How I spent Evolution Sunday

Today is Evolution Sunday, and as part of the "festivities" I headed up north to speak to the Congregation for Humanistic Judaism of Morris County about evolution. I had an absolutely wonderful experience (I felt very welcomed by the group and they had terrific questions), and although I do not have a transcript of the events, I hope I can accurately sum-up the lecture and following discussion here.

The lecture I delivered today focused on a topic that is a common one on this blog; contingency. In trying to make sense of the unity and diversity of life on earth over time, I tried to pick out a few examples that would not only help explain how humans evolved but also how life has diversified over time. The evolution of the first tetrapods, the evolution of the mammalian ear, the impact of the amniotic egg, the rise of mammals after the K/T extinction, and the diversity of extinct humans were all marshaled as evidence of how evolution proceeds as a branching process.

As I have stated, much of what I said is probably familiar to many of you so I won't bother writing up an in-depth summary of what I said here, especially since the most interesting parts of the experience had to do with questions from my audience. Questions ranged from the evolution of religion to vestigial organs, and sometimes the side discussions that opened up were so interesting that I was somewhat tempted to keep moving along in that line of questioning. Ultimately, though, the question of conflict between science and religion did come up and was a prickly issue to address. This wasn't because of the audience, but more because of the current climate of controversy around fundamentalist religion and atheism.

What I remember stating about the problem was that religion and science do conflict with each other in certain respects (why else would there be a need for Evolution Sunday?). "Conflict" does not always mean "irreconcilable conflict," however, and discussion of controversy can open up dialogs between people who feel that science and religion are at variance with each other (whether on some minor detail or as different ways of seeing the world). Personally I do not see Evolution Sunday as an event where speakers should say "Of course there is no conflict!" and sweep the problem under the rug, but rather to acknowledge it and ask questions that might otherwise be difficult to ask. My personal take on this may differ somewhat from the statements on the actual Evolution Sunday/Clergy Letter Project website, but I think if approached correctly such events will leave those that attend them with more questions than absolute answers, questions that will hopefully lead them to independently try to seek out more information about evolution and why it is so important.

The most interesting question of the day though was one that the congregation I had the pleasure to address did not get to hear. During lunch after the lecture, the organizer of the event asked me how I am able to go online, read about what AiG or the Disco Institute is doing, and not feel a crushing sense of despair about belief in creationism. I replied that I am frustrated, angered, and irritated by the acceptance of convenient pseudoscience out of fear and lazy-thinking, but my personal experiences with people at a 1-to-1 level have given me reason to hope that things may change.

When I speak to people about evolution or natural history in general, the response I most often get is "Really? I never knew that before." I had one bad experience with a gentleman that was clearly offended when I suggested that extinct mosasaurs were closely related to varanid lizards, but in general I've more often been greeted with curiosity than with animosity. I think there is a substantial group of people who have never received a proper education as to what evolution is and why it's important, especially in religious communities where broaching the topic of evolution can often lead to arguments. I'm not suggesting this is the rule, but I have come into contact with many people who generally did not have a good understanding of what evolution was but did not know where to start looking to gain an understanding of it given its controversial nature.

Maybe I've just been lucky because I live in New Jersey and people here are generally more open to the concept of evolution than elsewhere, but I think that it is entirely possible to actively engage religious communities in fruitful discussion about evolution, and that gives me some measure of hope. From what I've been told, many people are tired (even disgusted) with hearing that they're being sinful if they don't read the Bible the way Ken Ham wants it to be read on the one hand and that they're abusing their children if they take them to Sunday school on the other. Given such popular perceptions it's not surprising that many people go along with what they "feel" is right rather than spending more time thinking about the evidence for evolution and how to reconcile that with their beliefs (or not).

In preparing this summary, my mind kept going back to Francis Buckland's Curiosities of Natural History. While the book is filled with anecdotes, Buckland often points out stories that he has heard that seem to defy rationality and are probably not true. We might know better about some of his statements today, but overall he seems to be committed to pointing out when extraordinary claims are not based upon good evidence. In a chapter about snakes, though, Buckland relates his problems with reconciling facts about snakes gleaned from natural history with the punishment delivered unto snakes by God in Genesis; fossil ("pre-Adamite") snakes don't look very different from living snakes, so why did God punish snakes by making them move "along their belly" when the had already been doing so? Buckland tells us that a close friend and "learned divine" has no satisfactory answer, nor do the bodies of living snakes provide enough to form a solid resolution. He concludes;

Upon the whole, however, it is more probable that the curse has a figurative meaning; and that, as explained to me by the gentleman above mentioned, the passage may be thus paraphrased: "Thy original formation moving upon thy belly, shall henceforth be a mark of thy condemnation ..." In a similar way the rainbow probably appeared in the clouds to mankind before the flood; but after the flood it was made a "token of a covenant" that the earth should not again suffer from a flood.

...

These remarks upon the literal meaning of the word quoted, I write with all deference to higher authorities than myself: it is, however, a subject upon which speculations may be harmlessly entertained.

At present we might regard Buckland's concern as silly or not entirely rational; why does he believe in these myths to begin with? As I read the passage, however, it's a window into the thoughts of a man who has recognized a conflict between what he believes to be true and what he knows to be true from his studies of nature and has been trying to make sense of the two. In a conversation I wouldn't hesitate about expressing my stance that the Garden of Eden/the Noachian Deluge were myths, but I would be hard-pressed to look down upon someone who had a perspective similar to Buckland's.

I can imagine that there is likely some amount of disagreement with what I've said here. Presently the popular view seems to be that science is directly opposed to any and all religion on one side and that religion requires faith without thought on the other, but if we truly buy into such a dichotomy I think we lose out on opportunities to reach out to people and educate them about why evolution is such a powerful, magnificent idea. Some people have surely made up their minds and cannot be dissuaded from their creationist viewpoint, but I don't think that simply grousing among our own science-savvy cliques is going to stimulate much improvement in the present situation. There will be conflict and disagreement, but I can't think of a better way to learn than acknowledging there is a problem and engaging it directly.

[My thanks to my hosts and the wonderful congregation from the CHJMC. It was my pleasure to speak to you all today.]