UUC: Rev. Christine Brownlie: Praise the Lord for Evolution?

As we acknowledge the 200^th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, I have a confession to share. I’m tired of the battle between science and religion! I’m fed up with the fundamentalists on both sides and their claims of superiority, whether they are intellectual or moral. I’d like to call a truce for the next few weeks and encourage each side to let go of the stereotypes and the arrogance and the small-minded thinking that is all too common on both sides of the equation. Religion is not the enemy of science, and I’d like to encourage those who make that claim to give it up!

Oh yes, there are people who do not — and probably never will — accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. I know some of these folks, and I refuse to waste my breath trying to change their minds. I also know people who hold fast to the notion that anyone who holds any sort of belief that borders on religion can’t be very bright. I don’t have much to say to them either!

But for those of us who claim that the quest for truth (whatever that might be) is never ending, the ground between science and faith can be a fertile space for learning, contemplation, and transformation.

You may have noted that I’ve named this day “Evolution Sunday.” I was encouraged to do so by Dr. Michael Zimmerman of Butler University in Indianapolis. Dr. Zimmerman initiated Evolution Sunday in 2006 as a way to engage religious leaders of many traditions in a discussion of the compatibility of science and religion. Every year since 2006, Christian clergy have been invited to sign a letter that promotes the teaching of evolution in the public schools and affirming that evolution is not the enemy of faith. In 2009 the name of the event was changed to “Evolution Weekend” in order to include more faith traditions.

So far, 11,818 Christian clergy have signed on to the letter that represents the theology of their tradition.^¹ Here’s a portion of that letter:

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris.

It could be an act of hubris, or maybe it’s an act of fear. For some of the people I know who reject the theory of evolution, the problem is pretty simple. If we humans are the evolutionary descendents of an ape then we lose our place of prominence in the great web of life. In the story of evolution, we humans are just an accident of an impersonal and uncaring process, and not the special creatures that were given dominion over the Earth and all that lives upon it by our creator God who loves us. Not only are we not the favored species, we not going to be the last survivors on the island either. The process of evolution continues, which implies that eventually something bigger and better will come along. At some point in time, our species is likely to disappear just as so many others have. If God really is a delusion and not our loving Creator and Protector, then who or what will care?

Who will care? Who will care about me? about my life? about my accomplishments and struggles? What difference will my life make if the story of evolution is all we have? After all, evolution is just a process. All it asks of us is that we reproduce offspring who will carry our genes forward into succeeding generations. But we humans aspire to more out of life than just keeping the species going. We want something more, something that offers an answer to the questions of why and who and what difference we make. We are born with a need within our souls and psyches that no other creature appears to have, and that is a need for what we call “meaning.” Some claim that we have this need for meaning because we know that our lives will end. Unlike other animals, we know that at some point in time we and our loved ones will die. In the face of death, we humans search for a reason to face the joys and the pains that life bestows on everyone. Some thinkers claim that this realization is one of the foundations of religion and religious faith.

But could this trait offer some evolutionary advantage? Through the ages, humans came to rely on one another to such a great degree. They discovered that life is easier if tasks are shared. It’s more likely that a group of people could protect itself from predators better than isolated individuals. Groups of hunters working together are likely to be more successful than a lone hunter. Our children aren’t ready to be on their own for many years. Sharing the work of caring for the young made survival more likely. So it seems reasonable to conjecture that our ability to live in relationships with other people and to invest those relationships with meaning beyond the gathering of food, hunting, and procreation, probably helped our early ancestors live together in peace and stick together in times of danger.

I believe that our longing for meaning is fueled by another powerful human trait: our capacity for emotions like awe, an appreciation of beauty, and a sense of gratitude for our lives and the lives of those we love. We might describe this experience as the

“Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal for the spirit and an openness to the forces that create and uphold life . . .”

