It was sparked by a conversation with a coworker that started innocently enough in a discussion about a Bill Bryson book, “A Short History of Nearly Everything.” It’s one of my favorite books because it’s well-written and about one of my favorite subjects, science. My coworker who is reading the book isn’t so taken with it. He doesn’t much like science and admits he’s never been good at it. He shared his opinion that evolution is a philosophy, not a study grounded in any concrete provable science. Really not interested in engaging in a debate over the validity of creationism or evolution, I suggested a book that explains evolution, including defining what “theory” means in the context of science. It explains how the scientific method is used for evolution, as well as other sciences, and is consequently continually tested for its validity. Now, here’s the part that bothered me. He replied “No, thank you. “I’m not interested in science.”

The conversation bothered me on many levels. Principally, I’m troubled that someone who I consider otherwise reasonable and intelligent blindingly accepts science from those who are not experts in science though they may be experts in religion. In our modern age of technology and scientific advances, how does someone so easily dismiss the scientific method in only one field of study, but accept it when comes to flying or medicine? How is that someone who isn’t otherwise a conspiracy theorist, is so easily convinced that scientists are in cahoots around the world to hide and ignore all this proof offered by creationists? If you’re going to be a conspiracy theorist, I mean, hello, let’s start with the first B*sh election.

I don’t think there are many areas in which there is one truth, and I don’t think that science has everything figured out, but as far as truth goes, I think science is as close as it gets. As close as it gets, in an ever continuing effort to get closer. This determination to believe in a religious viewpoint, and the ability of an intelligent person to dismiss science as philosophy has set me off course. If people need convincing to acknowledge the truth, what hope is there for solving world peace? There are an infinite number of stories we can create to describe the world around us, but if we can’t agree to acknowledge where truth is truth and philosophy is philosophy, if we’re not willing to admit where we’re delving into the fantastical, if we’re willing to convince ourselves that it’s a blurry line between reality and a colorful story, we’re doomed and my mission is indeed impossible.

How does one reach people like this? Is it possible? It seems not.

There were also other reasons the conversation bothered me. I wondered when science became political or controversial. While my friend felt comfortable expressing his opinion that his religious perspective was the true explanation of our origins, I felt silenced because anything I said would be treading on religious beliefs and consequently, inappropriate for the workplace. Worse, whatever I might say in defense of evolution may potentially hurt my friend, who is obviously very attached to his extremely conservative literalist viewpoint.

The conversation left me feeling in some ways like I lost a friend. I like my colleague personally, as well as professionally. While I don’t think that a solid friendship requires identical beliefs, the bridge between “science is opinion” and “science is at least somewhat factual” is a pretty steep divide. It leaves few topics open for casual conversation, and that leaves few opportunities to bond and develop a real friendship.

I also felt frustrated and disgusted with living in the South. I miss being in an environment where the default is people who are curious and intelligent and accept science. Sometimes I grow weary of the religiosity here, literalist Christian religiosity that is mutually exclusive with valuing any other field of study or religious point of view. I told my husband in frustration that I was done with living here. I was ready to move back to DC where I could be surrounded by smart people for whom science is not just opinion, where education matters, where the second question someone asks after meeting you is “What school did you go to?” not “What church do you go to?” (Then I remembered what I don’t miss about the North — more on that later.) If someone is going to engage me in a debate, I’d much rather it was about something that matters, like how we can address the problems illegal immigration has created and how to make the tragic conditions better in the countries from whence they escaped, or how to end a cycle of violence in places like El Salvador or most of Africa.

Finally, the conversation troubled me because I realized that I wasn’t sure where my own personal line for tolerating differences lie. I tell myself a story that I’m tolerant and open-minded and I often say that I really don’t care what someone believes as long as they keep it out of the public arena, out of legislation and out of the education system. However, the more I thought on the subject, I realized that if I’m honest with myself, I’m not so neutral.

I began asking myself questions trying to clarify my own beliefs, “What if someone believes something fantastic or untrue, but keeps it to himself? Is that okay?” I posed myself multiple scenarios and the one that best answered the question for me was this one, “What if someone is racist, but never expresses the opinion? What if that person behaves just the right way and never reveals his attitudes?”

I don’t want to sound communist or Big Brother, but in fact, it’s not good enough to me. Diverse viewpoints are good when they help us to grow, when they challenge our notions of truth, when they serve to advance us as a society. There are some ideas though that don’t merit further consideration and when there are members of society who embrace them, they collectively hold us back and prevent us from reaching our highest potential. Every time we waste energy debating these topics, it diverts us from solving real problems that require our greatest imagination and full attention. Even if someone never expresses an opinion, the fact that he holds it, even privately, prevents him from fully participating in efforts to advance our society.

I’m bothered that even in writing this post, I worry that I might offend someone, as if we’ve regressed to the 1920s. It’s incomprehensible to me that there are more than two people left in this country outside of some very remote, rural place in Kansas who don’t believe in evolution, that these people are resolutely determined to ignore every fact that science has to offer, stubbornly clinging to a fantastic story so tenaciously that they’re willing to divide our country over the subject, to keep us trapped, moving us away from rather than toward enlightenment, cementing us in the last century.

Our attachment to our beliefs, our refusal to pursue truth with the same vigor with which we pursue religious studies makes the possibility of solving world peace insurmountable and leaves me disheartened. When there is so much work to do, I resent that we squander air time giving more publicity to the frivolous and far-fetched in the interest of being “fair and balanced.” I remember the day years ago when Oprah decided that she would no longer have shows with skinheads or racists. What was the point except to give them undue attention. Perhaps, we too should be more discriminating in how much attention we give to the ignorant, crazy, and politically rancorous. (I include in this category Oprah’s new fascination with the “Laws of Attraction.” As much as I love her, I think she’s lost it.) When there is so much work to do, it saddens me that there are those who aren’t interested in the truth, but are interested in advancing their own agenda at any cost, suggesting uncertainty and debate exists where it doesn’t. We should be especially careful who we trust as authorities and from whom we accept information. The fact that Fox “News” continues to exist probably tells me all I don’t want to know about Americans lack of interest in critical thinking or intelligent dialog. There is enough that divides us already without inventing new causes.

Then with considerable effort, I remind myself about great leaders like Martin Luther King who must have felt the same hopelessness at times, who too must have wondered, “how do you reach these people, how do you change their minds?” Yet, these heroes didn’t give up. It’s a fact that nothing is accomplished by losing hope. We find the answers to the questions that we trouble ourselves to ask again and again using imagination and determination to find solutions. There is so much love in the world. We are as “good” by innate nature as we are “bad.” It is this goodness that we must draw out by giving less voice to those who only sit with their other half, who set out with the express purpose to divide.

So, I don’t have the answers. I may have easy ones about how to solve world peace like “eliminate extremism,” but how to implement it, how to reach those who don’t want to be reached, who don’t want the truth, but want their story, this answer I don’t have. But I will not give up.

At least not yet.

Posted in Ponderings/Musings | Print | No Comments »