Something I’ve begun to notice about the nature of debates – and something I’ve hence tried to avoid – is how easy one’s delivery of an otherwise un-biased thought can arbitrarily make them appear to favor one side or the other. There are so many little catches with words and rhetoric that far too often little intonations, little hints of prejudice seep through – maybe the words appear harsher to one side, or perhaps I simply lingered too long on the other. It’s demons like these that can ruin your relationship with everyone, let alone just one half of the isle.
I’m writing in continuation of my column from last week, in which I provided a small take on the evolution debate between creationists and non-creationists. The majority of my arguments were wrought in the direction of those in the scientific community, who I believe more often fuel the fires of rebellion with their solely hard scientific, non-compromising delivery on touchy subjects. On the other hand, I also made remarks in the direction of the “religious folk,” using words like “hysteria” to categorize the clouds that far too often impair their perception and receptiveness.
Those dissociative, rather flippant descriptions later troubled me. Although I often think political correctness is but one inconvenient hurdle to the unconcealed truth, I am forced to concede that the nomenclature does matter.
I stand by the blame I put forth, that religious people often protect their faith at the needless cost of denying natural truths. But in saying that, in using such dissociative language, it should be made clear that I myself do in fact believe in intelligent design as well.
For the sake of argument, and not hashing out trifling details, we can leave it at that. It’s simple and straightforward enough to get us where we need to be. I do believe in creation, but that does not mean I’m prone to rejecting what I know to be observable and measurable in nature.
In a startling coincidence (an act of God, you might say?), in the middle of writing this I ran across a most relevant article in the section of science blogs in the UK’s Guardian. The title was alluring in and of itself – “Liberal bias: science writing’s elephant in the room?” – but the article’s more objective subheading was what won me over, posing the very astute and topical question, “Does the lack of political diversity among science writers and bloggers risk alienating large portions of the public?”
The writer argues that everyone who is forced to grapple with the sciences takes their approach from different angles and perspectives. Most of the scientific community, as cited in the article, is socially liberal, compared to a staggeringly small number of conservative science writers. Thus, there is a need to take measures of diplomacy to reach those who may be less inclined – religiously or otherwise – to accept scientific truths.
“To reach the broadest possible audience, we need to be prepared to take messages across the … divide.” That was written by the same liberal science blogger who wrote an article titled, “Is God scraping the barrel for miracles?” Regardless of how we are spiritually disposed, we have to be able to resolve the basic facts of nature.
As best as I can, I do count myself as one of the God-fearing community. I can believe in an intelligent higher power and still acknowledge what is directly observable in nature. Although I do often come across things that seem to conflict with the idea of a higher being, I don’t believe in a deceptive God, and as tired and ubiquitous as this argument has become, I genuinely believe we just haven’t patched the intricate holes in discovering the true nature of our existence. It’s possible for people to have unique spiritual qualities but still be bound by the same physical laws that govern everything from rocks, to paperclips, to black holes, and to evolutionary biology.
Fact is never an issue – it’s just a problem of perception.