No, not evolution vs. creationism, a debate that has no subtext of use to the aspiring ecumenicalist. Instead, I mean Creation - a religious or philosophical doctrine meaning that God created the universe and all life in it. I contrast that notion with Creationism, by which I mean any of a variety of doctrines that struggles against certain scientific views about natural history, out of a religious or philosophical aversion to accepting the conclusions of scienc, often coupled with an aversion to honest admissions of ignorance.

First, a word about Creation. This docrtine, in isolation from any others, will be acceptable, but usually inadequate for most members of Western religions. I admit, I struggled unsuccessfully to broaden that doctrine so that it would include the viewpoint of those members of Eastern religions who believe that the universe is illusory, or that it is an artifice of deceipt. If any such persons are reading, you're invited to share suggestions for ways to improve on my formulation so that westerners and easterners can have meaningful discussions that revolve on this term.

If there are any Unitarians or others who will view this effort as misguided, it will likely be my fellow atheists, or perhaps those who disapprove of God of the Gaps theology. From the former, I ask only indulgence. To the latter, I swear my utmost to avoid turning this viewpoint into such a dubious theological viewpoint. An atheist, wishing to avoid theological misuse of his statement, would have difficulty sincerely stating belief in Creation as I presented in the first paragraph. It is an inescapable reality, though, that the origin of the universe, and even to a degree, the life that lives on Earth and humanity itself, lies within the domain of "Greater Mystery". Going back to my first post, I proposed - for reasons of facilitating discussion, that even those without a belief in God can agree on that tiny kernel. So, substituting the ecumenical usage of the term "God" for "Greater Mystery", I hope that there will be occasion even for us to agree to the doctrine of Creation, though we must be careful not to do so in a way that would leave the false impression that we agreed to a particular religious view of God.

But, don't get the impression that I believe atheists should do all of the compromising on this point. In fact, I'm afraid I must ask the people of faith to do the lion's share. I must ask them to give up any and all form of Creationism that they may cling to. Many already have.

To explain why, I will start with a word about scientific certainty. Scientists and their advocates usually try to be careful to convey the notion that science doesn't provide absolute certainty, and this is a very important and accurate observation, about which many people are unfortunately confused. But, one shouldn't go away with the impression that science is always terribly uncertain either. In fact, science done rigorously and extensively can put some matters far beyond the realm of doubt. Most non-scientists have difficulty relating to that level of certainty without comparing it to things about which they feel absolutely certain (but about which they still, honestly, are not). A trained cosmologist knows that the age of the universe is twelve billion years with about the same certainty that a first-time flyer in the modern world knows that their airplane will transport them to their intended destination: fairly certain, but not absolute. On the other hand, a trained cosmologist knows that the age of the universe must be measured in the billions of years with the certainty an experienced air traveler knows that there will be metal detectors at the airport. But, the well-trained and honest cosmologist knows that the age of the universe is greater than 6,000 years with the same certainty that the air traveler seated in the cabin of the plane has of his knowledge that he is not filming an action movie in Hollywood. That level of certainty is very stark.

Now, that level of certainty about the age of the universe doesn't belong to me. I'm not a cosmologist. It doesn't even belong to an expert solid state physicist, necessarily. Most scientists, and probably most lay people, agree to defer to the experts on the matter of the age of the universe. They recognize that it would be arrogant and foolhardy to insist the age of the universe must be closer to 6,000 than twelve billion. Not so for the young-earth creationist (YEC). The YEC has studied the Bible, about the truth of which he feels absolute certainty. He has used the hermeneutics and exegesis that he is most comfortable with to arrive at the younger age of the universe from his interpretation of the Bible. At this point, he has done no greater crime than to possess more than his share of hubris. But, if he makes a living by finding authentic-sounding arguments and selective data to make his point of view seem "scientific", then he is also guilty of fraud. And, if his insistence on his personal view becomes a wall that must be crossed by those less arrogant or better informed, then he cannot engage in constructive dialogue with the rest of us. This path leads to fundamentalism, and away from a loving and neighborly community - both values that are ostensibly important to most western (and eastern) religions and ethical systems. To the best of my knowledge, none of the Scriptures of the various religions command arrogance of the kind that leads to creationism and fundamentalism, but most of them do exhort their followers to be good neighbors.

YEC's are not the only creationists. Many people, well-enough schooled in cosmology or geology to have glimpse of how certain the antiquity of the universe really is, but without much understanding of biology, subscribe to Old Earth Creationism (OEC)... I believe that OEC, (and some YEC attitudes), result from an unhealthy unwillingness to say "I do not know". If these same folks had the same glimpse of certainty about the bedrock principles of biology as they have about cosmology and/or geology (or the same as most of us have about Newtonian physics within limits of accuracy in familiar regions of our environment), they would drop OEC like a hot rock. But, since they aren't experts, and they are unwilling to defer to those whose work is to study biology, they insist that the universe is old, but that life was created as their interpretation of the Scripture suggests. The ecumenical approach would be to abandon OEC in favor of a statement of honest uncertainty. "The experts believe A, but my interpretation of the Bible is B, and I just can't say for sure." Same goes for the proponent of "Intelligent Design" creationism (ID, or IDC). They are familiar enough with the science that they have to acknowledge the likelihood (or at least possibility) of an old universe, and they have to acknowledge the same for the broad strokes of biological evolution. Yet they insist that the origin of cellular mechanisms, as yet glimpsed only dimly by science, must be the product of God's direct tinkering with cell chemistry. It's the same disease - "I don't know, but I'm working on it" is too unambitious when "scripture, according to my interpration, knew it all the time," is available.

A side note: many YEC's and OEC's adopt the ID moniker, with hopes of catching a ride on that particular bandwagon into the science classrooms of public schools. Not everyone who wears the ID badge is well aware of the science of evolutionary biology, geology, or cosmology. For the record, I'm not prepared, in this post, to defend the notion that "alternative theories" should be excludeded from the science curriculum. I am, however, committed to this view, and I believe and hope that my fellow ecumenicalists who are willing to renounce creationism in favor of the Creation doctrine will also be inclined toward this view, at least upon reflection.

I don't ask lay creationists to give up their theological views about creation, or change their interpretation of scripture to fit with what science has revealed. I ask only that they refuse to put up a "wall of certainty" that insists their view must be superior to the views of the scientific consensus.

At this point, I and my ecumenical friends may have numerous areas of disagreement left about origins... as questions about the origins of such things as sin, sickness, scripture, and of religion itself are still very much up in the air. But, perhaps we've taken that crucial first step, and perhaps we can move forward from there. What do you think?