Home
| Why am I talking about evolution? Wasn't the whole issue of evolution and religion and society decided long ago? Wasn't that what the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee back in 1925 decided once and for all; that evolution is fact? |
| The great lawyer, Clarence Darrow, a Unitarian, debated William Jennings Bryan about evolution and the theory of natural selection propounded by Charles Darwin--a sometime Unitarian--and Darrow and Darwin won the day. And religion has accommodated itself to evolution the same way in which it accommodated to a round earth and the fact that the earth revolves around the sun--both scientific facts which do not agree with the Biblical account. |
| So why am I raising up an old debate? |
| Because evolution is once again under attack by certain religious groups and because they appear to be winning. Evolution is once again a major issue of debate. |
| In recent years, several states have attempted to limit the teaching of evolution in the public schools. And this past in August, the Kansas State Board of Education made two decisions regarding the teaching of evolution. |
| Let me first state clearly what they did NOT do. They did not ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas public schools. Therefore, this debate is not quite equivalent with the debate in Tennessee three quarters of a century ago. However, let it also be clearly stated that the underlying issue is the same: the findings of science versus a literal reading of the Bible. That is, this is not a struggle between science and religion, but rather, it is a struggle between science and one particular way of reading the Bible. |
| The first decision the Kansas Board of Education made was not to include evolution in the state standardized assessment tests. That leaves the decision about whether or not to teach evolution to local school districts. But let us understand that there is a certain level of incentive for local school districts to concentrate on, or even teach, only that information which will help students to do well on standardized state exams. |
| The second decision it made was to remove overt references to evolution from the state science curriculum. They have changed the curriculum, and in particular certain wording in the curriculum, so that, though they have not denied that change and adaptation take place, they do not attribute this to evolution. The reason for this is that many anti-evolutionists will admit that a species of moth, for example, may change its predominate color in response to environmental factors, they will not accept that a species of moth can evolve into a different species. |
| Among those attacking evolution there are several different viewpoints. For example, so-called "young earth" creationists believe that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old. They believe this because that is what their reading of the Bible tells them. |
| And that is the crux of the matter. This is not a scientific debate. It is a debate between Biblical literalists and science. |
| The Creation Science Association for Mid-America (CSA) was a major proponent of the changes in the Kansas science curriculum. It worked with the six of ten Board of Education members who voted for the changes to rewrite the science curriculum standards. Among the objectives of the CSA is the following: |
| "To show that Biblical Creation, because it is true, is the only "scientific" explanation of origins, and therefore is the only account of origins that can possibly be useful to science." |
| The Institute of Creation Research, a major proponent of creationism, is a little more subtle; they divide creationism into "Biblical creationism", which they would like to see taught in private schools, and "scientific creationism", which they would like to see taught in tax-supported institutions. An intelligent person might see this as an artificial divide intended to insert, the Bible into public schools under another name, and in fact, the ICR itself says: "A clear distinction is drawn between scientific creationism and Biblical creationism (italics theirs) but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the Bible." |
| Clearly the issue here is religion and both the centrality and interpretation of the Bible. |
| This approach to religion has a widespread following. In a debate in the United States House of Representatives about violence in our schools and the decline of morality, US Rep Tom DeLay made the following statement: |
| "Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud." |
| What all of this threatens is that we could have religion determining what permissible science is. |
| There are those who believe that illness and disease are the result of sin, not bacteria or virus. Shall we then ban or not require teaching of germ theory? |
| Shall we , on religious grounds, ban or not require the teaching of Copernicus? |
| Our Unitarian Universalist approach to religion is symbolized by the flaming chalice: the light of reason. It symbolizes a commitment to the use of reason in religion and in life. |
| Not reason to the exclusion of the spirit; rather, reason to the uplifting of the spirit. Because science and reason give us even greater wonder and awe than we had before. |
| The Copernican realization that the earth orbits the sun rejects a literal reading of the Biblical description of the earth, but it also tells us just how much smaller and more humble we are in comparison to the universe than we thought we were. |
| Darwin's recognition of natural selection as the engine of evolution rejects a literal reading of the Biblical description of creation, yet it tells us, in a sense, how unique we are, how unlikely, and therefore special, our species is. This is uplifting, if we will listen. |
| Darwin's findings tells us further that we are not necessarily the end intention of creation, that we may be but a step on the road to something else, and so our specialness is tinged with even greater humility. |
| Darwin reminds us how deeply we are a part of creation. This inspires humility but also greater sense of connection and belonging to the universe.. |
| Combining Copernicus and Darwin tells us that we may not be so unique, that other intelligent beings may inhabit worlds of wonder in the far edges of space. |
| Evolution encourages us to marvel and wonder at the awesome nature of humanity, of our creativity and our intelligence. But it reminds us, also, that we must use that intelligence properly or we, too, can disappear. |
| Yes, evolution tells us that we have arisen from the mud. |
| What a miraculous, glorious thing, that from mere mud should arise all of this world, all of the living creatures in it, all of the people in it. What a miracle and a glory that from mere mud should arise you and I. Whether we believe in an intentionless material Cosmos and believe that we are the work of "mere" evolution, or believe in God and believe that evolution is the tool of God, what a miraculous, glorious thing, that we are here. |
| But pointing out the wonder and glory inherent in scientific discovery is more the task of religion than of public schools. The task of public schools is to teach science. |
| Our religious brothers and sister are putting their energies in the wrong place. The creationists are fighting against the findings of science. But the findings of science are neither good nor bad, they just are. |
| How we interpret the impact of those findings on our lives, and how we respond to those findings is what is important. |
| If evolution exists, as it clearly does, shall we, because of that fact, descend into nihilism and bestiality; or shall we ascend to an expansion of mind and spirit and a growing sense of unity with the world, with other forms of life, and with all that is? |
| It is the role of religion to help determine which response we have. |
| Let the schools teach the findings of science. Let religion theologize and moralize about those scientific findings. But let us not permit religion to determine which findings of science are permissible. |
| Teach your children well. Let us teach them facts, teach them scientific process and findings. Let us teach them how to respond to these and to all of the events of life. But let us not impose ignorance upon them out of our own fears and call it religion. |
Return to Home
Return to Sermons Index