249 - The Beginning

The Beginning
By Richard W. Berry

"What creationists are really saying is that God is real and responsible for creation, so scientific proof in support of evolution seems irrelevant to them. What evolutionists are really saying is that the scientific method is valid and is the most effective means of maintaining objectivity in the search for truth, so philosophical or theological arguments in support of creationism seem irrelevant. Is it any wonder that neither side is successful in influencing the other? They only appear to be debating the evolution/creationism controversy; each side is actually debating and defending something quite different. "

CREATIONISM OR EVOLUTION? Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution? Is creationism a part of science or part of a fundamental religion? Is evolution a part of science or is it the work of humanists and the devil? These questions and many others like them are stirring our times and may be the sign of a deep schism developing in our society. Issues which first came into prominence during the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 are still being debated in legislative bodies and before various courts of our nation. Laws and courts have been able to do no more than give both sides time to rest and prepare to rejoin the battle.

One thing is abundantly clear-people are interested and concerned about what happened in the beginning. The interest in evolution and creationism should therefore come as no surprise, but what does surprise and even dismay people is the intensity of emotion and the degree of irrationality which come to the surface when these two ideas are debated. The conflict which is centered on evolution and creationism is convincing evidence that stories about creation are very important to the people who are telling them.

The objective of this article is to analyze the evolutionist and creationist positions and explain why the debate is so intense and the controversy so inflamed with passion. We will first examine what is

Richard W. Berry is Professor of Geology, San Diego State University, California. He has also taught at the University of Baghdad, the University of Oslo, and the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama. The author of numerous technical articles on geology, mineralogy, and off-shore petroleum research, Dr. Berry also serves on the ministerial candidates committee of his local Presbytery. This article, he says, began "as a means for pulling my own thoughts together and now I hope it will have a positive and healing effect on the controversy.

250 - The Beginning

meant by "stories of ultimate meaning" and what happens when they are told.

I

We all have areas in our lives where factual data are absent or inadequate to allow us full understanding of what is true, real, and meaningful. When faced with such a circumstance, humans usually tell a story about what they believe to be true, real, and meaningful. The more vital an area of a person's life which is involved, the more important the story becomes until it develops into a story of ultimate meaning, a story which expresses the ultimate truth about life and death. The more people who share the same story, the more powerful it becomes.

The absence or inadequacy of factual data leading to stories of ultimate meaning occurs in two different ways. In the first instance, the necessary or desired data are available but technological limitations prevent their acquisition. The flat earth story is an example. It was invented, had meaning, and was accepted as truth by those who needed to have a concept of the earth's shape but were unable to measure it accurately. The second reason for data being absent is that there simply are none in existence. Typical of this condition are stories which concern the presence, absence, and nature of God. No amount of technological advance will allow humanity to either prove or disprove stories about God. We are faced, therefore, with two varieties of stories of ultimate meaning. One variety is testable but for some reason has not yet been verified (or falsified). The second variety of story is inherently untestable and cannot be verified or falsified.

Most people found it relatively easy to accept the demise of the flat earth story when data showed it to be false. Flat earth people certainly felt frightened and threatened as their story was destroyed, but most of them moved ahead with a new and better story about an earth with the shape of a ball. For some flat earth people, the transition was devastating because their story about the shape of the earth was all tangled up with their story about God. Let us examine why it may have been relatively easy for some to change from a flat earth story to a spherical earth story while for others it was not. To do this we must observe the differences in the ways the shape-of- the- earth stories and God stories interacted.

Those who found it easier to shift to the spherical earth story might have said, "The earth is flat and God is in heaven." The statement really tells two independent stories. Destruction of the flat earth story does not threaten the God story. In contrast, those who found it difficult to accept a spherical earth story in the face of overwhelming evidence might have said, "The earth was created flat by God who is in heaven." This last statement resembles the first statement because it also consists of two totally different stories. Where it differs from the first statement is in the ultimate tangling of the two stories with each other. They are so

251 - The Beginning

closely interdependent that the destruction of the flat earth story, at the very least, called into serious question God's existence and place of residence. When faced with a threat to their concept of God, it is understandable why some flat earth people refused to reject the flat earth story. It is also understandable why it was easier for some to deny rational evidence, personal testimony, and overwhelming masses of data concerning a spherical earth than it was to deny God. Any time culture or a significant segment of society tells a story that is inherently not verifiable (a God story) and makes it dependent upon another story which is testable (verifiable), we risk intense and divisive conflict.

