Here’s what I think should be the outcome of the creation/evolution debate from last night. Both Ham and Nye should be convicted of crimes against humanity, locked into a cell with each other and forced to listen to the mating calls of various migratory and non-migratory waterfowl.
Because that’s what the debate between creationists and evolutionists feels like to me.
In all the reviews and various declarations of winners and losers one critical and age old falsehood was not only noted but promoted - the false dichotomy of science and religion.
There was much talk of a ‘reasonable man’ in the debate and yet this creature seems to be as elusive as the mythical ‘Lukedoesius Giveacrapus’ of the genus ‘Givememi Evningbaak.’
Religion and science begin with different premises and serve very different purposes and yet are not, in any way, mutually exclusive. And yet it seems as if an adherence to one ipso facto rejectimatico’s the other. That is just stupid. As stupid as making up a word like rejectimatico - even though you totally got it, am I right?
Anyway, we require this fantastical cohesion of agreement in no other competing disciplines in existence. For some reason, however, we believe that science must be reconciled by religion and religion must be verifiable by science. But why on earth would we ever hold these vastly different disciplines to each other’s standards of operation?
No one curses their photo editing software for not being able to edit a text document right? And no one has ever attempted to open a media file with Microsoft Word and declared ‘Aha! the file does not exist because MY program will not recognize it!’
That would not be a reasonable man. And yet we found ourselves doing just that last night and then pretending like it’s complicated, academic and really, really difficult to parse out in real life. As if science and religion present such appositional claims to one another that they could not possibly coexist. The reasonable man must choose, right?
Just like you can’t run Word and Photoshop on the same computer, as any reasonable man will tell you. The existence of one disproves the existence of the other, right? To prefer one means you must reject the other…just like science and religion.
Nye and Ham set out last night to illustrate how each other’s primary system of data interpretation was inferior to their own and ended up simply proving what we already knew - their respective systems are incapable of duplicating or reconciling the other’s results.
I’m tempted to digress into a discussion on the debate as commentary on our narcissistic culture of controversy that stares into the face of diversity of thought and screams ‘your thought can’t be right because it doesn’t sound enough like mine!’ I’m tempted to scold both sides of the creation vs evolution debate for not even attempting to understand the position of the other. But to do so only adds to the purposely over complicated and self-aggrandizing nature of the discussion. At the end of the day, this just isn’t so hard to sort out. Nerds on both sides of the aisle should be ashamed of themselves.
Instead, I’ll just apply my faith to that which can’t be known or is immaterial while fervently applying science to know and understand more. That which requires faith shall have faith applied. That which science is able to explore will be explored by science.
In other words, I’ll use Jesus to open a .faith file and Einstein to open a .science file.
Is that really so hard?