The Winter Olympic games are nearing. I look forward with anticipation to seeing talented athletes perform amazing feats, and with the hope that my country, the United States, will win many competitions. There is, however, an aspect of the winter games that I do not enjoy: the artistic competitions.
Events such as speed skating have measurable results. Though at times, special cameras and equipment is necessary to determine what racer finished first, the method for winning is always crossing the finish line first. Similarly, ice hockey rewards the team with the most goals at the end with victory.
Events such as figure skating or "ice dancing" are distasteful to me because they have arbitrary elements. The objective is not to skate faster, farther, or higher, but to skate "better" than the other competitors. Of course, this does not mean that the competitors are not impressive, or that they are not athletic... they can be both. It means that their events should not be considered competitive sports. They are artistic performances.
While it is possible for some performances to be better than others, the criteria for "better" always has an arbitrary element. Whether the competition is "American Idol" or figure skating, these types of competitions have always seemed a bit distasteful to me. To some degree, I have an affinity for the definitive, objective, and the measurable. In other words... I like science!
I was always fascinated with learning about biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy... and while repetitive practice became tedious, the concepts of mathematics have always interested me. The names of planets, elements, dinosaurs, reptiles, amphibians, theorems, and rules were valued acquisitions even from before I started attending school.
The first time I recall learning something scientific that I disliked was in my sixth grade class when the curriculum turned to evolution. Every image of the ape-like homo habilis or homo australopithecus filled me with a distaste that was practically instinctive. I recall one of my fellow students suggesting that the pictures "looked like monkeys." The teacher expressed that they were ancestors of modern humans. Something inside me snapped, and I recall angrily saying that "my dad is not a monkey, and his dad was not a monkey." The next hour was filled with attempts to calm everyone down.
In hindsight, my outburst was not based on evidence, science, or anything measurable or definitive. It was raw and emotional. I just knew that there was something wrong about it, but I had no idea how to articulate my thoughts.
Of course, part of the reason that I found the curriculum so distasteful was my firm belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) From my youth, I was taught that humanity represent the children of God, and that people are not animals.
As I have gotten older, I have learned much more about the theories that support evolution. I have learned about the processes of natural selection, and how they impact changes in allele frequency. I have learned that speciation is not as simple as some make it out to be (for example, donkeys and horses may be considered different species because they produce sterile offspring, mules... but organisms that reproduce asexually cannot be separated into species using this method).
Though my belief that God created heaven and earth has not diminished, if I am honest, I am forced to confess that I have grown to like the science behind evolution.
That having been said, I have also grown to understand more of the reason the concept was so distasteful in my youth. And although I could state that evolution is not based on observable evidence, or how it assumes that the basic characteristics of life have not changed since life began (such as reproduction and death), if I am honest, I am forced to confess that my skepticism toward evolution has little to do with science.
My beef with evolution is Godlessness. Of course I know that not all evolutionists are atheists, and I suppose it is possible that not all atheists are evolutionists, but I have known many atheists to use scientific evidence that supports evolution not as a tool of enlightenment or to express interest in fossils, genetics, or taxonomy... but rather as a weapon to mock and belittle those that believe in God.
In other words, many Christians are made to feel the argument being made is this: people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because evolution.
There is no other scientific principle or theory that I have seen used the way evolution is. No one says:
people who believe in God are stupid/wrong/ignorant/[other belittling adjective] because fundamental theorem of calculus.
The implications of Godlessness are not scientific either. They are ethical and philosophical. If humans are animals, and other animals kill one another (whether for food, for mating, or for other competition), how can we say that it is wrong to kill someone? Without some higher purpose, what exactly is immoral about human cruelty?
Of course, most secularists are not interested in intellectual honesty when it comes to questioning the instability of their moral foundation... but those that are reveal the awful truth about Godlessness. For example, rabid atheist activist Richard Dawkins said this:
"I am very conscious that you can’t condemn people of an earlier era by the standards of ours. Just as we don’t look back at the 18th and 19th centuries and condemn people for racism in the same way as we would condemn a modern person for racism, I look back a few decades to my childhood and see things like caning, like mild pedophilia, and can’t find it in me to condemn it by the same standards as I or anyone would today" (http://twitchy.com/2013/09/10/mild-pedophilia-cockroach-richard-dawkins-brazenly-defends-sexual-abuse-of-children/) He later went on to say that a former teacher that abused him and his classmates did not do any "lasting harm."
When the standards of right and wrong can shift toward what is convenient for society, there is no evil that is off limits. When life has no purpose, then there is no good reason to avoid exploiting or abusing others for personal gain. Arguments about the "good of society" being a motivating factor for moral behavior justify wrongs perpetrated against those that society dislikes and/or devalues.
Ultimately, if right and wrong are relative concepts, then crimes such as genocide or child abuse are given equal moral strength to children being forced to eat their vegetables... as they are both only "called bad".
Having said this, I certainly understand the legitimate feelings of those that do not want creation taught because it is not scientific. I would prefer that figure skating not exist in the winter Olympic Games for similar reasons. I do not however think it is appropriate to belittle those that enjoy figure skating, or who participate in the events... and if I am honest... I have to confess that sometimes the music and the skill can even be good, and that American gold medals make me smile regardless of the event.
I would suggest that persons who find creationism distasteful might similarly find value in an ethical foundation that believers aspire to build where honesty, kindness, and virtue are inseparably connected to the purpose of life. Just because it is not based on observation or hard evidence does not mean it is worthy of universal condemnation... In fact... if everyone is honest... they must confess that there is beauty and goodness that comes from faith in God.