When stories are told about our life, death, and origins or about the forces which control our lives, their meaning takes on ultimate importance. Stories of ultimate meaning share much in common with stories which John Westerhoff refers to as myths. He says, "Myths explain that this is the way life really is in spite of any evidence to the contrary. Myths are not false stories." He goes on to say, "They explain the meaning and purpose of life. They are true stories, in the most important sense of those words, for they explain our world. Everyone lives by some collection of myths. No one lives with meaning or purpose without them." Westerhoff gives further insight into the nature of myths when he says, "Sacred stories speak to our deepest, unconscious longings and questions, our problems and predicaments, our inner and outer struggles in human life. They exist in the form of truth that only intuition and imagination can provide, truth just as significant and real as that which comes through logical analysis and scientific probing."¹

Stories of ultimate meaning which inherently are not verifiable (God stories) are clearly the same as Westerehoff's myths. But what about stories of ultimate meaning which are testable but which for some reason or another have not been verified? Are these also myths? The answer depends upon how the stories are viewed by the people who own or tell them. Clearly they are myths in the sense of Westerhoff's definition, if the people who own the stories which are falsifiable will only accept evidence in support of the stories and ignore all evidence to the contrary. These testable (refutable or verifiable) stories become inherently untestable in the minds of those people who own or tell the stories if they decide that the stories are true despite all contradictions. Falsifiable stories are elevated to the same uncontradictable status as the inherently untestable God stories when the two types of stories are ultimately tied together. It becomes easier to deny the refuting evidence than to deny God.

Two additional points need to be made about stories of ultimate meaning (inherently untestable and testable alike). The first is that these stories usually cannot be changed. They can be destroyed and a new one accepted in the place of an old one, or they can be added to, if

¹ Westerhoff, John H., III, Bringing Up Children in the Christian Faith (Winston Press, 1980), pp. 37, 39.

252 - The Beginning

the original story is maintained unchanged in the process. The reason it is so threatening to have even a small part of a story of ultimate meaning called into question is that it calls the whole story into question. The second point about stories of ultimate meaning is that the more people who believe the story, the more powerful the story becomes in the eyes of whose who own the story. This is part of the motive for a group, denomination, or sect to evangelize people to believe in their particular story. The more who believe the story, the more resources there are available to defend the story and the greater the validation of the truth and importance of the story.

Society can get itself into deep trouble when a large segment tells a story of ultimate meaning which is believed immutable but which is also potentially refutable. Why does society do such a disservice to itself? At least two reasons come to mind. The first reason is simple and straightforward. Many of the testable stories were believed to be inherently untestable when they were first told. The flat earth story was told by people who could not conceive of the earth beyond the horizon. Not only that but they couldn't conceive of traveling far enough to see what did indeed exist beyond the horizon. As far as they were concerned, the earth looked flat from their perspective and beyond that the story was untestable. The second reason why society will ascribe untestable qualities to a story which is indeed testable is slightly more complicated and indirect. We can start first with the God stories. Despite the fact that such stories of ultimate meaning are inherently untestable, we humans are tempted (even driven) to try to test the untestable. Many, perhaps all humans have some degree of yearning to prove or disprove the existence of God on a more concrete basis than faith. It is insidiously easy to tie a testable story of ultimate meaning to the God story for when the testable story is verified it also gives a sense of verification of the God story. All is well unless the testable story is refuted; then the God story is called into question at the same time. At this point the story-teller must either ignore the refutation or risk losing God.

For either of the two reasons, society has placed many booby traps in its stories of ultimate meaning. One of the causes of society's uneasiness in these modern times is that science and technology are revealing mythic booby traps at a rate which we find difficult to accommodate. As science and technology challenge stories of great or ultimate meaning, they also engender a growing sense of anti- science/ anti- technology.

II

Creationists are telling a story about our beginnings which is rooted solely in the first two chapters of the book of Genesis. When we look at the Genesis account, we see that there is both a God story ("In the beginning God created …") and a story about the order and timing of creation. The first story is inherently untestable, whereas the second story is quite testable. Creationists find the theory of evolution to be very threatening, as legislative tactics and court actions attest.

253 - The Beginning

Exactly why evolution is so threatening is not obvious. Evolutionists intend no threat to the God story. Christian evolutionists share the God story about who was responsible for creation. Atheist evolutionists find the God story irrelevant to their study of the process of development of life on earth. A study of the process of creation (evolution) is as little affected by Christian or atheistic beliefs as a study of combustion would be affected by who lit the fire. The God story concerns the who of creation whereas evolution concerns the when and how of creation, so there is no direct threat to the God story.

