Some Of Us CAN Handle The Truth

Sometimes it’s just easier to get down on a personal level, and write in first person. My apologies to Delores Thompson (my 12th Grade English Teacher).

JLH

What drives my thinking on any number of topics – politics, religion, or whatever – is a burning desire to know the truth, that overrides any personal agendas or ambitions I may have. I have positions that I hold on any number of issues within such broad topical areas as I have just described, but none that can’t be altered, or even recanted, if verifiable evidence is presented to me that my positions are wrong.

Religion? I am firmly committed to my Christian faith, because I believe the historical evidence, both scriptural and secular, supports the notion that Jesus of Nazareth actually died physically, and then actually came back from the dead three days later, convincing me, like Paul of Tarsus, that He really was/is the Son of God. But I am willing to listen to voices of dissent. If it can be proven that my foundational beliefs about Jesus and the events surrounding His death are not true, I stand ready to acknowledge that I am wrong in this regard. Because I love the truth.

Abortion? I am pro-life – or anti-abortion, if you prefer – because I believe the evidence supports the notion that what is conceived in the womb is human life, and that all human life is inherently precious. But I am never opposed to discussing the issue rationally, and listening to the arguments and evidence to be presented by those who believe otherwise. If it can be undeniably determined that their position is grounded in the truth, I stand ready to correct myself. Because the truth doesn’t change just because I might not choose to believe it.

It is a small and, I believe, insecure person who is unable to acknowledge that the position they hold on a given issue within any topical area is beyond debate – when insufficient evidence has been presented to rule out any and all alternatives.

These are the kind of thoughts that run through my head lately when I hear about all the furor surrounding the evolution/intelligent design debate going on in many school systems – and court systems – throughout the land. I’m certainly no old-timer – yet – but even I can remember when public schools, which I attended early in life, referred to the notion of the origin of life as promoted by Charles Darwin and his disciples as the theory of evolution.

It is interesting to me to note that, among its proponents, the “theory” qualifier has been dropped, and the notion of evolution as settled science is now insisted upon. There is now no room for doubt, dissent, or alternatives. I suppose simply because it has been accepted for so long – prompting me to think about other “scientific” theories that were accepted for many years in earlier times. But I digress.

The latest episode in this ongoing struggle – at least that I am aware of – has taken place in Dover, Pennsylvania, where, according to the Associated Press, the school board last year approved a policy that required a statement to be read about the theory of intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement would note that Darwin’s theory has never been established as fact, and that there are gaps in the theory that may merit attention. If anyone is interested in learning more, reference is made to an “intelligent design” book, that can be acquired.

That’s it. No lessons on how intelligent design might work, or have worked. No lessons on how to debunk evolutionary theory. Just a statement read, reminding the listeners that evolution remains an unproven theory that is nevertheless accepted by many in the scientific community.

But that is apparently more than the “evolution proponents” can bear. Not only can they not tolerate an open and rational debate on the subject of the origin of life – leaving aside the question of why the origin of life needs to be taught in the public schools anyway (I have my suspicions) – they cannot tolerate even a hint that their position could conceivably be at odds with what actually is.

Since the policy was implemented in Dover, one board member resigned in protest, and most of the rest were voted out of office at the next election, in favor of those who promised to rescind the policy. One teacher was quoted as saying “I will feel comfortable again teaching what I’d always felt comfortable teaching.” I wonder if plantation owners of the old South felt similar comfort after the 1858 Dred Scott decision, that affirmed the belief of many, despite what was true, that blacks were not worthy of the same level of civil rights and liberties as whites.

Keep in mind that this teacher was not required under the policy to teach anything other than the theory of evolution that she had always taught – only to add in a note about the possibility of another alternative to the question of where life came from. No doubt, though, the indoctrination she received in the course of receiving her degree and certification convinced her that “smart people” knew that evolution was the only possibility. Aren’t the emperor’s new clothes beautiful?

Of course, to no one’s surprise, the policy had already been declared illegal by U.S. District Judge John Jones, who ruled that teaching that says that life may have originated with an unidentified intelligent cause is religious, not scientific. Consequently, he ruled that such is not appropriate in the schools as it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment – though he failed to note what specific religion such endorses at the expense of others.

But leaving the constitutional issue aside, there is a question that has been raised by many that the judge’s ruling neglects to deal with: What if intelligent design is, in fact, the truth regarding the origin of life? Whether it’s some alien life form that visited this planetary system eons ago or a living spirit, a Deity, that was at work, what if that is really what happened? Does the fact that such might lead some – though not all – to certain religious beliefs mean it can’t be taught, and our children should thus be taught some unproven theory, that is at odds with reality, because of a “wall of separation” that recent generations – certainly not the founders – have erected?

Regardless of what the insecure and arrogant voices of some declare, neither evolution nor intelligent design can be proven scientifically. From that standpoint, one is as valid as the other, and merits just as much attention in the nation’s classrooms. If either “theory” is acknowledged, both should be acknowledged.

Frankly, I am one intelligent design/creation proponent who is perfectly comfortable with an open and rational debate regarding the evidence used to support the alternative beliefs. Again, because at the end of the day, I just want to know what the truth is, and have nothing to fear from it being unveiled – to whatever extent that we can unveil it. Would that it were that those on the other side of the debate were as secure in their beliefs and sincere in their desire for the truth. But their unwillingness to hear any hint of dissent suggests that they simply are not.