I recently attended a gathering at which an evolutionary biologist, a distinguished professor at South Carolina’s flagship university, offered his observations and answered questions from the audience following a video presentation sponsored by the National Center for Science Education.
The subject of the event was an exposing of the flawed attempt, these days, on the part of those (some with accepted academic credentials) whose religious/political agenda includes an attempt to subvert the teaching of evolution in the science classes of our nation’s public schools. “Flawed,” in the sense that what is variously called “Creationism,” “Creation Science,” or “Intelligent Design” is an ideology that does not conform to the rigorous definition of “science,” which is not a “belief system,” but “a method of carefully and objectively studying natural phenomena in ways that can be empirically verified.”
The current and notably seductive political strategy of the “Intelligent Design” advocates involves what they call “teaching to the controversy.” As if there were such a “controversy” concerning the “theory of evolution.” Which there appears to be, at least from a religious and political perspective on the part of, seemingly, many. But hardly on the part of those who hold to an authentic definition of “science” as a “method.” Since “evolution” is not in question according to the latter standard. Nor is “evolution” a “theory,” as the term is commonly used, meaning merely an “opinion.” In other words, “evolution” is not something to “believe in.” It is, rather, the best explanation yet available for understanding the “material world” according to the accepted methods of “science.”
The professor I’m referring to–to his credit, he was considerate, even humble enough to acknowledge that “science” is not an all-inclusive method for explaining everything. For instance, he noted that “science” is not necessarily “moral.” It is, rather, value-neutral in its commitment to “objectivity” over “subjectivity.” Nor, he continued, is “science” concerned with what we typically consider various “emotions,” including something as ambiguous as “love.”
And while offering such a caveat, he made this revealing statement: “The Bible,” he said, “it tells me who to hate.”
Really?
Granted, as an object of “caricature,” it’s hard to find anything handier than the Bible. Since, depending on what one may, or may not want it to say, there’s hardly anything–for good or ill–that one can’t reference in scripture.
As in the professor’s “the Bible tells me who to hate” cliche. If, for example, the only part of the Bible he has read is what is called, by serious scholars at least, the “Deuteronomic tradition,” which is dated from roughly the 7th century B.C.E. and includes, in the Hebrew scriptures, the books of Deuteronomy through II Kings; if, after all, the professor’s “Bible reading” has been confined merely to this particular portion of scripture, his reducing the Bible to such a myopic negative conclusion is, however distorted, understandable.
Except, of course–pardon the pun–for the dynamic, “evolutionary” nature of scripture. At least from a critical, if no less faithful Christian reading of the Bible. As in, for example, Jesus’ seminal declaration in a portion of (what is called, in the Christian New Testament) the “Sermon on the Mount”: “You have heard it said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 6: 43-44).
The distinguished evolutionary biologist–in his dealing in half-truths, concerning the Bible at least, he actually got one half right–depending, that is, on how one reads the Bible. Since it is patently obvious, however tragic, how scripture has been used by so many so often to support the “hating” of whomever.
Ironically, however, it is that other prevailing truth-claim–at least according to Jesus–that is, I suspect, even more troubling. Since few of us seem particularly pre-disposed to the “loving” of our “enemies.” In fact, we might likely prefer the professor’s negative caricature of scripture.
Not to mention–speaking of irony–how the professor was, in fact, doing, with respect to the Bible, the very thing he was accusing the so-called “Creation Scientists” of doing in their effort to undermine the teaching of evolution. For indeed, if the claims of those who advocate for “Intelligent Design” are fraudulent, according to the accepted method called “science,” so is a caricaturing of the Bible that reduces it to merely “telling me who to hate.”
Which I find interesting, if no less tragic: the assumption that expertise in one-thing assures expertise in every-thing. Especially when the latter includes how to read the Bible.
