Truth vs. truth

A common practice in America today is pitting truth against truth. The problem is, if it's true, it's true, and there's no way stronger truth can beat weaker truth. Nowhere is this more maddeningly apparent than in the Granny Smith apples and navel oranges disciplines of theology and science.

The "debate" between antireligion scientists and antievolution Christians has to stop. Each side has a big chunk of truth they're hanging onto, and they're trying to bludgeon the other side with it. Such scientists claim truth because it's based on observable phenomena (maybe not the processes, but the fossilized results and vestigial DNA evidence). Antievolutionists often claim irrefutable truth based on the Bible. What if they're both true?

A helpful book is The Lost World of Genesis One [and a bit more in chapter two] by John Walton. He demonstrates that the first creation account relates functional origins, not material origins. He also notes that science and metaphysics are interdependent but distinctly different categories, and when one tries to answer a metaphysical question with science and vice versa, trouble results. Scientists sometimes claim there is no God because they haven't observed one. Well, maybe scientific tools are inadequate for this task, and metaphysicians need to handle this question. Likewise, religious folk need to stop being armchair scientists because they don't have the instruments to observe material objects the way scientists do.

An underlying claim of some antievolution religionists is they have 100 percent certainty in who God is and how he created. They imply that science can never have certainty because there are always advances in science, and many scientific theories have been proven wrong over the centuries. Unfortunately, scientists are the ones who show the Christian virtue of humility, though it may be forced at times. They may be arrogant in their God claims, but as a community, they are always challenging one another's theories to come to a better understanding of the world. Creationists, traditionally defined, adopt a stance based on perhaps flawed readings of the Bible, and they don't bother to change their mind when circumstances warrant. In the end, I'm guessing each community's claims are about 60–70 percent true. But they wield 100 percent of their theories in their struggle to be correct.

My personal approach to truth (which I, of course, believe is the best one!) is similar to the scientific method. I collect enough data to form a working theory. Then I hold on to my theory and try to help it work until there is enough data to the contrary that I must consider alternatives. I hate to apply "scientific method" to the Bible and theology, so let's call it a reality check. (Too many believe that the Bible is a science textbook, which does the worst violence to the authors' intentions.) If my reading of the beginning of Genesis—it used to be six-day creationism—doesn't square with clear evidence from a preponderance of generally intelligent, rigorous, and nice scientists, maybe I should reconsider my reading. Walton's book has allayed any remaining fears of abandoning six-day creationism, noting that the poem is likely a ceremonial recounting of a deity taking up residence in his temple. And since this describes how God made his creation functional rather than how he formed the material, any tensions about violating the "literal" text are defused.

This all reminds me of that old cartoon Spy vs. Spy. Each one devises a plot more dastardly than the last to destroy the other. The destruction is immense, but the plots never work for their purpose: neutralizing the rival once for all. This same, almost entertaining, futility characterizes the evolution debate. If the guilty guilds would clarify their purviews and humbly accept that they may need to revise their theories, the silly rancor would end, and I would hope an era of cooperation would lead to much greater understanding. Although maybe it's the desperation of irreconcilable competition that fuels more discovery.