God vs. Darwin

Since the beginning of time people have questioned how the world came about and how it works. Everyone wants to know the truth and the argument often comes down to science versus faith. But what if the foundation of truth is faith? Before one can truly decide where they stand on this it is important to accurately understand the meanings of these three words; truth, science, and faith. According to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary, truth is defined as "the property (as of a statement) of being in accordance with fact or reality". Science is defined as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method" and faith is defined as a "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

In many instances science and religion can work together quite well, for example; in the fields of medicine, much of astrology, botany, etc. One of the most common instances where we see a separation between science and religion is when we begin speaking of creation and how the world came to be. For this the vast majority of the world's population divides itself amongst two theories. The first is evolution (Darwin's theory) and the second is the Creation theory (also known as Intelligent Design). The problem is that both of these are simply theories and neither can be proven or disproven. A theory (according to Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary) is "an unproved assumption".

The battle is commonly considered to be faith versus fact. I however, do not believe this to be true. I believe that both take a certain amount of faith, whether you are instilling your faith in a scientist or in an Intelligent Designer is irrelevant. Since neither theory can be proven both must be considered a system of beliefs. Some might argue that evolution cannot be a belief since there is no worship involved, but it is not necessary, just as you need not worship an Intelligent Designer to believe that one created the universe. Since both theories could be considered feasible I would hazard to state that in the instance of the creation of the world, the foundation of truth is faith.

What a person believes changes all of their worldly views. It can affect how they vote in an election, where they stand on world-wide issues, and even how they view history. For example, during the 1600's-1800's the Church underwent some changes that would have a permanent effect on religion all around the world. Up until this time the church had controlled all forms of government and was the center of all aspects of life in Europe. When scientists ("humanists") started to pop up and brought in new theories ("ideas") the Church tried to enforce laws against them. The Church simply did this to protect the lifestyle that they had all come to know as right and to keep a handle on rebellion. We see this with Galileo and Nicholas Copernicas. The general public viewed these matters as attempts made by the Church to keep them from discovering these new concepts.

Many people view this as a time of "enlightenment" and believe that science brought a light into what had formerly been the darkness. Many Christians however, would disagree with this statement and argue that what we had formerly had was a time of light and that these scientific "ideas" were just tiny seeds of darkness that were being planted within society. Unfourtunatly these seeds were only destined to grow larger.

Today America seems to be just the opposite of what Europe was during the "age of enlightenment". In Europe during that era, Catholicism was the main belief system and science had to undergo a major battle to survive from day to day. The tables have now turned. Today science is a system that is widely recognized and Christianity and other such religions must struggle to hold their own. We see this almost everywhere. Perhaps the most frightening place of all is in our public schools.

Most parents realize as they send their young children off to school that they will be subjected to some biased material in their science classes. However, those same parents are rather naive if they believe that it simply stops there. For example, if a parent were to further investigate their child's sophomore honors history class they might find several things alarming. The worst being extremely biased reading material, videos, and class discussions. As an additional example, parents may even find that copy's of Medici Money written by Tim Parks are just randomly passed out and chapters are assigned weekly. Tim Parks is a very biased writer with no fears of incorporating his own speculations and beliefs into his books. His book Medici Money is a sickeningly biased book and is in no way in favor of the Church. Parents may actually be forced to ask themselves "when did our Constitution begin working against our children's rights?"

An online video that discusses much of this and brings up some interesting controversy (though is biased in the favor of "science" and could easily be recommended by a history teacher as well) is called Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/). From this (biased) video one could perhaps see the "science" portion of the argument in a well portrayed manor. One could also draw several conclusions as well as questions from it. In the video the narrator states "The fight culminated in 1987, when the Supreme Court decided that teaching Creationism in public school science classes violated the separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution in the Establishment Clause which prevents the government from promoting or prohibiting any form of religion."

This is an interesting statement. What makes evolution a science as opposed to a belief? Can the Intelligent Design theory not be taught in the same manor? There is a difference between promoting a religion and promoting the education of a theory, that is very much a part of our modern society. Even so, the video later contradicts itself as it discusses a text book that was examined, that not only discusses Darwin's theory but the Intelligent Design theory as well. The book is called Of Pandas and People and the video states "But in the materials God is never mentioned, the designer is called an intelligent cause or an intelligent agent." Thus showing that it is simply a theory and singling out no religion in particular.

Perhaps, the most eye opening statement in the entire video is "Does science education have to be so narrow, so technical, so differential to existing paradigm that we can't even introduce students to what may be the next great theory?" As previously discussed teachers can cross over into a dangerous area if they try to incorporate their own beliefs into the lesson plan laid out by the state. This can cause general discomfort in the classroom for all children, regardless of their beliefs. Our public educators are largely influential people in the eyes of our young and unprotected children.

So is it that "the power and beliefs of the Church contradicted and in some cases censured emerging scientific discoveries." as stated by a 10th grade honors history teacher in an essay question? Or is that the emerging "scientific discoveries" contradicted the power and beliefs of the Church? Even our presidential candidates state whether they believe in evolution or Intelligent Design and it often plays a role in whether or not they are elected and which states they win the electoral votes for. So will our nation (or world for that matter) ever stop fighting over the differences between science and religion and the foundation of truth? It is highly unlikely. That is, unless our Intelligent Designer decides to take a mid afternoon stroll across the Earth and introduce Himself to each person that He passes or unless someone catches an ape magically "adapting" into a man on a video camera and posts it on YouTube (and maybe even Godtube).

Ashley Nichols