Sermon

INTRODUCTION: How did we as a species get here? What was the process that resulted in human beings? Or more pointedly: How did our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, and our Universe appear?

We’re conditioned to thinking that a cause is necessary to produce an effect. For example, clapping my hands – the cause –produces the effect of the sound of hands clapping: The cause results in the effect. But in the Universe, we have this incredible effect, this result – this Universe – without any known cause.

True, most of us here accept the notion that there was an originating Big Bang, out of which came an enormous cloud of primordial hydrogen, in which giant galaxies were formed. And in the galaxies, stars were born. Many of these stars were surrounded by planets, and on some of these planets – or at least on one, our Earth – life appeared. After 4.5 billion or more years on this little planet, humankind arose.

As I’ve quoted before, if we reduced 15 billion years, from the Big Bang until now, into one year -- from January 1^st until Dec. 31^st -- then human being appeared very late; in fact, not until the last day of the year, Dec. 31, at around 10:30 p.m.

To be able to say that is not to explain it. It’s descriptive, not explanatory. Again, we have this grand effect, this wonderful result – this Universe and all that is in it – but without a known cause.

For certain, it would be most difficult to conclude that the whole show was for our benefit! But does it, or should it, affect our religious self-understanding?

Einstein said, “Everything has changed, except our way of thinking.” I’m not sure how many categories of thinking he was including in that, but for certain, it included religious thinking. For when it comes to religion, we are victims of our heritage and culture. None more so, than our perception of who we are, where we came from, and how we came to be.

Feeding that perception are the two creation stories in the book of Genesis. As I said, there are two. And if you had brought your bibles with you, you would have discovered that in the first creation account, the deity is referred to as “God”; in the second account immediately following, the deity is referred to as “Lord God,” which reveal two different stories, and an evolution in the understanding of the biblical god of the tribes of the Israelites and the eventual nation of Israel.

Further, the two accounts are not in chronological order: the second account is the older of the two. Much more primitive…much more poetic…and with traces of other religious traditions. Let me illustrate what I mean, and remember, this is poetry written more than 3,000 years ago. So respect the author and the limitations of the times:

In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being….Then the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper fit for him….So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs…:; and the rib which the Lord had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. (Genesis 2:4, 7, 18, 21ff)

But in the more recent, first creation account, by this time, Judaism has had time to influence the story. And as any good Jew knows, God would observe the Sabbath, namely, he works six days and rests on the seventh.

Our focus however is not on the text, nor in criticism of the text, good or bad. Rather, it is that up until 300 to 500 years or so ago, the first creation account was not simply a religious account, but it was thought to be the way things actually occurred. It took the place of science, before there was such a thing as science. Most people in the Western world – that’s any people West of Rome – believed that the Earth’s history only went back 6,000 years. Further, creation took place in seven 24-hour days. And all these fossils that anthropologists have found since then are the result of Noah's flood, including such geologic phenomena as the Grand Canyon.

Even more amazing is that there is a significant debate going on today in some education circles, including the legislatures of many states, attempting to insist that the concept of “Intelligent Design” should be given equal status to Darwin’s “Theory of Evolution.” Or that any teacher who teaches it as equivalent to Darwin will not be punished. And that teachers can criticize Darwin for what they perceive as failings without being disciplined for doing so. This was a matter being debated by our own Florida legislature and state educators just this April!

It has historical precedent: Most of you will recall reading that in 1925, there was an infamous trial in Dayton, Tennessee, called the “Scopes Monkey Trial.” It was a suit in support of a high school biology teacher, John Scopes. The suit challenged the newly passed anti-evolution law of the Tennessee legislature, which read:

"... that it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."

Scopes lost, and was ordered to pay a fine of $100 (which would be about $1,100 in today’s money), but the case was tossed out on appeal. Since then there have been many attempts to reintroduce the biblical story of creation into the classroom as an equivalent of Darwin, but they have ostensibly failed. However, in recent years, there has been a much more sophisticated effort to introduce the biblical creation account as part of a concept known as “Intelligent Design.” It is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process of evolution.” It’s unique for creationists in that it doesn’t mention Genesis or the biblical account of creation, or a Creator. It’s a round about way of trying to bypass the court’s having prohibited the teaching of creationism as science.

