Evolution vs. creationism debate tests ideas of myth

One of the most fascinating aspects of the evolution vs. creationism debate is that most of the people who argue it, on both sides, are virtually clueless about the actual science involved. This shouldn’t be surprising, of course. Evolutionary theory is extremely complex and is fully understood only by those who have dedicated their entire adult lives to its study.

The extent of most creationists’ ideas on evolution and creationism come from their pastors, a couple intensely biased videos distributed by groups such as Focus on the Family, and perhaps “Darwin’s Black Box.” Meanwhile, the extent of most evolutionists’ (for lack of a better term) ideas on evolution and creationism come from fragmented memories of high school and college biology classes, lay newspaper and magazine articles, and perhaps the writings of Richard Dawkins. These aren’t exactly firm scientific foundations.

This isn’t to say that those career scientists who actually understand evolutionary theory are necessarily correct about everything; it’s just to say that, scientifically, the vast majority of the population wouldn’t know either way.

Neither would I, of course. If this column were about science, I wouldn’t know what I was talking about and you would have no reason to read my admittedly delightful rambling. But it’s not about science. It, like the debate in general, is about mythology.

Of course, evolutionists are fond of calling creationism an ancient myth, and creationists are likewise fond of calling evolution a modern myth, but what they each mean when they say “myth” is “dirty, rotten lie designed to deceive the gullible masses into a swirling pit of either ignorance or hellfire.” This definition of myth is indicative of our society’s post-Enlightenment mind-set, which values materialistic logic, the foundation of the modern scientific method, above all else.

Because myth is not concerned so much with materialistic logic, but with ideas and themes, our society sees science and myth as opposites, defines science as truth and myth as lie. This is a problem, because science and myth are not opposites, but, as Karen Armstrong has formed an entire career asserting, complementary ways of thinking about our existence. Both are necessary to our understanding of the world, and they often overlap, as they do with evolution and creationism.

Believing that myth is not important doesn’t actually erase it from our lives; it merely renders us incapable of talking about it. As a result, we turn every mythological concern into a scientific one and fail to recognize the mythological aspects in our scientific theories.

In his Voices column a couple months ago, Union Street Brick Church pastor and chaplain at Eastern Maine Medical Center Lee Witting touched on this problem, and sought to redefine myth as “deep truth.” A better definition is probably, simply enough, “story.”

The problem with Witting’s definition, as well as society’s definition, is the value judgment. As the French philosopher Roland Barthes argued in far more pretentious language than I’ll use here, mythologies are sometimes true and sometimes not. The truth or falseness of an individual myth, however, must be judged on its own terms; which is to say, it is unfair to judge a myth within the confines of the scientific method, by its material facts or logical claims. Instead, we must examine whether the meaning, ideas and themes the myth conveys are represented accurately in our world. If they are, the myth is true; if not, the myth is false.

So when we judge evolution and creationism, we should judge them as science on their scientific merits and as mythology on their mythological merits. As I’ve argued, the vast majority of us are woefully unprepared to judge either of them as science, so we probably should leave the scientific assessments to the actual scientists.

Nearly all of them have determined that creationism does not meet the standards of the scientific method, and, frankly, there’s no reason to expect a biblical story written thousands of years before the scientific method was even invented to meet those standards anyway. That there are those who attempt to force the Genesis stories into the scientific model is, again, a symptom of our society’s harmful negative opinion of mythology. We say, if it isn’t good science, it must not be true, and more’s the pity, especially since, as it is discussed by the general public, evolution is pretty lousy science, too.

Sure, to scientists evolution might be primarily a collection of scientific occurrences, but to the general public it’s primarily a story, a myth, about primordial soup that begat some cells that begat some fish that begat some lizards that begat some apes that begat some humans. It’s about natural selection and survival of the fittest, illustrated by some anecdotes about birds and moths, and also humans, in the form of social Darwinism.

When we, the general public, debate evolution and creationism, we are concerned not with scientific minutiae, but with meaning, not with what happened way back then, but what it means for us now. Which is to say, the debate is about mythology, even though we don’t want to admit it.

If we do admit it, however, and judge creationism and evolution by their mythological standards, we will find both to be true. The themes and ideas that both stories convey are reflected in our world. They are not contradictory, any more than science and mythology are contradictory, any more than peanut butter and jelly are contradictory; they’re just different. They describe and illuminate different aspects of our existence. Those who seek to blot creationism or evolution out of existence for failing to meet the standards of the scientific method or fundamentalism, respectively, do society a grave disservice.

None of this addresses what the debate often boils down to, which is, what exactly should be taught in school? But the answer seems rather obvious to me. Evolution should be taught in science class, along with a bit of lip service explaining that a small percentage of scientists don’t buy into the theory.

Meanwhile, students should take a course every single year dedicated to mythology and comparative religion, during which they would learn how to talk about mythology and would get a chance to discuss various origin myths, including, but not limited to, the Genesis accounts and evolution, in their proper context.

Unfortunately, the latter course doesn’t exist, as nobody seems to want their children to learn about other peoples’ mythologies. Because, of course, other people’s myths are dirty rotten lies, and learning about them is, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, dangerous to the developing minds of this next generation of children. It might, after all, allow them to think for themselves. And we can’t have that, now can we?

Justin Fowler is a student at University College of Bangor. He may be reached at justin.fowler@verizon.net. Voices is a weekly commentary by Maine people who explore issues affecting spirituality and religious life.