The Great Debate...

May 22, 2009

Danielle Joyner Kelley

“Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.” Genesis 2:1.

For anyone following the debate of science versus religion, a barrier appears in the arguments. People walk away from the debate with the feeling that Science and Christianity are mutually exclusive, that is, one cannot exist because of the other.

However, a barrier’s purpose is to divide, and humans are prone to jump on one side or another to eliminate confusion. People want to be clear about their position, and when you can see both sides you are labeled as someone who cannot make a decision.

In our society, this is seen over and over. There is Pro-Life and Pro-Choice, Republican and Democrat, black and white, welfare and wealthy. One doesn’t have to look any further than the success of certain political candidates who were the first to coin the term “middle class” to see that a division exists and that true success comes from removing the barrier and examining both sides.

On the flip side, a good debater always researches both sides. A person arguing for Pro-Life will be much more effective if they have studied potential Pro-Choice arguments before they take the stage. As a person with a dual bachelors degree in Political Science and Communications along with a Juris Doctorate from Law School, I can tell you that preparation for argument is not only smart, it is critical to success.

I have studied the science of politics and communication for over twenty years. Looking at how humans arrive at solutions to scientific questions and communication barriers is frequently done in the same manner. You isolate, research, test, and arrive at a solid conclusion. However, even if the person does all of this to answer the questions that are looming, there is one more thing that must be done. That person must convince.

All too often we work to answer questions not because of ourselves, but to prove our brilliance to others. And when you take the steps to arrive at a solid conclusion, what do you do with your conclusion and the work it took to get there? You go to “show and tell” and show everyone else what you have done, and then you tell of your experience in order to convince them that your position is accurate.

Scientists, scholars, debaters, analysts, and the like, all engage in the art of “convincing”. However, there is a danger in this.

The danger is that the person who is attempting to “convince” someone else has adopted a “side”. Put simply, they have picked the team they are cheering for, and are willing to overlook the other team’s points of victory. When this happens the art of “convincing” becomes the art of “isolating”.

Now combine that knowledge with the debate of Science and Christianity or Reason versus Faith. People have specific questions and they work to arrive at a conclusion. They reason, through their work, what the answer is and arrive at a conclusion. Then they pick their side. Meanwhile, new work is being done by others on more prominent questions that could disprove their conclusion in an instant, but they do not want to hear of it. They did their own work and picked their side, so they do not want to know if anything new has come about that tells them to switch sides.

I understand. I have done it numerous times myself. And I have studied the greatest philosophers that have ever walked the face of the Earth. Whether you are a fan of Plato, Aristotle or Socrates, I can tell you this much. If there are two teams on a field and both are playing for the same school board; for example, two different high school teams, even though they have a divide (two different teams, two different schools), they also have a common denominator (the school board who runs both programs).

Herein lies the problem with the debate between Science and Religion. The debate turns into words that we use more commonly and that are more predominant. For example, science is science. It is what it is. However when you turn the art of “science” into the art of “reason”, you use a word that is used more commonly. The same happens with Religion. The word becomes an argument of “faith”. So you end up watching the “Reason versus Faith” debate instead. This is done to protect the debater from looking to engrained on one side, even though they truly are no matter what it is called. They are on a side remember?

When two high school teams play each other, even if they are both under the same school board, you have two teams. You have two names. One doesn’t have the name “school board” and the other “Madison”. Both are different names, the school board is the boss.

The problem with “Reason versus Faith” is that faith is the school board. It is the boss, and predominates. And because it is the boss of Reason, Science, and Religion, it is not assigned to one specific team; rather it is assigned to them all.

Someone who represents science and is debating against religion would argue this theory is insane. However, it is not insane, it is logic. That person would argue that because they have associated the word “faith” with “religion” and convinced themselves that “faith” is the other team to which they cannot associate with because they are playing for “science”. If so, that person has not watched faith predominate in their work, or has ignored its presence. But faith is on their team too.

An attorney trying to win a jury trial is focused on one thing: the jury. That is the audience. The more evidence on their side the stronger the case, and the more likely the jury will see their side and issue a verdict in their favor. Attorneys operate in the realm of “Direct” and “Circumstantial” evidence. Some would compare these two to Reason and Faith.

Direct evidence is evidence that alone proves a fact that is in dispute. This comes from personal knowledge or observation. For example, in a murder trial evidence that points to whether or not the defendant murdered someone is considered “direct”. For example, testimony from a witness who saw the defendant point a gun at the victim, DNA, blood, and fingerprints. As an attorney I can tell you that, on most occasions, when juries hear this evidence they become convinced.

Circumstantial evidence requires an inference. An inference requires that you reach your conclusion by looking at the evidence and then reasoning in your own mind whether or not something makes sense. For example, the defendant was seen running from the scene of the crime or he was heard telling others the day before that he intended to shoot the victim. From this you can “infer” that the defendant committed the crime.

Now examine that faith is called a belief in the “unseen”. Many would argue that because direct evidence requires personal knowledge or observation that it is “seen” evidence that has nothing to do with “faith”. That is because people relate faith to an “inference” and belief in the “unseen”. Then they would reason that faith is more like circumstantial evidence because it is an “inference” without personal knowledge or observation. Sounds convincing.

However, this theory is completely false because faith is the cornerstone to both direct and circumstantial evidence. I have said this before only to receive the “you are crazy” look. Then someone will argue with me that DNA is so reliable and the probabilities are one in twelve trillion that it is absolute, “direct” proof. One is twelve trillion sounds very convincing. I am not disputing the probabilities. I am disputing how the person arrived at the conclusion that such probabilities are so convincing they are “direct” proof. Put simply, I look back and ask, “Were you the one who discovered DNA? Did you run the test in this case?” Chances are they did not and because they believe in what someone else did without any personal knowledge or observation on their own behalf means they “inferred” the DNA test was accurate. In essence, they had “faith” that the direct evidence was reliable.