I’m assuming that for most of us, even if we aren’t biologists, we accept the overall popularized Darwinian theory of evolution, as not only the best explanation of our origin as a species, but also that it has been scientifically demonstrated to be so in not only biology, but geology, as well. It is used as the basis for exploration for oil, a critical component of medical research, botany, genetics, anthropology and in virtually every accredited life science. If science goes from an idea, to a hypothesis, to demonstrated theory, and finally to fact, there are more than enough data to support evolution as fact. Evolution has moved beyond being a scientific theory. It is a fact in the broadest sense of that word!

But what if you are a responsible, intelligent, and caring citizen who has been raised to think differently? What if you have been taught both in school and in church that the bible is true – including the two creation stories in the book of Genesis? Period. That your entire self-understanding, your view of who you are, where you came from, and where you are going, is dependent upon what is said in that book? That it states something about our origins, which are quite different from Darwin’s?

A member of our congregation, in an effort to improve her daughters’ school performance, put them in one of the accredited Christian schools here in Lee County. When she asked them whether they taught evolution in their science curriculum, she was assured that they taught both evolution and creationism.

But then one day her daughters brought home a permission slip to attend a showing at McGregor Baptist of a film disproving evolution and “proving” Noah’s flood. She refused to sign it, and after her encounter with the principal, she concluded that it was the worst decision she had made about her daughters’ education.

So how do we respond to those who believe differently? One of the phenomenon occurring is that we are inclining more and more to “be with our own kind.” That is, if you are politically conservative, you watch FOX TV; if liberal, you listen to NPR and watch CNN.

And in studies done recently in a dozen different control groups, people were shown random news items. When questioned about it later, they tended to have seen the same things. When shown random news items on television, but with the addition of the Fox symbol or the CNN or NPR symbol, people saw the same news reports differently.

More disturbing, whether conservative or liberal, is the tendency to begin to lean towards being with those of like mind, rather than having anything to do with those with whom we differ. It’s as if we choose to associate only with those who support our view of different realities.

But what if we were to conclude that religion is not about science. It may be informed by science, updated by science, and enriched by science, but it is not about science. Rather, it is about the human equation: how are we human beings supposed to live in this world? That’s it: How are we to relate to other human beings…to treat ourselves…and to be good stewards of the Universe? It is not about origins or endings. It’s about the in-between. God may have created the Universe 6,000 years ago, or 15 billion years ago, or had nothing to do with any of it. That does not change the fact that we have to get up in the morning, interact with people, take care of ourselves, and hopefully act responsibly about our place in the Universe. Whether Darwin was right, wrong, or neither, doesn’t change the fact of our responsibilities in this life to live life to the fullest.

Religion is not about before the Universe or after, but now. It’s about the moment, this time, this encounter. I may believe differently about the past or the future, and have good grounds for doing so. But it does not excuse how I live now.

So we can say, we believe this, we believe that, we believe the other. That’s fine. But hopefully, those beliefs will inform how we treat others, how we take care of ourselves, how we choose to be the person we are.

It seems appropriate to retell a story of my struggle with this issue while still a member of the very evangelical Christian Church in which I was reared. After having finished Bible College, I went to University to pursue a degree in communications. It required some General Education courses, including geology. In the geology course, we had to learn the different geologic ages. If you’ve ever looked at any of the tables, they go back millions upon millions of years ago. At one of the lectures, my professor was pinpointing where our species came in this process.

I was deeply troubled by his statement and felt compelled to defend God, the Bible, and people of faith now and evermore, so I raised my hand and stated, “The bible says that God created the heaven and the earth in six days, and that he created man on the sixth day.” He said, “See the chaplain.” And kept on lecturing.

My face turned red, I’m quite sure, especially when the class laughed. But it was an issue which concerned me deeply. Which is why I tend to have genuine compassion for those who are struggling with the same issue.

That does not mean we should raise a generation of students ignorant of the best that science has discovered. But the debate should be recognized as a scientific issue and an educational one, not a matter or faith and religion. To do otherwise would only increase the ignorance and intolerance that are enveloping so much of our world today.

We will pause now for 7½ minutes of brief questions as a part of our Conversation Café. The Service and Support Council will provide microphones for you to speak into.

[1] A sermon presented May 04, 2008, as the first in a series on “Science and Faith,” followed by the Conversation Café of All Faiths Unitarian Congregation, meeting at the Crestwell School, 1904 Park Meadows, Ft. Myers, FL, with the Rev. Dr. Wayne Robinson, minister.