In the constantly raging debate about the origin of life — an especially fierce debate in Louisiana ever since Governor Jindal signed the Louisiana Science Education Act, which some critics believe opens the door for creationism to be taught in schools — those that argue for both sides tend to lose civility.One of the primary reasons the debate is so impassioned is because it is largely framed in the wrong terms. Any student who has taken an Intro to Philosophy course at the University is aware of the logical fallacy of “false dichotomy.” This fallacy arises when an argument is posed in which only two options are made available, when in fact more exist.In the quest to determine where life comes from, a thinking person is often faced with a false dichotomy. Either they must accept evolution and discard the belief in a creator God, or they must maintain faith in creation and ignore the findings of science. But there are more than just these two options.Although it is true to a certain extent that evolutionary theory casts a shadow of doubt on the notion of a world created in six days, the two are by no means completely incompatible. Just because you are a rational, scientific person does not mean you must immediately disqualify your faith.Just because the beings that inhabit the earth today weren’t created in exactly the forms they present themselves now doesn’t disprove creation by God. It’s just as possible that God is as responsible for the evolutionary process as he would be for a six-day creation. It is entirely possible for someone to believe in God and evolution at the same time. If we, as a nation, could grasp this simple fact, we could avoid a great many of the problems that have resulted from the debate.Most importantly, we could pursue the debate with an air of civility we currently lack.As it is now, too many who claim to be “defending reason” look scornfully upon people of faith as ignorant, while some religious people see evolution as an atheistic assault on their beliefs.There are actually some among the ranks of the religious that do, in fact, challenge the very facts of science.  Some creationists go as far as blaming evidence for evolution found in the fossil record — and the perceived assault on their faith that has resulted — on supernatural tests proctored by either God or Satan.And, on the opposing side, there are militant atheists who view evolution as the final nail in the coffin of God.Although both sides are, of course, entitled to these opinions, they each lie at the far ends of the ideological spectrum.  There are a great many rational people who live in a happy intellectual medium.As Einstein famously said, “Science without faith is lame, religion without science is blind.”How could Einstein, an unparalleled scientific genius and a man of no religion, believe such a thing?How could Charles Darwin himself marry and live with a devout Christian for his entire life? Darwin’s wife, Emma, “believed firmly in a heaven and a hell. And she believed you had to accept God to go to heaven. She married Charles Darwin,” according to a January article in the LA Times.The Darwins had a marriage of openness.  When he returned from his famous five-year voyage, in which he formulated the ideas that would rock the scientific and religious world, he spoke frankly with his then-fiancée. And, in an extraordinary act of openness, she married him anyway.The two would remain married until Charles’ death.  Emma would speak honestly with her husband on her fears that they would be separated in eternity, and Charles agonized over it as much as she did.  She would proofread and edit his drafts of “Origin of the Species,” helping to strengthen the argument against some of her deeply held beliefs.They would both die with their beliefs, but those beliefs had been irrevocably changed. Charles’ logic and science was tempered in the mystery of Emma’s faith.We, as a nation, can learn much from the Darwin’s marriage. Perhaps there is a way to reconcile evolution and God.  But the only environment in which this can occur is one of openness, where we do not dismiss each other as heretics or fools.Maybe if we learn to discuss the origin of life in an environment of mutual respect instead of haughtiness or distrust, we’ll discover that God vs. Science is — and always was — a false dichotomy.Matthew Albright is a 20-year-old mass communication student from Baton Rouge.
 
 
 
—–Contact Matthew Albright at [email protected]