I am a person of faith–a Christian, in fact. I believe in creation by a supreme being I call God. I may also believe that said supreme being used a process known as “evolution” to mature the world to its current state. I am, essentially, on both sides of a very contentious fence.
By all accounts, I should have been eager to watch the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate that was televised this past Tuesday.
I was not.
Not only was I happy to not take part in this cultural phenomenon, I wish that it had never occurred. I may be overly cynical, but I could not foresee any good that would come from it–and looking at the reactions that the debate has spurred, I can see that I wasn’t far from the truth. I am still seeing angry posts to news sources and social media almost a week after the fact. Friends and family members who have so much in common including years of history who are at each other’s throats because they disagreed about the outcome of this debate–it’s just not right.
Here is why I believe this debate should not have even happened.
1. Creation and evolution, like faith and science, are not mutually exclusive.
False dichotomies drive me crazy. “Either A is right or B is right! Hurry up and fight it out so the public can make up their mind!”
According to a survey by the Washington Post, 24% of adults believe that a supreme being facilitated a process of evolution. This theory is equal parts religious and scientific. It possesses elements of the tenets of creationism and elements of those of evolution. It is a well-balanced, faith-filled, reason-based response to a challenging question.
But this type of response is not sensational. The media is not interested in perpetuating this type of response or telling the stories of the people who believe it. The media wants a fight. Our society has created “sides” on this issue, and the media has jumped on it and refused to let it die because the fight is profitable and entertaining.
2. If an informative debate was the goal, it should have been between debaters with better credentials.
Obviously Nye is well-known in the science community. He’s the Science Guy, after all! But the fact is that his background suggests that he is an educator and entertainer moreso than a scientist. I’m curious as to why he was chosen as the representative in this “great debate.”
Ham may be the founder of Answers in Genesis, but how can one be a professional creationist? Shouldn’t he be an educated anthropologist or a theologian or (gasp!) a biologist before we consider him qualified to speak authoritatively on the evidence for creation?
Because of the (in my opinion) less than expert status of the people involved, this debate felt like little more than a battle of who believes in their worldview more.
3. This issue is absolutely beaten into the ground.
Tensions are so high on either side of this debate and have been for years. Continuing to argue this issue in the public sphere has further perpetuated a false dichotomy that creates a closed-minded “us” and “them” attitude. The animosity around the issue has caused people to be extremely stubborn about their current position to the point where I highly doubt that any debate could sway them. The vast majority of people who watch these debates walk away thinking that their “side” won! They hear and see what they want to hear and see.
Sadly, I think creationists are often more guilty of this than people who believe in atheistic evolution. When asked what could possibly change his mind, Ken Ham says “Nothing.” When asked the same question, Bill Nye says, “Evidence.”
What does that say about creationists? Nothing good. We/they certainly shouldn’t be debating with attitudes like that.
4. This issue simply does not matter.
I know I’m going to make some enemies (potentially on both sides of the debate) over this, but I am convinced that the origin of the world doesn’t matter a shred when it comes to our day-to-day and even eternal existences.
A friend of mine said it best when he posted something along these lines on Facebook:
“I don’t think there will be a ‘length of creation’ portion on the entrance exam to heaven.”
The truth shines brightly through his sarcasm. The state of our souls does not depend on our specific beliefs concerning the origins of the universe and/or the origins of our species. It does, however, depend on how we treat people. In the form that they have taken, public debates like this one are about being right, not about being righteous. They are about proving a point, not about communicating with a person.
I have a big problem with that, and I would like to see it stop.