It is impossible to interpret paleontology without interpreting evolution. I think science education has done a poor job of this.
The resistance to evolution is essentially psychological, not religious. Attacking Creationism and Intelligent Design doesn't get to the root cause. These are empty fabrications, easily refuted with evidence and logic, and yet they withstand all rebuttal because the fusillade of reason simply passes through them.
Science educators mistakenly argue that science and religion are "orthogonal" (a scientized word meaning that you can't measure one with the standards of the other). This approach only reveals how antisceptic scientists strive to be, doing themselves a great disservice.
Scientists and science educators should own up to the fact that science has much in common with religion, even as it has much to distinguish it from theology. As with religion, science has passion, conviction, devotion, pride, awe, wonder, and a striving for a comprehesive understanding of existence. Unlike theology, science invites questions, refutation, paradigm revolutions, and at its best, greets the great unknown with first a shrug and then a squaring of the shoulders. What we don't know, we will strive to find out.
This is how science is done. But science as it is presented in the classroom seems like catechism, barely distinguishable from theological doctrine and therefore, a potential rival to theologies of all stripes. There are scientists who embrace this, who have made a career of debunking theology, thus feeding the impression of rivalry.
Let me clarify my distinction between religion and theology. Religion is a set of psychological questions, theology is a set of authoritative answers to those questions.
Science is a set of methods for finding answers so that they can be reframed as further questions. It has much to say to religious impulses but it challenges those impulses to continue their inquiry. It has very little to say to theological doctrine that provides only pat answers intolerant of continuing inquiry.
The religious impulse is much stronger than any given theology, because it derives from the root psychology of the individual. We are born to wonder, to inquire, to formulate hypotheses. We are born to feel pain, and seek salves for our anguish. We are born to desire pride in ourselves and our associations. We are born to feel small beneath a starry sky and at the same time as large as the cosmos. We are born to question who we are and why. Without these religious impulses theology would find no footing in the human psyche.
Science education can connect with these psychological drives, not by asserting itself as a rival to theology but by showing a kindly regard for human nature.
When a child or adult feels discomfort at the idea that "we evolved from apes" that unease is an expression of our fragile self esteem. To imagine oneself as simply a naked ape with primate lineage and instincts feels degrading, while to imagine oneself an exceptional creation only one step removed from angels feels uplifting.
I think what the interpretation of evolution should say to this person needing affirmation of personal worth is this: You are the sum of all the survivors who forged the path to your existence. You have their attributes built into your genes, a geneology of success. Making the best of that wonderful 3.5 billion year inheritance is your test in this life. The success of humanity in the eons to come depends on the choices you make now.
When an uplifting message is phrased as a challenge, I think it can set people in a forward direction. It can give them a way to earn their pride.
No comments:
Post a Comment