\n<\/p>\n
A recent article in the NYT talks about the collision\u00a0between \u201cbeliefs and facts.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0It struck a chord.<\/p>\n The author, Brendan Nyhan, argues that simply \u201cknowing\u201d scientific data, for example on evolution or climate change, isn\u2019t as important as one\u2019s\u00a0beliefs and group identity\u2013be it political or religious.<\/p>\n The\u00a0force that determines\u00a0where people\u00a0eventually wind up is their\u00a0ideology and the group to which they\u00a0belong, which give them\u00a0a coherent life-narrative.<\/p>\n Here is the key point of\u00a0the article.<\/p>\n In a new study, a Yale Law School professor, Dan Kahan,\u00a0finds<\/a>\u00a0that the divide over belief in evolution between more and less religious people iswider\u00a0among people who otherwise show familiarity with math and science, which suggests that the problem isn\u2019t a lack of information<\/strong>. When he instead tested whether respondents knew the theory of evolution, omitting mention of belief, there was virtually no difference between more and less religious people with high scientific familiarity. In other words, religious people knew the science; they just weren\u2019t willing to say that they believed in it<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n Mr. Kahan\u2019s study suggests that more people know what scientists think about high-profile scientific controversies than polls suggest; they just aren\u2019t willing to endorse the consensus when it contradicts their political or religious views.<\/strong> This finding helps us understand why my colleagues and I have found that factual and scientific evidence is often ineffective at reducing misperceptions and can even backfire on issues like\u00a0weapons of mass destruction,<\/a>\u00a0health care reform<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0vaccines<\/a>. With science as with politics, identity often trumps the facts.<\/em><\/p>\n Applying this to the question of Christianity and evolution, it\u2019s not enough to \u201cshow people the facts\u201d of the fossil record or genetics, even if in doing so some\u00a0change of\u00a0thinking results.<\/p>\n If anyone\u00a0wants to re-educate evangelicalism about evolution, they\u00a0need to do more than \u201cre-educate\u201d evangelicals\u2013it takes more than slides and YouTube videos explaining the compelling evidence.<\/p>\n Education doesn\u2019t correct bad thinking if one\u2019s narrative relies on that bad thinking.<\/strong> One also has to offer an alternate<\/em>\u00a0coherent and attractive\u00a0structure whereby people\u00a0can handle<\/em> these new\u00a0ways of thinking without feeling as if their entire faith and life hang in the balance.<\/p>\n I wrote Inspiration and Incarnation<\/a>,\u00a0The Evolution of Adam<\/a>, <\/em>and The Bible Tells Me So<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>with this process\u00a0in mind. The \u201caha\u201d moments series<\/a> I am currently running lays out examples of others (and more to come) who have come to accept, for various reasons, an alternate \u201cstructure\u201d for their theological narratives\u2013specifically, how they read the Bible.<\/p>\n If you\u2019ll allow me to get on my soap box, this entire evangelical dilemma\u00a0comes down to: \u201cWhat is the Bible and what do I do with it?\u201d<\/p>\n Learning to read the Bible differently\u2013in a manner that is consistent with reason, tradition, and experience (yes, that is the Episcopalian \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d and 3\/4 of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral<\/a>)\u2013is the key issue for evangelicalism in order to\u00a0relax a bit about evolution and think through it rather than reacting and vilifying others.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, holding fast to familiar\u00a0ways of reading the Bible\u00a0is the core pillar of the evangelical narrative structure. And there you have the problem facing evangelicalism in a nutshell.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a hard thing to let go of. But for those who are ready to, alternate narrative structures abound and many have found a good home elsewhere and haven\u2019t lost their faith in the process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n