It is my supposition that the Universe is not only queerer than we
imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine.
     —J. B. S. Haldane

In the popular imagination, influenced by a thousand Hollywood "sword
and sandal" epics inspired by Edward Gibbon’s "Decline and Fall of the
Roman Empire," great nations perish through moral decay. (The more
half-naked slave girls, muscular gladiators and lisping upper-class twits,
the better the box office.) But there’s such a thing as intellectual decadence,
too. The role of sheer ignorance in determining the fate of civilizations
cannot be overstated. Believe it or not, this insight struck me recently while
watching a two minute "debate" on CNN about the merits of teaching
Darwinian evolution vs. something called "intelligent design" in high school
biology classes.

The utter vacuousness of the anchor creature refereeing this exhibition
needn’t be dwelt upon. Suffice it wasn’t her reasoning skills that got
her the job. Rather, it was the farcical nature of the whole enterprise
that struck me: the central organizing principle of biological science
as the shuttlecock in a "Crossfire"-style colloquy between an earnest
young lawyer and a smug preacher who appeared to have borrowed
Sen. Trent Lott’s lacquered hair helmet and dyed it orange.

Not long afterward, The Washington Post chronicled a dispute among
parents and school board members in Dover, Pa., a suburb of Harrisburg.
There, 11 parents, under the aegis of the ACLU, have sued to prevent"
intelligent design" from being foisted upon their children in biology classes.
They claim it’s a smokescreen for teaching fundamentalist religious
doctrine in place of science.

Judging by the newspaper’s account, they’re surely correct. The school
board member who introduced the measure explained that he was taking a
stand for Jesus. Another member, an Assemblies of God pastor, said,
"If the Bible is right, God created us. If God did it, it’s history and
it’s also science."

A local gift shop owner rather evocatively named Lark Myers summed it
all up for the Post reporter: "I definitely would prefer to believe that God
created me than that I’m 50th cousin to a silverback ape. What’s wrong
with wanting our children to hear about all the holes in the theory of evolution?"

Sigh. The single best answer I’ve seen to all this nonsense was given by
Rev. C. O. Magee, a Presbyterian minister and member of the Little Rock
School Board during a federal court test of an Arkansas "creation-science" law
more than 20 years ago. "Any time religion gets involved in science," he said,
"religion comes off looking like a bunch of nerds.... The Book of Genesis told
who created the world and why it was created and science tells how it was done."

Can I get an amen? Frankly, I doubt the fair Lark would try to adjust her own
satellite TV receiver without expert help or summon an Assemblies of God
preacher to repair her dishwasher according to biblical principles. Yet she feels
herself competent to pronounce upon the alleged holes in one of the most
massively documented theoretical constructs in the history of science.

To anybody even faintly aware of what’s going on in the visible world,
biological science has made astonishing advances in recent decades.
Biologists have discovered the structure of the DNA molecule, broken the
genetic code, sequenced the entire genome of several species and documented
with extraordinary specificity how a tiny, single-celled egg develops into an
adult organism.

Paleontologists have unearthed so many so-called missing links in
mammalian evolution that clever creationists now avoid the topic.

Suffice it to say that none of these discoveries would be conceivable
absent the intellectual scaffolding provided by Charles Darwin’s
"Origin of Species" in 1859.

But while Darwin’s insights have been elaborated upon, adjusted,
amplified and corrected over the past century, the panicky response of
his authoritarian-minded opponents has not. Properly understood,
evolution no more mandates atheism than does the tax code, which also
excludes supernatural explanations. Indeed, most "mainstream" religious
denominations have long ago quit seeing science as an enemy, embracing
its discoveries about the grandeur and complexity of the physical
universe as an inducement to reverence and awe. Unfortunately, TV news
networks seeking conflict and melodrama to boost ratings are ill suited
to explore such ideas and emotions.

Instead, they peddle simplistic "controversies" well suited to suburbanites
who have lost their way amid the moral and intellectual confusions of
contemporary life and cling to biblical literalism like a life raft. Sure, a proper
curriculum should include lessons about how science both limits and lays claim
to knowledge about the physical world. And yes, it’s bad for democracy to
have these arguments settled by court mandate instead of reasoned debate.
But it’s also not hard to see why scientists are reluctant to spend all their time
rehashing 19th century misunderstandings on satellite TV.
 
 

• Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient
of the National Magazine Award.
 

URL: http://www.nwanews.com/story/adg/103289
 

 Back to  bartcop.com