18. "I Got F#@&in' No Dukes."

There can be no doubt that a schism exists in America between backers of evidence and supporters of a certain religious philosophy – almost to the point that either of them can be caricaturized, labeled with stickers reading “science” and “god,” and released like monstrous mutts into the populace, squelching all opportunities for advancement with needless conversation and easily-raised ire. After a time, the resulting splash damage leads otherwise rational people to build a wall between themselves and what they are willing to believe.

Here I am on the tail end of several evolutionary theory-themed posts, knowing they won’t be the last, and wondering whether evidence for its own sake is enough to turn the tide on this conversation. Because even though I, like Kathy Griffin, find it increasingly bizarre that fact is somehow subject to philosophy in our corner of the world; I recognize, having been raised in an acutely religious environment, the threat that is posed by alternate, more plausible, explanations of origin. It isn’t so much that science labels these explanatory models as “theories” opening the argument to semantics, nor is it that the scientific method forces an honesty that leaves us shying away from treating them as absolutes. The problem is posed by the evidence itself. The mere existence of fact and information undermines the bible’s efficacy – something that doesn’t sit well with a large percentage of American citizens. So we have edited text books, teachers who enter into lawsuits rather than support a non-religious version of history, and teachers as targets of parental disgust for doing the opposite. We have moderate proponents arguing that both sides are viable in the classroom, while others see that with a tad less... shall we say, optimism:




By now, both sides have reason to bury their heads in the sand and stay there until the storm dies down – something that doesn’t look likely to happen any time soon.

I can’t help but wonder whether this scene is playing out in other nations as well. Likely, it isn’t occurring to this degree.

The real question I suppose is: can all of this be avoided? Possibly. Like most individuals, rationalists have no beef with the personal opinions and philosophies of others. What others chose to teach their children in the privacy of their own home may be a subject of some irritation, but for the most part, it has little bearing on the global field of understanding. It is when an archaic belief system is allowed to dictate public policy and the course of education that ignoring the storm ceases to be an option.

Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "I, like Ptolemy, am humbled in the presence of our clockwork universe. When I am on the cosmic frontier, and I touch the laws of physics with my pen, or when I look upon the endless sky from an observatory on a mountaintop, I well up with an admiration for its splendor. But I do so knowing and accepting that if I propose a God beyond that horizon, one who graces our valley of collective ignorance, the day will come when our sphere of knowledge will have grown so large that I will have no need of that hypothesis."

Such an articulate and beautiful sentiment. Would that it could be shared by everyone.