Extremely interesting reality/documentary hybrid on the Beeb last night. In Conspiracy Road Trip (an odd title, but what the hell...), comedian Andrew Maxwell travelled the American heartland with five British creationists. He was, it seems, trying to show them the veracity of the theory of evolution by introducing them to a series of scientists who would present their evidence for it.
The five were also asked to speak, one at a time, to the other four to outline their own feelings on the matter. What struck me was not so much the unshakeability of their beliefs - it would be a poor theologian whose entire belief system collapsed over a few days aboard a coach in such circumstances - but the apparent lack, in one or two of them, of the values they all purported to hold dear.
We had four Christians and a Muslim; two women, three men. They were variously presented with evidence from paleontologists, geologists and historians, for example a string of hominid skulls found in one, one-mile deep rock seam in a single African valley. Theories and explanations bounced back and forth - interesting stuff. In some cases, though, their faith (or simply their human prejudices) completely blinded them.
When discussing the beginnings of life on Earth with a professor of astro-physics, for example, the Muslim lad, Abdul, claimed he 'liked science', but then went on to decry it, saying that, "...science should not present things that they don't know the same way that they present things they do know. It's a sleight of hand..." This, of course, completely misses the point of science, which to my knowledge has never done any such thing. It's called a theory of evolution for a reason. From Darwin to modern scientists, the word 'theory' is still stuck in front of it. Why is it OK for religious adherents to view their great religious texts as literal, perfect and unquestionable truths but cry foul at the very idea that science may present anything as 'fact'? Far better the openness about areas of ignorance which is what science actually presents us than the closed-eye certainty of creationism.
The oldest of the group, a chap called Phil who'd taken it upon himself to be their father figure and spiritual guardian, was a fine example of Christian hypocrisy. One of the girls, Jo-Jo, admitted she wasn't much of a church-goer, as she had trouble reconciling her beliefs with the tenets of the Church. Her best friend, for example, is gay, and she "wouldn't change him for anything." The fact that she was asked about this led to Phil accusing the director of being a 'bully', calling him a 'disgusting human being' and a 'pathetic director'. He then (having checked first with the preacher that the church they were about to attend wasn't a 'gay church'), took the opportunity during the service to tell the group not to talk about homosexuality and the Church. "If the subject comes up, don't go near it...," he told the others. "Just turn to the camera and say you're being bullied. We're here to talk about evolution and creationism."
He was asked, outside the same church, if he'd directed the group on what they could or couldn't talk about. He flatly denied doing what he'd just been filmed doing. 'Disingenuous', Maxwell called it. Lying, I call it. There was only one bully on the trip, and it certainly wasn't the director. Phil, it seems, saw all scientists (even the devoutly Christian paleontologist who saw evolution as God's work) as part of some grand conspiracy to deny the 'true' age of the Earth (6,000-odd years) and bring about a Godless way of life. He criticised the fact that no 'creationist geologist' had been brought on the trip to question the scientists' evidence. Evidently he saw the point of the show rather differently to the producers, and perhaps also knew he didn't have the intellectual wherewithal to contest their claims adequately. He also showed just how much he loved his neighbours, and how much forgiveness he had in him, by refusing to speak to the girls for some time afterwards because of their reluctance to toe his line.
As it turned out, the two women at least showed themselves open-minded enough to want to 'do some more research' in one case, while Jo-Jo said that though her faith was unshaken, "...it doesn't mean that God couldn't have caused evolution. I'm not wanting to be closed off. There's too much evidence." Fair play to her - I have absolutely no doubt that her life was enriched and broadened by the experience, without her faith having been shaken in the process. I very seriously doubt the same can be said for Phil.
Showing posts with label theory of evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theory of evolution. Show all posts
Tuesday, 9 October 2012
Monday, 29 November 2010
Opening eyes
Because of the strange hours I work, I often finish a shift after the point at which it's possible to get public transport home, in which case I'm entitled to a cab. I therefore spend several late evenings, often after midnight, talking to cabbies about whatever's on their mind. I've had some extremely interesting coversations with some of these lads but, perhaps because many of the drivers are Muslims and their faith is important to them, the most frequent topic of discussion seems to be theology, or the relationship/debate between theology and science.
