In Theory: When we talk Darwin, must we also include Creationism?
The New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science has been criticized by intelligent-design advocates for allegedly canceling a series of events tied to Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution rather than including alternative viewpoints toward evolution, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
In conjunction with International Charles Darwin Day, the museum participated in a series of events called “Darwin Days” last year, but a museum official told the Albuquerque Journal it was never intended to be a recurring event. However, emails acquired by intelligent-design advocates seem to indicate that Darwin Days organizers were under the impression that it would be an annual occurrence.
The museum was criticized for last year’s Darwin Days because intelligent-design advocates and religious groups said they invited speakers who “seemed to paint a picture that religion is detrimental to society,” said Mike Edenburn, a mechanical engineer and one of two scientists to vocally criticize the museum.
Edenburn said he and others likely would not have been so critical of the museum had its programs been exclusive to Darwinian evolution. Furthermore, “numerous bloggers and concerned citizens have posted comments suggesting the museum acted less than honorably in sidestepping the debate and canceling future Darwin Days events.”
Q. Do you feel any scientific discussion of Darwinian evolution is obligated to include alternative, religious viewpoints (i.e. Creationism)? Since the museum is partly managed by the state, should there be an attempt to create a broader discussion on evolution?
--
No, I don’t think the museum should be required to include alternate views. I mean, the museum’s title has the word “science” in it, right? So no scientific endeavor should be required to have a “creationist” exhibition in it. And if what I’m saying seems unfair, will there also be a Wicca exhibition because some people believe in witches? Jeepers! When will this stop? I am an ordained Christian minister, and I believe in evolution.
Science and religion taken together have never been a problem with me. I also believe that God is awesome; if you want to get an idea how awesome, visit the Grand Canyon sometime. Listen to the stillness, realize what a pipsqueak you are in relation to the canyon, and then tell yourself that God is much more awesome even than the Grand Canyon — which took a little longer to make than since 4004 years BCE, which means, “before the Common Era.” (Some fundamentalists, may God have mercy on them, believe the world was created in 4004 BC or BCE, as we say now. And some of those same folks don’t believe that there were ever dinosaurs on the earth, because the Bible doesn’t mention them!)
Anyway, a scientific exhibit should not be forced to include unscientific things in it, regardless of who is paying for it. If you want to live in a society where religion rules and not science, move!
The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge
--
There is no real contradiction between the theories of creationism and evolution except one of time. We cannot get around the physical similarities between man and the great apes, nor can we refute the great Jewish philosopher, Rashi, when he says that the biblical statement, “Let us create man in our own image” speaks to the soul and not the body as “the image” of God.
One of my favorite physicists turned kabbalist, R. Aryeh Kaplan, has a wonderful way of helping to ease the creation-evolution debate, in alphabetical — not level of importance — order, necessarily. He quotes Psalm 90:4, “For a thousand years in Thy (God’s) sight, Are but as yesterday when it is past.” The memory of yesterday, in the words of biblical scholar, Matthew Henry, is somewhere between a moment and a thousand years. Kaplan likes the former. So a little Biblical math:
60 seconds in a minute = 60
60 minutes in an hour = 3,600 seconds
24 hours in a day = 86,400 memorable moments
x 1,000 years= 86,400,000 years.
This is the length, according to Rabbi Kaplan and Matthew Henry, of one of God’s days of creation.
Perhaps not too much difference from the years/eons of evolution?
Something to ponder.
Rabbi Mark Sobel
Temple Beth Emet
Burbank
--
The recent discussion about the presentation of Darwin Days at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science has been plagued by criticism from many quarters and complicated by the change of personnel at the museum. Nevertheless, the underlying issue in this case seems to be whether the museum should have any obligation to present alternative religious viewpoints when Darwinian evolution is being discussed. My answer to that question is, “no.”
One reason for my belief is that we are talking about a museum whose name includes the words “natural history” and “science.” The beliefs of intelligent design and creationism are under the rubric of neither. They are beliefs by people who ascribe the power of an outside force to the development of life as we know it on earth. While such ideas may or may not be true, they are not substationed by either science or natural history.
Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta
--
There is no reason to include a religious viewpoint in every discussion of science, or of Darwin, in particular. But members of faith communities should be invited to speak at public events when it is clear that their beliefs will be criticized.
In this case, the likelihood of criticism should have been apparent. The participation of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and other opponents of intelligent design ought to have been a signal to the museum to invite those who embrace the concept.
Museum representatives have said that the events featuring intelligent-design critics were privately funded sessions held in conjunction with the Darwin Days program, but not actually sponsored by the museum. If this is correct, it would have been a simple matter to invite intelligent-design advocates to hold their own independently funded meeting.
It remains unclear why the museum decided against holding another Darwin Days event this year. Intelligent design proponents say the museum canceled it to avoid giving them a forum to present their ideas about evolution. The museum denies this, saying no event was ever scheduled for 2015.
We often hear the word “inclusion” in discussions about providing equal access and opportunity to various groups in our society. It is a concept that New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science should embrace in the public events that presents. The purpose of Darwin Days wasn’t to teach high-level science. Activities suggested on Darwinday.org, home page of the International Darwin Day Foundation, lean heavily toward general, family-oriented gatherings that encourage people to learn about Charles Darwin and to take an interest in science. In this context, a balanced program that includes a religious perspective of Darwin’s work is not an unreasonable expectation.
Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta
--
No, I do not believe that there is an “alternative viewpoint” to evolution.
Believing in creationism or intelligent design is anyone’s personal right, of course, but it is not the job of a scientific body to dignify such a belief. Any so-called broader discussion leaves the realm of science, and would be a topic for an institution studying the role of religion in social and cultural history. No doubt future historians will have a field day looking back at the 20th and 21st century phenomena of denial of both evolution and of the reality that human activity brought about climate change.
Huge numbers of believers, I dare say most of them, reconcile their religious beliefs with a rational, biologically-supported understanding of how the earth and its occupants came to be.
Evolution-deniers seize on the word “theory,” and mistakenly believe that it is mere conjecture, as are creationism and intelligent design. Demanding that evolution be presented as just one of many possible viewpoints posits a false equivalency.
The law of gravitation is explained by many related theories, yet religious reactionaries do not claim that the jury is still out on gravity. On second thought, maybe we had best not give them any ideas.
Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose