During a recent Bible study, two men got into a debate over evolution. As with so many debates over “hot button” issues, the two sides dug in their heels and things got a little tense.
One side was a proponent of intelligent design, conceding the notion that through natural selection, species adapt to their environments and change over time. He questioned, however, that one species could evolve into another species and that human beings have common ancestors with monkeys.
Both sides were extremely well researched, with an army of facts and illustrations. Both were convinced of the rightness of their convictions. And both did a poor job of listening to the other side.
I definitely agree with the man who was defending evolution science, but halfway through the argument I entered the fray with an different agenda than proving my side is correct. I wanted to see if we could take the topic to a deeper level where we could find some common conviction.
I pointed out two other significant advancements in science: The Copernican Revolution and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Both represented dramatic changes to what had previously been scientific consensus, but only one sparked a major conflict with religious leaders.
Why did the notion that the earth revolves around the sun and is not the center of the universe (as well as the notion that humans evolved from monkeys) shake the Christian world to its core, but the overturning of Newton’s Laws did not?
The answer lies with how we conceive of our place in the universe, but that is not really my point here. My concern is more with process, how we in church and society deal with disagreements that can get emotional, and how winning an argument is not always the best goal. Sometimes, the need is smoky to get out of the boxes and the assumptions that we bring to the conversation in the first place.
Unfortunately, this particular debate remained stuck in its preconceived categories and could not move to a deeper level. Neither man was willing to engage my question of why this debate is so important.
As I tried to talk about Genesis 1, Psalm 8, and other Scriptures that describe humans as having “dominion” over the other animals and being “a little lower than the angels,” they continued to hammer each other with their rehearsed arguments. Neither side was willing to step outside of those boxes and reframe the discussion in a way that might be more productive.
In future posts, I will outline a theory I am developing about why people tend to get in these types of oppositional arguments, become determined to defeat the other side, and resist attempts to find common ground and a manageable way forward. Of course, psychologists have extensively studied this subject, but my theory will include a spiritual element based on my understanding of the early chapter of Genesis.
In today’s political climate, when two sides have dug in their heels and seem ready to erupt into battle, attempts to find new ways to reframe and move forward are critical.
No comments:
Post a Comment