At one time, creationists demanded that evolution be taught as a theory. Scientists were quick to agree. Most scientists who are actively involved in research pertaining to evolution view it as a theory or concept which has much merit and is generally valid. They also agree that the understanding of the details of evolution needs refining and much more research is necessary before the theory is substantiated in all its parts. The theory of evolution is testable, and the testing is going on continuously. The creationists had made a demand, and the evolutionists had acquiesed. For a while it appeared that the threat to the creationist's story had been removed. Since there was no direct threat to the God story, this should have resolved the controversy and the creationists and evolutionists were free to go their separate ways. The creationists soon revealed, however, that the threat to them had not been removed. If a controversy had indeed been resolved, it was the wrong controversy. The battle quickly resumed.

The question remains, what is it that the creationists find so threatening in evolution? Evolution does not directly threaten the supremacy of God as Creator because it concerns itself with the "how" of creation, not the "who" or "why." Evolution does not threaten creationism by claiming to be an immutable law of science or the universe because it isn't. We must conclude by process of elimination that evolution is threatening to creationists even in the form of a theoretical alternative to the two accounts of creation which are given in Genesis. Creationists respond to the threat by calling evolution "non-Christian" and "humanist" inspired. This doesn't tell us why evolution is threatening but it does help delineate the threat and gives us a direction to follow in our inquiry. Despite the fact that creationists assert that one cannot be an evolutionist and a Christian, there are many Christians who are not at all troubled by the theory of evolution. Let us pursue the difference in response of Christians to evolution in an attempt to understand more fully the threat as perceived by creationist Christians.

Most, if not all, Christians share the story of God's responsibility for creation, so we must look elsewhere for the reason for the different responses to evolution. This leaves the Genesis accounts of the order and timing of creation to which some Christians respond as evolutionists and some as creationists. Why don't all Christians turn to creationism in the face of the theory of evolution? It is because that despite the sharing of the story of God as the "who" and "why" of creation, not all Christians

254 - The Beginning

tell exactly the same story about the "how" of creation. We all share the same words but the story is not quite the same.

To some, the steps and timing of creation in Genesis represent what the ancient Hebrews and their predecessors were able to understand about creation. To others, these same words and passages are a poetic statement, and the structure of the language in which the verses were spoken, and then written, did more to control the nature and order of events which were included than did any insight into fact. When creationists use these same words in Genesis they tell yet another story which is that the Genesis account is the way that God actually chose to create the universe. All of these examples are consistent with the idea of God as Creator. All of them are interpretations of Genesis to be found in Christendom today. Only one of the examples is told by people who find evolution to be threatening. The creationist not only finds evolution threatening to the biblical steps of the creation story, but it is also threatening to the ultimate role of God as Creator even to the point of threatening the existence of God.

Creationists have set themselves apart from other Christians by intimately interweaving their story of the "who" of creation with the "bow" of creation. For them, it is the flat earth problem all over again. Creationists have taken a theory of creation which is testable and tied it to an inherently untestable story about God. In the process, they have declared a testable theory to be also inherently untestable. As was pointed out earlier, this works fine, if the testable story is verified. Controversy has arisen because evolution has not verified the creationist's story. At best, research has shown the Genesis account of the "how" of creation to be incomplete. Because the creationists have tied their story of the "how" of creation to their story of the "who" of creation, any doubt cast upon the "how" also casts doubt on the "who." Creationists follow a predictable pattern as they find it easier to deny physical evidence than to deny God. Physical evidence, no matter how overwhelming, can be dismissed as the work of the devil. Christians who find evolution acceptable, or at least not threatening, are those who have managed to keep their stories of the "bow" of creation separate from the "who" and "why" of creation.

In simplest terms, creationists reject the theory of evolution not because evolution is bad, in and of itself, but because for them it threatens, indirectly yet potently, the very existence of God. Scientific arguments in support of evolution will have little if any effect because creationists are not really arguing about the validity of the theory of evolution but the existence of God.

III

Surely the idea of creationism holds no threat to evolutionists. Where would the threat come from? Those who work to improve and refine the theory of evolution are scientists for the most part. Evolution is a scientific theory. Creationism is not science, so how could it threaten

255 - The Beginning

science? Creationism is in part theology, philosophy, history, and even, perhaps, sociology, but it isn't science. Furthermore, calling it "Creation Science" or "Scientific Creationism" does not make it science. The heart of science, the scientific method, is to test hypotheses and theories with the objective of verifying or falsifying them. Since the Genesis story is held by creationists to be untestable, then creationism which is based solely on Genesis cannot be science. I am not trying to diminish the importance of creationism by stating that it is not science-only trying to establish proper labels and to do away with inappropriate terminology. If creationism is not a scientific theory in competition with evolution, then why are evolutionists and scientists in general so threatened by it?