If these words sound familiar to you, it is because they are from one of the cited sources for the covenant that we call our Principles and Purposes. This uniquely human experience is listed as the first of the many sources that we draw upon as the foundation of our “Living Tradition.” The words, “an openness to the forces that create and uphold life. . .” express to me both a sense of pride in the knowledge that we claim regarding those forces, as well as a sense of deep humility. I say “humility” because while we can name some of these forces, there remains a veil that we have yet to penetrate. This is the source of all that is, the whatever-it-was that came before the event we call the “Big Bang” and whispered “Now!”

The debates and discussion about what came before the Big Bang are fascinating and mind-boggling. Some of us are content to say that we just don’t know yet. But for many people, the solution is to name that unknown force as “God” and to live in the unfolding mystery of that word. They find meaning and comfort in their faith that a Divine Creator ignited the process that created the universe, and they see evolution as a part of God’s plan. For these believers, the knowledge that science and reason reveal is a reflection of the magnificence of the glory of God’s on-going work of creation. There are some who claim that humans are more than mere products of the evolutionary process. We have a special place in creation, and through our actions we become Co-Creators with God.

Oh sure, I know that there are many Americans who still dispute the “theory” of evolution. My two sons were brought up in Texas, where the battles over science textbooks are still going on — as they are in many public school systems. In every case, these battles are between those who claim that the best science upholds the truth of Darwin’s theory and those who believe that the creation story that is found in the book of Genesis is irrefutable fact. So doesn’t that make religion an enemy of science?

I would say no. From my point of view it’s not religion that’s the problem. The fault lies with poor science education in the general public and poor teacher training. Another problem is the misuse of science as a wedge issue in political campaigns. Sophisticated theories are boiled down to sound bites like Ronald Reagan’s statement that there were no chimpanzees in his family tree.

But more than anything else, I believe that treating science as an “enemy” reflects the fact that most of us are simply unable to handle gracefully information that we don’t like or don’t really understand. This is especially hard to do if that information asks you to make a leap and see your world and yourself in a new way that is scary and confusing.

Science has challenged our assumptions about what we call “reality” for centuries. When Copernicus made his claim that the Earth orbits the Sun, it wasn’t just an interesting tidbit of news. It was the beginning of a profoundly different understanding of our place within a vast universe. For many people, this idea was too much to comprehend, because it threatened their fundamental assumptions about their very existence. And it’s not just the ordinary person on the street who struggles with information that is hard to grasp. Albert Einstein had great difficulty with the new theories of quantum mechanics even though his own theories had laid the groundwork for this new science. Darwin himself struggled with painful doubts about his own religious faith and ended up abandoning that faith in the face of his own discoveries. His own understanding of the nature of God could not evolve and adapt to his theories. That problem no longer exists for many modern believers.

How might we begin a conversation between science and religion that would lead to something useful? I’d respectfully suggest that in a country where 80% of the population believes in God, the reality is that most Americans will continue to hold on to religious faith as part of their worldview. Science is not likely to win an either/or war between itself and religion, and perhaps that’s as it should be. Multiple studies have shown that people who are active in religious organizations tend to be healthier and happier.^² A few days ago I listened to an interview with Ben Sherwood, the author of a new book, titled Survivor’s Club. He has interviewed hundreds of people who have come through major calamities, and he finds that one trait of a survivor is faith in God. Could it be that religious faith gives people an edge when the going gets tough? Maybe religious faith isn’t just for those who can’t do the science. Maybe we can look at religion through a different lens.

I know that most of you have heard the words “Intelligent Design.” I’d like to introduce you to the idea of “Intelligent Faith.” This clever name comes from the pen of Susan Elias, a wildlife biologist and a Unitarian Universalist. She writes that she loves both science and religion. After reading her sermon, I came to the conclusion that she loves science and religion as only a Unitarian Universalist could.

Why do I say this? Because while Susan loves the answers, the facts, the places of certainty, she loves the mystery even more. She writes,

“In my freshman chemistry class I was profoundly delighted that the exact location of an electron can never be pinned down, but it is there.”

The truth is that in both science and religion, revelation — the advancement of new knowledge — is ongoing. Claims to certainty exist, but certainty can and must be challenged as new models of scientific and religious truths develop. For Susan, and for many others, the beauty, wonder, and mysteries of that abound in the universe around us leave us open-mouthed with wonder and open-hearted with gratitude to the Source of All that Is, the Eternal Creator, the Hand of Life, or God.

