Fresno writer: Current debate over science’s role stems from church-evolution divide

As our ship sailing between two Galapagos Islands plunged forward through white-capped seas splitting the azure water, I reflected that this division served as a metaphor for the greatest division of the meaning of truth in the Western World.

It was here in 1834 that Charles Darwin first understood the evolution of the species; that it was a process spanning millennia and involved the “survival of the fittest.” This revolutionary idea stood in direct contradiction to the Christian Biblical recitation that the whole world had been created in seven days.

Before Darwin, the Christian world had been mostly united in the Biblical recitation. And underlying all of this belief was the profound fear of death. First the Catholic Church, and even later the Protestant churches, all claimed to be repositories of salvation, and conversely of damnation. And with salvation went eternal individual life where one is visualized as surrounded by loved ones and friends in idyllic surroundings.

Such fear of death was universal, motivating the erection of Egyptian pyramids, Inca temples, Viking killings of pets and even wives to accompany deceased warriors, the Muslim belief in a special place of perpetrators of jihad., and many more with even prehistoric graves showing signs of such beliefs. The pope’s and other Catholic clergies ability to grant absolution, a ticket to heaven, was central to their faith witnessed by massive cathedrals from Notre Dame to Hagia Sophia.

Therefore the possibility that the Biblical account might be in error shook the world. If it were false, then maybe, as some early Greeks postulating the existence of atoms and later a lifestyle advocated by Epicurus, there was no life after death.

At this point came the division portended by the split sea. The mainline churches assumed, so deep was their faith, that the fossil records would prove the Bible correct, only to be proven wrong. Meanwhile, the evangelical tradition never wavered and insisted, despite the clear findings of the archaeologists, that the Bible was literally correct. Thus the great split began.

There was created a class of people who lived in a world that insisted on denying the scientific record, embracing their dream of an afterlife. Once imbued with the logic of faith over science, this group of people found it easy to deny other science, such as climate change and the fact large maskless groups spread the virus; and in a giant leap of denying empirical facts, accept the claims by President Trump of a stolen election.

It is no accident that the central core of those denying the virus as a hoax, climate change, and the validity of the election are direct descendants of those denying Darwin and evolution. To change their core beliefs would by implication endanger their immortal souls. Nationally, we see pastors of literalist churches insist on opening despite the virus and contrary to public health orders. They are part of that other world, the one side of the waves parted by the ship: the side denying science and asserting a life after death.

How can this chasm be bridged and the two sides join together? Each lives in a different world. Surely the beginning of reconciliation is a compassionate and quiet discussion between the two groups to understand the other’s view. I surely adhere to the teachings of humility and service of the Christian church, for example yet support science.

Scientific education is another clear need. The more education people get, the more likely they are to accept proven science and eschew the unproven. Surveys show that the faith view is most often shared by those without a college degree.

And then, in the political world, compromise. Indeed the two sides split by the sea do meet behind the ship. Let’s all understand the other great world of truth — empirical v. faith — and not only tolerate but accept in friendship those across the great divide.