fray. Well, “wade into” might not be quite what I intend. I’ll retain my status as one on the sidelines, the “what-do-I-know?” non-scientist while offering observations on the conflict. What I’m interested in is an attempt to make out the essence of the matter, and this for my own sense of clarity. If it gives clarity for anyone else, all the better.

From what I can tell, the actual one-on-one live debates are petering out. Those on the evolution side are just finding those on the creation side to be too hopeless, too obtuse, and thus they discourage each other from even trying anymore. Crash Course Biology on Youtube has a lesson entitled, if I recall, “Evolution is a Fact, Not a Debate”. Or it makes that point at any rate. 

I’m starting to think maybe there is no debate, though I don’t think Darwinian evolution is a fact. 

It’s as if one side is a group of children calling to another group in the marketplace, “We played the flute for you and you did not dance.” And the other group is responding, “We sang a dirge, and you did not weep.”

“Can’t you see from the phenomena that God created the universe and all life?”

“Can’t you see from the phenomena that all life evolved from the same source?”

“Then what if we put it in the passive voice and say, ‘Can’t you see all life was designed?’ ”

“We’re not falling for that.”

And thus, Intelligent Design failed in its attempt to persuade by reducing the creation side to the most basic, safest-to-say, least jumping-to-conclusions kind of proposition. It almost seems reminiscent of Descartes hedging his bets to the greatest extent he could against skepticism. He famously did this by observing he was aware of some thinking going on and that he must be the one doing the thinking, so he must exist.

I used to think “I think therefore I am” was pretty good, maybe unassailable. But I’m seeing even this isn’t as neutral and pristine as it might first appear— not as a starting point anyway. The reason is in just five words Descartes has smuggled in the assumption the biblical outlook on reality is false. This is not to say it is faulty reasoning— and that’s the tricky thing. It’s the sort of tricky thing at work in the evolution/creationism debate. Good reasoning can occur, yes, but it all depends upon who is calling the tune.

How does Descartes stray from the biblical outlook and what harm could he possibly be doing?

Well, the biblical outlook on reality says the starting point for everything is God. He is the source of all things. There is no guesswork on that because he is self-revealing to mankind both in creation and in spirit— that is, not just in the written word of the Bible, but by the spirit he put in man. Man’s proper response is to trust.

“I think therefore I am” begins implicitly with skepticism. The goal may be to arrive at something that can be trusted, but it attempts to bypass belief in God and his revelation of himself.

On the one side of the argument is the view of reality as a circle that encompasses everything and that circle is God. Somewhere inside that circle is Descartes, and you and I.

On the other side there is a circle that encompasses everything and that circle is Descartes, or anyone else following his approach. Somewhere in that circle may or may not be God.

To say, as someone might, “Man is too self-centered and sinful to reason his way to God,” is to get way ahead of me and to miss the point. It’s not even that. It’s just a matter of how reality is set up. No insult to anyone is involved here.

To follow Descartes on his path is to assume the reality of the universe is such that a person should be able to reason his or her way to an understanding of all things that can possibly be understood. By this means one may or may not arrive at God as a concept to be included in the resulting picture of reality. (Some might go on from there to assume any contradiction to this is a put-down, possibly by those who have putting people down as their primary agenda.)

What’s wrong with this? After all, it still leaves the possibility open that there is a God who created the universe. But to assume there may or may not be a God is actually to assume the biblical picture is not true. I’m not saying anything here about the character or intelligence of anyone who has these assumptions. But such assumptions are easily missed and as a result, a person making them might think they are starting from neutral ground. They hear the music but they don’t stop to think that someone is calling the tune.

You can easily tell which framework is in operation, which tune is playing by the reaction to any statement along the lines of, “The Bible tells me so.” In public discourse, even Christians are reluctant to come out with something so straightforward and unsophisticated-sounding— or most Christians, I imagine. If it is viewed as an absurd way to talk, one is operating solely in the circle encompassed by the individual and his or her thoughts.

Yet, Jesus unapologetically operated in the other circle. With all the apparent childlike lack of sophistication of Buddy the Elf declaring of Santa Claus, “I know him!” Jesus declared, “In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me.” (John 8:17-18) How does the Father bear witness? From the context of all Jesus taught, it’s clearly by way of scripture and  by a spiritual pull in operation. “But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.” (John 12:32) Of course many will deny this, but within this circle, this framework, they are deluding themselves, and often protesting  too much. 

I think this is what’s at the core of the debate. The starting point is everything. It determines all aspects of life, including how one defines science. In the biblical framework it is the exploration of what God created. This isn’t a science-stopper any more than knowing a car was designed and manufactured by people halts the study of auto mechanics. In fact, some have made the argument it actually makes science possible to begin with. I agree with that, but I won’t go into it here.

One must not forget to ask Descartes, “Why do you bring this up? What are you about? Why not farm or make shoes instead?”

The spirit behind Descartes’ little project tips its hand when it comes to the modern view of science, which seems to be its offspring, from what I can tell. That is, modern science assumes since science can only work upon natural, material, physical phenomena, there must not be anything that exists beyond its reach. The cosmos is all there is or ever was. A person can only know what the five senses tell him, even though none of the five senses could possibly have told him this is true.

This much isn’t all that rational.

It also ignores a key implication of “I think, therefore I am,” namely, “I think, therefore non-physical, non-material realities exist.” Thoughts are without mass or color or shape or any other quality we can measure with any scientific equipment. If Descartes didn’t write or say what he did, we wouldn’t know about those particular thoughts, but they would still be a reality he knew.

The idea that thoughts are just chemical or electrical activity of brain matter reminds me of a story that is told of Jascha Heifetz. After a concert, a woman sought out the famous violinist and exclaimed, “Your violin has such a marvelous sound.” 

Heifetz held the violin up to his ear and said, “Funny, I don’t hear anything.”

Brains don’t think thoughts by themselves any more than violins play themselves, or so it seems to me.

So maybe there is no debate when the most basic assumptions can't reconcile.

I will have some observations on how the debates tend to play out— while still trying to get to the essence of them— in my next essay.