What my decade long foray into the creation-evolution debate taught me about the human condition (and how it applies today) – Part 3: Simplicity and Complexity

This is the third post in the What my decade long foray into the creation-evolution debate taught me about the human condition (and how it applies today) series.  This post ended up somewhat longer than I hoped.  Explaining my thoughts on complexity is a bit complex!

Science as a way of knowing

I loved being able to teach introductory college biology – it was a staple course I taught for 19 years.  I taught it to a lot of students – usually three sections a year, each with 60-118 students.  Lots of enrolled students were not interested in science, and were only there to check-off one of their two required science electives.  Lots of college freshmen came in with a negative impression of science – many did not have good experiences with their high school science classes.  For this reason, I felt it important to convince them from the beginning that the course was worth their while, and presented them with value beyond a checkmark on a list, and nothing more than memorizing useless information.

I think I was quite successful “hooking” students early on with a five-lecture sequence on understanding science as a way of knowing.  Now, if you’ve had college courses, you know that spending five lectures on a single topic is virtually unheard of.  Doing so put me behind on the standardized course content.  Other course instructors would have already completed the first three chapters at least, and there I was still covering chapter one.  But the content of chapter 1 was that important to me – it was worth it.

In day 1 of class, we would discuss what is knowledge (how do we know), and how can we determine if knowledge is reliable.  I would ask students to describe their understanding of science, and ask them if there are limitations about what science can tell us.  Each day, I would leave them with something to talk about, on their way out the door, like the demonstration I would do in class to show them that 2+2 is not always equal to 4, or causing them to doubt what they see with their own eyes using this image of two tables with identical dimensions.

Most class days, I would post a quote on the projection screen at the beginning of class, as students entered the classroom.  Often, they were Bible verses.

“The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know” (1^st Corinthians 8:12 )

I wanted them to doubt what they thought they knew, I wanted them to question what they’ve been told and taught – I wanted to deconstruct their potentially black and white world, as the first step towards moving beyond Perry level 1.  I wanted as many as would to recognize the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the world, and to be more careful with the claims they would make and the positions they would adopt.  I wanted them to understand that science by design is a reliable way to gain reliable knowledge about the natural world we live in.  I wanted them to understand that humans are fallible in many ways, and that some are even charlatans, even some who profess to be Christians.

The quote I used as the foundation for this unit came from a book, Science for All Americans (1990),

“Scientific habits of mind can help people in every walk of life to deal sensibly with problems that often involve evidence, quantitative considerations, logical arguments, and uncertainty; without the ability to think critically and independently, citizens are easy prey to dogmatists, flimflam artists, and purveyors of simple solutions to complex problems”

This statement is as applicable in 2021 as it was in 1990.  I love the ending…purveyors of simple solutions to complex problems…

Creation, evolution, and simplicity

So how does this relate to what I learned from studying the creation and evolution debate?

For one, it reinforced that a lot of people seek out simple solutions to complex problems, and in doing so, dismiss and disregard the pursuit of knowledge and understanding, to stake a premature claim of knowledge and understanding.  What I learned from studying the creation/evolution debate is that both sides commit errors of simplicity - of reducing specific topics to oversimplifications, which functions to support their own position on the matter.  I see this as a form of manufactured pseudo-evidence people use to gain confidence in their own position.  In some cases I feel this is done naively, and in other cases, I believe it to be a result of entrenched bias, often operating at a sub-conscious level.

Creationists do it, and so do evolutionists.  For creationists, Biblical literalism as the foundation for core creationist beliefs is the most obvious application of simplicity to a complex situation (the complex situation being what the Bible represents, its authorship, history, languages, interpretation, etc.).  Creationists grossly oversimplify geological concepts and Earth history.  For evolutionists, applying evolutionary theory broadly to cover all aspects of the development of life on earth, including the origin of life, is a good example.  You’d be amazed to know the unscientific statements made by certain committed dysteliological evolutionists, in order to support their position.  After all, both sides require believing things beyond what can actually be known.  Coverage of evolution and origin of life on Earth is grossly oversimplified in introductory college science textbooks.  The uncertainties which are clearly seen in the actual research are barely touched on.  But how much complexity is there room for in an introductory course surveying many topics?  Still, it serves to misrepresent what is actually known about the topics, and leaves students who don’t take additional science courses, with a very incomplete view of reality.

