Evolution: A case for religious compromise

Anyone interested in ruining conversation at the dinner table can always depend on the subject of evolution. Nearly 150 years after the publication of On the Origin of Species, no one seems to be able to keep a clear head when discussing Darwin's theory. Self-proclaimed religious adherents adopt every absurdity in their attempts to discredit evolution, while those on the other side of the debate beat their heads against the wall in frustration and direct often unjust insults against the Christian establishment.

I will not endeavor here to address specific complaints against the theory of evolution itself. Darwin was careful to attend to the majority of legitimate arguments against his theory in On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, and anyone who questions how an eye or a sense of morality could have developed under evolutionary principles may consult these two texts.

I am more disturbed by the nature of the evolution debate, which seems founded on false principles. Apparently, the reigning consensus is that every scientific achievement must be accompanied by an extraordinary inflation of hubris on the part of the scientist. Too often, science is assumed to be opposed to religion, as if the scientist loses the need for spirituality when examining nature's beautiful and complex phenomena. The truth is that the best scientists never lose their sense of wonder before nature. Religion need not worry that science will usurp its rightful place in the pantheon of human thought. Questions regarding man's relationship to God, his purpose on earth and the moral tenets he should follow to live the best life, are not problems that physics is ever likely to solve, and science geeks know that as well as anyone.

However, in insulting the humility of the natural scientist, the Christians who protest against evolution also do themselves and their religion injustice. The complaint, of course, is that the theory of evolution does not accord with the Biblical account of the origin of life in Genesis. How insulting that they suppose that the word of God can be so easily interpreted! If one really conceives of God as the infinite and absolute, then no amount of scientific minutiae detailing the origin of man should be able to threaten His power. If science conflicts with our interpretation of the Bible, we should have the humility to question our own interpretation.

Too often, when examining the Bible, we expect to extract easily understood stories with a clear moral significance, which can be accompanied by a cheerful illustration in next week's session of Sunday school. We focus too much on the stories' historical significance and completely miss their philosophical value.

In Fear and Trembling, Søren Kierkegaard begins his spiritual inquiry by presenting several re-imaginings of the famous story of Abraham and Isaac. He gives four different interpretations by filling in the historical details not included in the Biblical account, and in doing so, he highlights the story's philosophical importance. He treats Abraham and Isaac as human beings rather than worn-out symbols of faithful obedience. He asserts that the point of the story is not, as so many have assumed, to show us that we should follow God's commands.

Instead, we should "either forget all about Abraham or learn how to be horrified at the monstrous paradox which is the significance of his life." Ultimately, the story reveals the paradoxical nature of faith, and it is this philosophic discovery - and not any cheap moral summary - that the religious thinker should take away from his or her reading.

Similarly, we sell the creation story in Genesis short if we expect to use it as a means of calculating the precise number of years that the earth and mankind have existed. The creation story should teach us far more than what the scientific origin of species is. If the Bible is so dear to them, the opponents of evolution should learn to respect it and to understand that it is a vastly complicated work with a wealth of philosophical importance beneath its surface. They should concern themselves with the higher problems of theology and leave the work of calculation to the scientists.

Susan Holcomb is a physics major. She can be reached at holcombdbk@gmail.com.