Robert Dott has noted that "much of the rhetoric from the conventional scientific community about creationism has been so dogmaticeven hysterical-as to be counter-productive."² Such rhetoric is no more rational than creationist rejection of substantiated data. Both types of behavior represent a response to threats to stories or beliefs of ultimate importance in the lives of the people concerned. We have already established the nature of the threat to the creationist. We must now seek out the source of the threat to evolutionists. I do not refer to threats to academic or political freedom as a result of laws passed recently and currently being reviewed in the courts of several states. These kinds of threats, important as they are, usually elicit rational responses through politics, the courts, or various media of communication.

We must search for a threat to scientists which would be viewed by them to be as profound and potentially injurious as we found the threat to the creationists' God. What does creationism call into question which is parallel to evolution calling the creationists' God into question? What is the story of ultimate meaning which is shared by the scientific community (theist and atheist alike)? How does creationism threaten this story? It cannot be a story about God's existence, for if it were, there would be no evolutionists who were also Christians. We need to discover what it is in science that is accepted widely, principally because it has worked well in the past and continues to work well. What is it in science which seems intuitively obviously true but which defies proof or is inherently untestable in a rigorous way.

The only thing that comes to mind is the scientific method of inquiry. The scientific method is so important that no more painful or damning criticism can be leveled at scientists than that they depart from the scientific method. This is the means by which science approaches truth and documents the approach. It is used to test ideas and proposals of the scientific community.

But we must ask, "Who or what is testing the test?" I do not doubt the validity of the scientific method nor do I mean to raise doubts about it. It has served well and not been shown significantly to be errant in decades,

² Dott, Robert H., Jr., "The Challenge of Scientific Creationism," Editorial, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 51, No. 3 (1980), pp. 701-704.

256 - The Beginning

even centuries of use. I do suggest, however, that it qualifies as a story of ultimate meaning to scientists. When the scientific method is called into question, it also calls into question the concepts derived by means of the scientific method.

The threat of creationism to the scientific method is subtle but potent. Science is faced with an idea which is called science but is not science. Beyond this, creationism is held up to society as being "true science" which is outside normal science and as such is equal to or better than any theory which could come out of the scientific community (specifically, evolution). Furthermore, any attempts on the part of the scientific community to use the scientific method to verify evolution or refute creationism are ignored or belittled by creationists. When the general public votes (directly or through their elected representatives) to establish creationism to be either on equal terms with or superior to evolution in science education, it also calls into question the validity or potency of the scientific method by means of which the theory of evolution was derived. Hence, the threat of creationism to evolutionism is minor in the face of the much more serious and fundamental threat to the scientific method and even to scientific objectivity.

In simplest terms, the evolutionist rejects and fights the idea of creationism not because it is bad, in and of itself, but because it is presented as being science and thus threatens the validity of the scientific method and scientific objectivity. Theological arguments or factual nit-picking by creationists with regard to evolution will have little if any effect because the evolutionist is not arguing about the validity of creationism but on behalf of the scientific method and scientific objectivity.

IV

The complexity of the controversy and the reasons for it being so heated begin to become clear. Ostensibly there are two groups of people arguing the relative merits of the concepts of evolution and creationism. The two sides are having little effect on each other except to make each other angry. Arguments are put forward, proofs are presented but no resolution is in sight except for what is imposed through political or judicial action. It is no wonder that the controversy continues because what was just described is what is apparently going on, not what is actually going on. What the creationists are really saying is that God is real and responsible for creation, so scientific proof in support of evolution seems irrelevant to them. What evolutionists are really saying is that the scientific method is valid and is the most effective means of maintaining objectivity in the search for truth, so philosophical or theological arguments in support of creationism seem irrelevant. Is it any wonder that neither side is successful in influencing the other? They only appear to be debating the evolution/creationism controversy; each side is actually debating and defending something quite different.

It is ironic that neither side recognizes or is willfully attacking what

257 - The Beginning

the other side is defending. Scientists, those who are also Christians, agree with the story of God as Creator. Scientists who are atheists are interested in what is happening in the universe but couldn't care less if someone wants to make God responsible for it all. Most creationists neither understand nor care about the scientific method. Accordingly, we have two groups who appear to be defending one thing while they are actually defending something else. Proofs and arguments not directed at the appropriate targets become meaningless while provoking anger at the same time. It is easy to understand why both sides of the controversy have turned to propaganda and power politics to attain resolution. Sadly, any resolution to the controversy which is reached by these means is likely to be uneasy and temporary. The Scopes Monkey Trial will be brought back to trial again and again under various guises until both sides recognize what is really being argued and so come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. The resolution must be one that avoids threatening either side's story of ultimate meaning.