Now, I’m tempted to provide specific examples, yet that would commit me and the reader to a more lengthy post, and it would also start us down the rabbit hole - and that’s not the purpose of this blog series.  Suffice it to say, I could provide multiple examples from both sides of the argument.  So if you position yourself on one side or the other, don’t think you’ve got the high position – you don’t.  Also, while I am generalizing the two sides in this debate, I should note that not all creationists and evolutionists involved in the debate misuse information to support their agendas – some are very careful and thoughtful in their scholarship (but probably not the ones who might quickly come to mind).

Beyond the creation/evolution debate

Underestimating complexity, or perhaps ignoring complexity, connected with a compelling urge to come to quick conclusions is one of the most significant shortcomings I see with how many people form opinions and positions on a wide range of issues.  There seems to be this great need to view situations as being simple.  Most societal, philosophical, religious, and scientific issues are not simple.  Over and over, I see issues being reduced to binary positions.  It fits perfectly with Perry’s dualism stage.  I talked some about how William Perry’s work informed my approach to college science instruction in my second post in this series.

Name the issue - Climate change, human sexual development and sexual attraction, pro-life/pro-choice, biological evolution, immigration, public health policy, peace in the Middle East - pick your favorite issue - it’s likely more complex than one imagines it to be.  Over and over again, people volunteer simple solutions to complex problems, feeling compelled to quickly weigh in on issues with seemingly little thought, as if the confidently asserted simple solution is clearly obvious.

Declaring truth without knowledge

Beyond societal problems and issues, people formulate simple declarative statements representing what they view as truth, and not just truth for themselves, but universal truth.

“The Bible is true”

“Abortion is wrong”

“People on welfare are lazy”

“Everyone should be vaccinated”

“Immigration is bad for the country”

Simple declarative statements like these indicate a disregard for complexity, which is actually a disregard for reality.

Probably my main discovery during this adventure is how tentative knowledge produced by science, time after time, becomes “the truth” - set in stone, but not by virtue of repeated experimentation.  Someone publishes an important research article.  They observe something about a fossil (for example).  It may have implications for our understanding of the transition between reptiles and birds.  The authors are careful with their language - they indicate the tentative nature of their findings, and that more research is needed.  The article is picked up by science news organizations, then popular news organizations - summary news articles are written - the science writers of these news organizations strip the uncertainty from the original research.  Meanwhile time goes on.  The progression of time often does something quite amazing - it established a tentative conclusion as fact, all by itself!  It’s as if people (scientists included) lose the uncertainty and the tentative aspects of this new information, and it just becomes established as fact over time (without any new scientific data to provide greater confidence in the conclusion).  This isn’t always the case - there are many situations where continued scientific research does confirm an initial tentative finding.  But there are many instances where tentative findings magically become scientific facts.  Is this intentional?  Not really - it’s just human nature.  However, biased evolutionists will quickly accept tentative findings as fact - because it fits their biases.  It’s a lot easier to embrace an uncertain idea when it fits with your pre-established prejudices. 

Concluding remarks

If there’s any real fact to state, it’s that we live in a complex world, on a complex planet, with a complex history, trying to understand it as complex living beings.  Most people desire quick, conclusive understanding.  This is just not possible.  It’s hard for me to give straightforward replies to people when they ask my opinion on most topics.  It’s because I recognize the complexity involved, and even for issues I know very little about, I start with the assumption that the issue is much, much more complex than I can see from my vantage point, or can even imagine.  I desire to take care to not represent myself in a way which demonstrates disregard for what might be known about an issue, what professionals and experts say, and for the multiple perspectives which need to be taken into account.  Consequently, I find myself in the middle of most issues, not as a means of avoiding commitment to a position, but desiring to be well-informed prior to making a commitment.

I’ll end by saying that some things are simple.  I believe God has provided a clear and straightforward message for humanity to hear.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.  John 3:16

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.  Mark 12:30-31

So while we struggle with complex issues in the natural realm, we can at least be at ease knowing simple spiritual truths – truths that are accessible to all people, regardless of time period, culture, language, education, or upbringing.