Juries are not allowed to have personal knowledge about a case when they serve or they are biased. That is why they are questioned extensively by both sides to make sure that they know nothing about the case. So from day one, they have no personal knowledge or observation and if they believe in the evidence they are stating they have “faith” that it is the truth. The probabilities of DNA evidence may make you believe in the result, but you are believing in them because someone is convincing you they are reliable. So you have “faith” in that evidence. An eyewitness can tell you that they saw the defendant hold a gun to the victim, and you may consider that “direct” proof. However, you have to believe the witness is telling the truth. You have to have “faith” in something you did not personally see.

Faith predominates in both in the art of “convincing”. Likewise unless the attorney discovered DNA or witnessed the crime, they are having “faith” that their evidence is accurate.

Reasoning requires you to apply logic to evidence. However, your conclusions are only as accurate as the underlying assumptions you are making. And you generalize from the evidence to reach a conclusion. So you generalize to the “unseen”. How do you do this? Faith.

Rick Warren, Pastor of Saddleback Church and author of “The Purpose Driven Life” said it best in His book “Foundations”: “Science may provide reasonable evidence, but ultimately it is a matter of faith.” Isn’t everything?

When you arrive home after work and get out of your car do you turn the radio up full blast to the point where you cannot hear and then turn the car off? Do you leave the lights on and go inside intentionally? Why? Because you do not want to scare yourself to death the next morning when you get into the car and hear loud, blaring music? You do not want your battery to go dead from the lights because you need to be on time tomorrow right?

How do you know you are going to work tomorrow? Faith. You are believing in something you have not seen yet. Do you put your own brakes on your car to ensure they won’t fail? Why not? Faith. You have faith in someone who is trained to do it right? Do you trust your doctor better than yourself? Would you rather give yourself open heart surgery? Why not? Faith.

Therefore, faith is not mutually exclusive from either Science or Christianity. I did not personally witness the “Big Bang” nor did I witness God create the universe. Therefore, I have not personally witnessed either and to believe in either one would require me to infer that something I am reading is true, which is “faith”. Thus, they are “unseen” to most, and not mutually exclusive. Perhaps there was a “Big Bang”, but Who lit the fuse? My answer? God.

In the movie, “Unlocking the Mysteries of Life”, Darwin’s theory of evolution was examined. Scientists worldwide have reexamined this theory after DNA was discovered because scientifically evolution could not longer exist. Combine that with the writings by Darwin that warned if more complex cells were discovered, as we know DNA to be contained in such cells, his theory would break down. “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.” Origin of Species (1859). Of course it would. When was DNA discovered? At the time Darwin was alive? No

So many scientists, even the ones who wrote treatises on evolutions and teach worldwide and at America’s top universities had to move away from his theory. They are now pointing to “intelligent design” instead of “evolution” or “natural selection”. Why? Because they have done the work, and cannot explain these cells in Darwin’s manner. More importantly, they have researched both sides of the argument. They never say who the “intelligence” is, and no one said all the scientists were religious or Christian, yet their own new discovery cannot be discussed in public school because there will be the inference that “intelligence” means God.

What I am wondering is when did we become so divided that we would rather be wrong cheering for our own team, instead of knowing the truth? When did coaches not want to know that their star player robbed a bank the day before the big game? So we could win? Why? You end up losing when everyone finds out what information you have hidden don’t you? That is why we have scandals and soap operas isn’t it?

No matter what side of a debate I am on, I will tell you, as someone trained in the science of communication I will not walk on stage without knowing both sides so I can arrive at my own conclusion. Otherwise, my arguments are weak and ill-prepared.

So children will still be taught “evolution” instead of “intelligent design”. More importantly, they will not even be told there is a debate and the nation’s top scientists have now moved away from “evolution” and discovered a new theory. Personally, I would at least want to know the debate so I could go and look it up for myself and learn each side. I have read many books I did not want to in order to prepare for an argument against the other side. Isn’t that enlightening them to at least teach the debate? I would rather have both sides and find what I believe is true on my own than I would to be taught completely in the false. Since when do we support people who argue for tolerance on behalf of free speech to the point where now the ones who argued for “tolerance” are “intolerant” to the other side? That is because they are on a “side” and they have gone from wanting the right to “convince” to having the right to “isolate”.

To me, the goal of argument should be to arrive at the truth, and not to win. If your goal is to win, then chances are you have only read your own side. In college I was presented with such an argument, to which I asked, “Have you researched my position?” The answer? “No, but my side shows that…”. Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Do not ever tell someone your side unless you have taken the time to learn theirs. My answer to their comeback? “I am not going to debate with a tree about human emotion.”

We learn by comparison. You cannot say you prefer “Sprite” if you have never tasted another soda type. You love SUV’s and hate driving cars? Make sure you have driven both before you tell someone as much.

I have heard both sides. My goal was to arrive at the truth, and not to win. My conclusion? God. My inference? The Holy Spirit. My faith? Jesus Christ. My truth? All three combined into One.

Faith and reason both come from the Bible. The Apostle Paul shows us the art of reasoning and the value of faith in his letters contained in the New Testament. Remember, he was not always writing to a favorable audience. The Bible is pretty clear on that issue, and you know that. That is, if you have taken the time to learn your own side or the one you are arguing against.

And with that I’ll rest my case…