Monday 10 February 2014

Should we be pitting science fact against religious belief?


On the 4th of February, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky played host to what may have been the most watched debate on the subject of evolution. With the live-stream seen by over 500,000 viewers, Bill Nye "The Science Guy" took to the podium to discuss evolution with Australian creationist Ken Ham, head of the Answers in Genesis organisation. The whole debate can be viewed here.

The debate lasted for a frustrating two-and-a-half hours; from the start it was clear that nothing that Nye could say wouldn't be met with a (frequently nonsensical) rebuttal from Ham who's stalwart faith in the Bible would be somehow noble if only he didn't try to inflict it on others. Ham and the Answers in Genesis organisation believe that the world is only 6000 years old (despite the fact that there are trees older than that) and that the "word of God" should take precedent over all human knowledge.

Personally, I found the whole thing rather painful to watch and found myself wondering if the debate should even have taken place. Comparing scientific theories (not "ideas" or "concepts" but well-substantiated explanations the natural world) with religious belief is akin to comparing apples to floor tiles. The two are just not of a level.

Since the Scopes Monkey Trail in 1925, the evolution "debate" has really just spun in a circle. With fact-based replies handily available to every Creationist claim it has always surprised me when this row leaves internet comment sections and makes it in to news.

However it really shouldn't. The acceptance of a 2000 year old text as scientific evidence by some people would appear to be an unfortunate fixture of our age. The separation of religion from science in the US, for example, seems to be degenerating. With creationism being taught as a science in Texas and evolution dismissed as "dogma" (in a move against the US consitution) it leads on that yet another generation will grow up lacking key understanding in the workings of science theory and rational thought.

This is not a phenomenon limited to America either. Earlier this year the Creationist Noah's Ark Zoo Farm in Bristol was awarded the LOtC Quality Badge by the Council for Learning Outside the Classroom. This is a zoo that asks the question "Did life arise naturally or supernaturally?" and seems to have rather made up its mind already.

As much as it pains me to agree with Richard Dawkins (his evangelicalism is rather an embarrassment to most atheists), I do believe that the greatest threat to scientific education is religious fundamentalism. Whilst it is well within everyone's rights to teach religion to their children and try to get their views heard across the world, the teaching of such belief belongs in Sunday schools and R.E lessons, not the biology classroom.

Scientific literacy is desperately needed in our society and blurring in religion with the teaching of science will just confuse the lines between the research of ideas and the acceptance of "facts" . The ability to collect and process information for oneself is vital in this age where various news outlets are easily able to sway a population with selective reporting.

The Nye vs Ham debate just showed the issues that arise when you put religious belief on the same footing as evidence-based scientific theories. The argument was never going to go anywhere, as the players just talked in circles, neither one shaken by the others' words. Nye's views would only have been affected had Ham provided evidence (which he obviously failed to do) and Ham's views are unlikely to have ever be affected by anything in reality.

In all, the debate was pointless and probably should not have taken place. However it did lead to the thought that, if Ham was correct, then God created the world 1000 years or so after the Babylonians invented beer. Which does go some way to explain the platypus, I suppose.

For The Yorker Online, 10th February 2014