Primates in an Incidental Universe

Greg Linster asked for my thoughts on his (very compelling) post called Why It’s Morally Wrong to Let a Student Believe in Creationism. I’m posting them here, too.

***

First, the standard clarifications for whenever we talk about Evolution vs. Creationism: Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. And we certainly don’t know enough to call “primordial soup” a fact, but we *do* have enough evidence to say that humans were not put on Earth as is, with only minor changes over time, like skin color, body hair, height, and fatties. It’s quite clear from studying DNA and even just looking at your freaking body that you come from something much more ancient and seemingly weird.

It’s seemingly weird because the default is to exit the womb as a Creationist. That’s a much more intuitive (and comfortable) argument to the human brain than is the one Evolution advances.

Moreover, Evolution is not just a take-it-or-leave-it sort of deal. It’s pretty pivotal if you hope to understand anything about the history of the Earth, and even to be able to explain pretty fundamental behaviors. You might be able to do some abstract math or philosophy without the Theory of Evolution, but for the most part you will be intellectually lame – and I mean that in all sincerity – without it.

So I would be absolutely comfortable saying that failing to teach Evolution is a serious moral failure given the evidence we have. But watch as I sort of change my mind down below.

That’s not your point. Your point is that the moral failure is in allowing erroneous beliefs to go unchallenged.

From a logical POV, I think you make a good (and controversial and compelling) point.

In general I avoid abstract topics about how to “fix” education or anything of the sort because I don’t like spending neurons on stuff I have no control over – and I don’t envision myself modifying any curricula or even teaching any tots in the near future. But the question you raise is one that we are likely going to have to confront as regular, non-professorial humans, because if you have kids, for example, you’re going to have to decide when and to what extent you start challenging the pretty silly self-centric and intention-ful beliefs that they exit the womb with.

It seems pretty common to teach your kids from the start that they are not, as they suspect, at the center of the Universe. Other kids have feelings, too, and are just as important (i.e., small and insignificant) as you are, so share your toys, dickface.

Parents generally seem less comfortable challenging their kids’ beliefs about a friendly God who created a Universe full of intention. Maybe that’s because they want to, or do, believe it themselves.

We never really shake the belief that we’re at the center of the Universe, do we? It’s a constant battle of the frontal lobe to get your ego away from the control panel. I’m still pretty sure, deep down, that I am the protagonist in the world’s story. I suspect that’s kind of how it is for perceiving the world as full of intention. I can intellectually acknowledge that my ancestor is a fish and that I live in an incidental universe – and believe me, I intellectually acknowledge it all the damn time – but it’s a constant battle to try to absorb that as an honest-to-God (pun sort of intended) fact. I’m still pretty sure, deep down, that there is a divine bearded man who wants me to ultimately be warm and safe and happy (after some inconvenient detours in plot, of course).

I guess my challenge to you, Greg, is this: What’s really the value in challenging beliefs that are very probably erroneous? Assuming that, miraculously, your challenge is not met by the resistance of the rather stubborn human brain, which categorically does not like to be told what to believe (and especially what not to believe), then what really have you accomplished? Seeing ourselves as protagonists in a Universe full of intention is an intellectual battle that we all face (or don’t). Point being that this is not the kind of knowledge that we inject into heads by discipline pump: It seems to me a very personal battle and one that doesn’t end.

Maybe more importantly, I think we need to ask why those beliefs are there in the first place. (Evolutionary question, right?) The beliefs seem pretty steadfast, so there probably is (or at very least was) a good reason for them. Maybe the “good” reason is that our nucleic acids have a job to do – namely, survive – and they need their host to be psychologically stable and comfortable enough to get on with life and go find a serviceable vagina.

It comes down, as it usually does, to the question of What Do We Care About? Is it Truth? Is it Progress? Or is it Vagina?

I say that in half-jest, but to be perfectly sincere, I’m not sure that this is an intellectual battle worth fighting, because I’m not sure that Truth or Progress are goals that I care about in anything other than an armchair way.