Many Christians have been belittled for believing in Biblical creation. One criticism often leveled at us is that we are merely laymen and so are not qualified to competently judge the theory of evolution. Any criticism we make against the theory is only our lay opinion and is therefore not worthy of any serious consideration.
A few months back, I came across one staunch evolutionist who was making this very point. He waxed on about the many thousands of scientists who have dedicated their careers to studying evolution and that it was arrogance on the part of non-scientists to reject their conclusions as though we understand better than they. This particular evolutionist went on to ask what other subject exists where the opinions of lay people are given consideration over the opinions of people who are experts in the subject.
He seemed to be asking the question rhetorically thinking the answer was obvious. He believed there is no other subject where people with no formal training in a subject would boldly put forth opinions that contradicted the conclusions of experts of the subject. Much to his embarrassment, I suggested one: people who are not studied in the Bible feel perfectly qualified to criticize the Bible. They smugly rebuff and deride the conclusions of thousands of theologians who have dedicated their lives to the study of the Bible. The entire extent of these critics’ research may be nothing more than using a Google search yet they are thoroughly convinced the Bible is rife with errors, Christianity is a sham, and there is no God.
It seems to me they want to have it both ways. They want to condemn creationists as lay people who are not qualified to judge the truthfulness of evolution. Yet they feel they are perfectly able to judge the truthfulness of the Bible even though they may not be formally trained in theology. People who use this argument paint themselves into a proverbial corner. They need to either acknowledge that people can have opinions (even correct opinions) in subjects they are not formally trained in OR they need to stop criticizing the Bible or Christianity until they receive formal training on the subject. Which is it going to be?
But their hypocrisy doesn’t end there. If they believe non-scientist creationists are not qualified to judge their theory, what makes a non-scientist evolutionist qualified to judge his own theory? If I – as a non-scientist – cannot judge their theory false, then neither can a non-scientist judge the theory true! Alas, no. It doesn’t work that way. To them, people who reject evolution are ignorant fools and people who accept evolution are enlightened thinkers. Acceptance or rejection of the theory is the only test required; no one need demonstrate how well they actually understand the theory.
Let’s review this just for the sake of clarity: some evolutionists dismiss creationist arguments because they feel non-scientists aren’t qualified to judge the truthfulness of the theory. However, these evolutionists themselves aren’t scientists yet feel they are perfectly qualified to judge both the truthfulness of their own theory AND the truthfulness of the Bible (which they also have no training in). It seems there’s a pot-kettle dilemma going on.
2 comments:
It is hardly necessary that one be formally trained in biology to discuss evolutionary theory. There have been important scientists who have never formally studied the fields in which they made their mark (Edwin Hubble, for example, and George Gamow made contributions to genetics though trained formally only as a physicist; for that matter, Charles Darwin was never formally trained as any sort of scientist, although he learned geology from several of the best geologists of his day).
On the other hand, it would be useful to have learned something about biology and about evolutionary theory. In my experience, many creationists make egregious mistakes about what evolutionary theory proposes or how mutations or natural selection works; a critique based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the theory is unlikely to be correct.
There is another point: evolutionary theory is supposed to be an explanation for scientific data, much of it unknown to the lay public and difficult to understand without background knowledge. Evolutionary theory is actually less this way than many scientific theories (e.g. quantum physics), but it's still this way; its value as a scientific theory doesn't depend on it being accessible to laymen.
The Bible, and even more so Christianity, is supposed to be different. The average person may not know a pseudogene from a pseudopod, or need to, but if Christianity is true then he needs to be able to understand Christianity and biblical teaching. Expert knowledge, or even deep study, should be much less relevant to assessing the claims of Christianity, or even the Bible itself, than to assessing evolutionary theory.
Of course, the argument could be advanced (and often has been) that Christianity can only be understood from the inside, by believers who've experienced it firsthand (a sort of specialized knowledge that, so far as I know, no evolutionist claims one needs to understand and critique evolutionary theory). As noted, we cannot make such a claim for evolutionary theory (though every religion can make it for itself).
Steven,
You said, “It is hardly necessary that one be formally trained in biology to discuss evolutionary theory.”
I note that you italicized “formally” but to your point in general I say, “Amen!” You are obviously not among the many that I would label a hypocrite. The fact that a person is not studied in science is not in itself evidence that what he believes is wrong. The fact that it is even brought up is nothing more than a thinly veiled, ad hominem attack on the creationist. Conversely, to appeal to the credentials of scientists is nothing more than a fallacious “appeal to authority.” The qualifications of a person are not, by themselves, evidence that he is correct. It’s a rather lame argument to hear someone say, “Dr. So-and-so is a PhD biologist and he says that evolution is true.” Certainly no one puts it in quite those words but the net effect is the same.
You said, “There is another point: evolutionary theory is supposed to be an explanation for scientific data, much of it unknown to the lay public and difficult to understand without background knowledge.”
I have one nit to pick with your wording: I would have said, “evolutionary theory is supposed to be a scientific explanation for the data.” But OK, I’ll give you that. However, the sword still cuts both ways. If a lay creationists have difficulty understanding the scientific theory, then so do lay evolutionists. So why do the lay evolutionists feel it is their job to chide the lay creationists when both have made lay-opinions concerning the theory?
You said, “Expert knowledge, or even deep study, should be much less relevant to assessing the claims of Christianity, or even the Bible itself, than to assessing evolutionary theory.”
That’s actually a good point. Let me be clear though in the point of my post: I believe it is OK for a lay person to have an opinion on a subject in which he has had no formal training. My objective in writing this post is to highlight the hypocrisy of evolutionists who use the logically-flawed, “you’re not a scientist” argument.
In another blog, I used the analogy of a jury. Most people on a jury aren’t lawyers, forensic scientists, coroners, detectives, or any such expert. They are average folks who are trusted to listen to the experts and render their own judgment. The same is true for Christianity and the same can be said for evolution. We need not be experts in these areas. To have an opinion, we need only give them a fair hearing and then decide for ourselves what we believe is true.
Of course, some people will come to the wrong conclusions. If everyone were correct in these areas, I would have to blog about cooking. ;)
God bless!!
RKBentley
Post a Comment