Why use a label for this deepest mystery? I can only speak for myself, but I find that emotions like gratitude, reverence, and profound love must be directed to something I can relate to in some way. I can’t offer these feelings to an uncaring process or a series of incredibly fortuitous accidents of time, temperature and chemistry that led to my life. What’s more, to me the claim that evolution does not need a first cause or prime mover is not a convincing proof that such a force does not exist.

My intellect may stand in amazement and wonder at the altar of evolution, but my spirit reaches out to something different, something relational that rejoices with me in the marvels of this world and assures me that I too have a place and a purpose within the grandeur of creation. And so I seek this mysterious source in many places, but like so many others, I find it most often in nature.

Now and then, on dark cold nights when the sky is very clear, I will sit on my deck and watch the stars. On some nights, the winds blow through the line of pine trees along the easement line, and the trees make music together. Once in a while, I hear a rustling noise that tells me some creature is about; maybe one of the neighborhood cats, hungry and hunting. If I’m really lucky, an owl will hoot once or twice.

On such nights, I’m filled with wonder. I’m amazed that I exist at all, a creature of stardust and accidents of history, imbued with a spark of creation that is unique to me and my species. I feel a profound sense of gratitude for all that was, for all that is, and all that shall be through the grand and marvelous process that some call “God,” and others call “evolution.”

May your faith — whatever it is, however you name it — bring hope and meaning to your life.

1 A similar letter was written for UU clergy and 162 people had signed that letter. Here is the link for the Clergy Letter Project.

2 See Gerontology and the Study of Religion and Health: A Vital Role for a Social Science Melting Pot by Orrin R. Onken (Portland State University – 1999). Here is the link.

At the end of the talk-back following the service, Rev. Brownlie invited those with further comments to send them to her for possible inclusion with the posted sermon. Included below are three comments from attendees. If you wish to add your thoughts, we invite you to do so through our Social Concerns listserv. If you are not already a subscriber to the listserv, here is a link to instructions for subscribing.

The National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine has published a new book for science educators and the public on this subject: Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Here is an 8-page summary (PDF). The full 88-page book can be downloaded free online from The National Academies Press Web site.

Two hundred years after Charles Darwin's birth, and 150 years after he published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Americans are still fighting over evolution. If anything, the controversy has recently grown in both size and intensity. In a multi-part package, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life explores the many facets of the debate as it has evolved from its origins to the present day. Read the full article at this Web site.

I like to think that most of the Congregation shares my view that traditional (read: dogmatic and superstitious) practice of religion can and does impose limits on our ability to understand fully the universe and our place in it. But I also lament the occasional outburst of close-mindedness when it comes from one of us on the secular/intellectual side of the discussion (not necessarily from UUs, mind you, but from the secular left in general). While it may, at times, be appropriate to point out the flaws in reason that inform the traditional practice of organized religion (and the damage it can do), I think it is unwise to reject out-of-hand the motivations of “religious folks” or question their hearts and minds. We would be wise, instead, to consider that humans have always had an undeniably powerful need to find and understand “God”. History has shown how powerful this drive can be; having driven us to heights of love, compassion, and discovery just as it has occasionally led us to depths of cruelty and depravity. We would be wise to ask ourselves, “why? Where does this desperate desire for God come from?”

Rather than underestimate the power of this need within us all, perhaps we should ponder it in the same context as the other human behaviors — our drive to find a mate, to come together and form families and communities, to see to the survival and prosperity of our offspring — that have been hard-wired into us by the evolutionary process. Just as we must accept that at the most basic level, all of our behaviors and drives in some way serve the propagation of the species, so must we consider the possibility that our (sometimes irrational) need for God comes from the same place and serves some similar purpose. However destructively and irrationally we humans may have at times scratched the God-itch, we can't deny that the itch is very real and universal. God may or may not be real, but our desire to find God is as real as it gets.