These discussions have, without exception, been friendly, mutually respectful and interesting, however strongly each speaker may have held their beliefs, but something I learned the other night nonetheless left me saucer-eyed with surprise. A chap driving me home had never even heard of the theory of evolution. It wasn't that he didn't believe in it, or had been taught some other theory, he had literally never heard of it. Only by talking to me did he learn that not everybody thinks that God, or Allah, or whatever you call your deity of choice, made animals and plants exactly as they are now. I had to explain how the theory works - what evolutionists think happened (and is happening, of course). He asked the same questions that everybody who doesn't subscribe to evolutionary theory thinks, though in his case he asked out of a detached interest in my beliefs rather than to try to refute them.
He asked: If Man came from apes (a simplistic explanation given the likely tangled routes of our hominid evolutionary past but the best I could do to explain it to somebody who had never even heard the theory before), what was before the apes? And what was before that? And before that? And where did it come from in the first place?
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans? (A question I've heard before, but one which so completely misses, or misunderstands, the point that it's hardy worth answering).
Why aren't we, and all other plants and animals, still evolving?
I answered as best I could but I'm not an evolutionary biologist, my grasp of divergent evolutionary theory is not sound enough to be thinking about passing it onto other people and the cab ride was only 25 minutes.
For his part, his biggest surprise was that, just as he's completely committed to his beliefs, so am I to mine, despite that fact that mine contains bits marked 'I don't know'. For him, the central beliefs by which he lives his life are utterly certain. Mine are not, and he couldn't reconcile what he saw as a contradiction between my committed atheism and belief in science, and the fact that science is full of uncertainty, indeed built upon it. There are gaps in our understanding of the origins of the universe, and of life on our planet, but I'm as committed to my beliefs as he is to his. For me the beauty of science is that it's principal position is 'we don't know'. It's still capable of new revelations, of new beauties, of changing a position you believed in completely before with some startling new piece of knowledge.
But I started this post really not to write about my bumbling efforts to explain evolutionary theory to a man interested in hearing it but absolutely 100% committed to a different belief, but about my shock at the fact that there is anybody out there, anybody at all, living in a Western culture in the modern media age, who's never even heard of it. I find this so staggering that I just had to put it down here.
These discussions have, without exception, been friendly, mutually respectful and interesting, however strongly each speaker may have held their beliefs, but something I learned the other night nonetheless left me saucer-eyed with surprise. A chap driving me home had never even heard of the theory of evolution. It wasn't that he didn't believe in it, or had been taught some other theory, he had literally never heard of it. Only by talking to me did he learn that not everybody thinks that God, or Allah, or whatever you call your deity of choice, made animals and plants exactly as they are now. I had to explain how the theory works - what evolutionists think happened (and is happening, of course). He asked the same questions that everybody who doesn't subscribe to evolutionary theory thinks, though in his case he asked out of a detached interest in my beliefs rather than to try to refute them.
He asked: If Man came from apes (a simplistic explanation given the likely tangled routes of our hominid evolutionary past but the best I could do to explain it to somebody who had never even heard the theory before), what was before the apes? And what was before that? And before that? And where did it come from in the first place?
Why aren't apes still evolving into humans? (A question I've heard before, but one which so completely misses, or misunderstands, the point that it's hardy worth answering).
Why aren't we, and all other plants and animals, still evolving?
I answered as best I could but I'm not an evolutionary biologist, my grasp of divergent evolutionary theory is not sound enough to be thinking about passing it onto other people and the cab ride was only 25 minutes.
For his part, his biggest surprise was that, just as he's completely committed to his beliefs, so am I to mine, despite that fact that mine contains bits marked 'I don't know'. For him, the central beliefs by which he lives his life are utterly certain. Mine are not, and he couldn't reconcile what he saw as a contradiction between my committed atheism and belief in science, and the fact that science is full of uncertainty, indeed built upon it. There are gaps in our understanding of the origins of the universe, and of life on our planet, but I'm as committed to my beliefs as he is to his. For me the beauty of science is that it's principal position is 'we don't know'. It's still capable of new revelations, of new beauties, of changing a position you believed in completely before with some startling new piece of knowledge.
But I started this post really not to write about my bumbling efforts to explain evolutionary theory to a man interested in hearing it but absolutely 100% committed to a different belief, but about my shock at the fact that there is anybody out there, anybody at all, living in a Western culture in the modern media age, who's never even heard of it. I find this so staggering that I just had to put it down here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)