V

It is important that effective steps be taken to bring about reconciliation between creationists and evolutionists, at least to the degree that they believe that they can co-exist, peacefully. Much more is at stake than evolution and creationism. Men and women who assumed leadership roles on both sides of the conflict when it first began, did so for the very highest moral and ethical motives. Many who remain involved today maintain the same motives. Unfortunately, controversy draws religious and scientific opportunists like honey draws flies. Such people exacerbate the confusion while professing to be helpful. But their objectives are often simply self-aggrandizement, financial profit, and power. The judicial and political maneuverings that are now occurring in several States are being rendered unnecessarily complex by the mixed motives of protagonists and antagonists. To quote Lucy in a Peanuts cartoon by Schulz, "It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the 'Phonies' from the 'Realies.'"

There is an urgent need for reconciliation between the two sides before irreparable harm is done both to science and religion in our nation. I make no claim to having the complete solution to the problem, but there are steps that can be taken to reduce the threats to the stories of ultimate meaning on both sides.

(1) One step is to stop calling creationism a scientific concept. Most creationists admit that it isn't science. If creationists are concerned with presenting the Genesis view of creation to the young people of our country it should be labeled properly. The case for having the creationist view of beginnings presented in a believable and supportable way would be strengthened by labeling it theology, which it is, rather than science, which it is not. The shift in labeling does not reduce the importance of the concept of creationism nor does it belittle the importance of God. It

258 - The Beginning

allows argument about the relative merits of theological and scientific stories of creation without so severe a threat to the underlying stories of ultimate meaning.

(2) Another step is to stop innundating creationists with data in support of evolution, except when truly necessary (as in a court case). These data are irrelevant to the actual case of the creationists and will only cause them to nit-pick the scientific literature to find anything that might cast doubt on the integrity of the scientific method or of scientists themselves. Such counterattacks are usually shown to be without substance, but the general public sees the scientific community belittled on grounds which cannot be evaluated immediately, thereby furthering the tendency toward anti-science and anti-technology.

(3) A third step is for creationists to view evolution as a supplement to the Genesis account of creation rather than as a replacement of it. Although stories of ultimate meaning cannot be amended, they can be appended. The Bible reveals that God communicated with humanity in accordance with humanity's ability to comprehend. God's revelation became more profound and complicated as our ability to reason and understand became more sophisticated, from Abraham to Moses to Jesus. It is my hope that creationists view the Genesis accounts of creation as being the word of God spoken in terms that people could understand, thousands of years ago. It is my further hope that creationists believe that God gave us brains to appreciate and study what has been created. From this position, I urge creationists to consider accepting evolution as doing no more than supplying the details for the biblical account; details which would have been mostly incomprehensible to Old Testament Hebrews.

I have been asked why God did not include evolution in Genesis if evolution was indeed God's procedure of creation? When answering this, I ask the questioner to visualize a hill under starry skies, somewhere in the vicinity of Jerusalem. A young shepherd is sitting on the hill watching the sheep and wondering bow it all came into being. At this point a strong, comforting voice calls the shepherd by name, "Hameed." The shepherd answers, "Yes, Lord," with more than a little fear and trembling. The voice continues, "Listen while I tell you how I created the universe." Hameed thanks God and settles down to listen, and God says…. !

So I ask the questioner to assume that God did indeed use something akin to our concept of evolution to create the universe as we know it. Based on this assumption would God have gone on to talk about electrons and protons, genes and DNA, plate tectonics, and continental drift, or would God have given Hameed an explanation something like the Genesis accounts? This approach usually helps the questioner understand that given the time and person with whom God was communicating, the account of creation had to be simple, much simpler

259 - The Beginning

than the actual process God chose. For this reason, the absence of the theory of evolution from Genesis cannot be used to prove that evolution is not part of God's means of creation. With this in mind, it may be possible for creationists to add evolution to their story of ultimate meaning rather than believing that it contradicts or threatens it.

The last suggested step is a suggestion to creationists and evolutionists alike. Avoid saying that one cannot believe in both God and evolution. There are many of us who believe in both.

There is little hope of reconciling the evolutionist and creationist positions until both sides start talking about the real issues. We must all stop pretending that the controversy pertains to no more than evolution and creationism. Profoundly important stories of ultimate meaning are involved, the God story of the creationist and the scientific objectivity story of the evolutionist. Until it is recognized by both sides what it is that the battle is really about, resolution is unlikely.