My Ongoing Discussion of the Debate Between Advocates… [Derived Headline]

My ongoing discussion of the debate between advocates of Darwinian evolution and creationism or intelligent design has come to the point where I have concluded that the evolutionists have far the better case, as noted in my last two columns. But in this enormous subject there is always more to say.

It appears that something like 98 percent of all scientists think all living matter is linked through a chain of evolution, a conviction as certain to them as the laws of gravity. There is a substantial body of people who stoutly deny evolution. Almost all of them are fundamentalist Christians. Of these, a tiny few are trained scientists or philosophers.

Within the remainder, quite a number have read up on the subject, have learned many creationist claims and arguments, and brought forward what they think are specific facts of nature that contradict evolution.

Then, there are the vast number who simply take this view on trust from their leaders.

I am sure the tiny group of scientists on the creationist side have thoroughly studied the writings of the evolutionists, but I think almost all the other creationists who have done some study of the subject have limited their research to books and articles that agree with them. This is troubling.

Sir Stafford Cripps was a member of the cabinet of the British Labour government in the years just after World War II, but prior to that he’d had a distinguished career as a barrister (trial lawyer).

Someone said of him that the secret of his success was that when he went into court he always knew his opponent’s case even better than the opponent did. This is one of life’s great principles: To be truly wise we need to listen carefully to those who disagree with us.

I have often said to students in school that, whatever they think about any major issue in life, they should try to find people who are intelligent, experienced and knowledgeable in presenting an opposing view and carefully to consider their claims and arguments.

This can be scary as it may hold deeply held convictions up to honest inspection. But do we not seek to follow truth? Most people would not describe themselves as infallible, but many seem to operate on that assumption.

In fact, we all make mistakes in life, mistakes in action, mistakes in thought. Some minor, some major. Even the Roman Catholic Church considers its popes infallible only on rare occasions when speaking ex cathedra. Any other time they may be wrong.

Those of us not Catholics, much less popes, have even less leeway.

We need to confront the possibility that we may be wrong about something, even something pretty major. If we are rational beings, we do not presently hold to opinions that we know to be false, but, being rational, we need to concede that further evidence might require us to change our minds.

Studying an opposing view from its best proponents is challenging.

We may find that the other side has some truth in it, more than we had believed. We may even have to admit that it has successfully refuted our own position largely or altogether. Such an admission can be emotionally painful. Many people are simply incapable of facing up to it. Yet, who would go on through life continuing to adhere to a view that one now believes to be false?

If, on the other hand, after careful examination a person believes his or her present conviction can successfully surmount the best arguments of the other side, that should bring great satisfaction, not least that, having seen the opposition at its strongest, one need not fear being intellectually ambushed on some future occasion by a more knowledgeable opponent. (And, of course, changed convictions themselves need to be subject to continuing critical review.)

I have never met a single fundamentalist creationist who appears to have done any serious study of evolution written by its proponents. Yet they all seem fanatically certain that their view is absolutely true.

The creationist mental stance seems to arise from the following line of thought:

3 I believe there is a God.

3 I believe this God has revealed himself through the teachings and events recorded in the Bible.

3 I believe the Bible is an accurate representation of this divine message.

3 I believe that my interpretation of this message is absolutely correct.

3 The theory of evolution is not compatible with my interpretation of the Bible.

3 The theory of evolution is therefore false.

3 I believe persons who accept Darwinian evolution are maliciously opposed to God.

As to the last, some scientists are indeed opposed to God, but I am convinced that the great majority follow the evidence, and that many of them are committed religious believers.

(Grael Gannon, Bismarck, is a teacher at Shiloh Christian School. His column appears on alternate Fridays.) Studying opposition crucial

(c) 2007 Bismarck Tribune. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.