Accurate Understanding & Respectful Attitudes
in Our Search for Truth about Origins Questions,
about Evolution, Intelligent Design, and Creation
Accurate Understanding & Respectful
Attitudes
Monday and Tuesday: In
high school we learned valuable lessons about understanding
and respect from my favorite teacher. During a Monday debate,
he convinced us that “his side of the issue” was
correct, but on Tuesday he made the other side look just as
good. We
soon learned that — if we wanted to get an accurate
understanding — we
should not be satisfied with the representation of a position
that has been constructed by its opponents. Instead
we should get the best information and arguments that all sides
of an issue
can claim as support. When we did this and we understood
more accurately, we usually recognized that even when we have
valid reasons to prefer one position, people on other
sides of an
issue may also have good reasons (both intellectual and ethical) for believing as they do,
so we learned respectful attitudes.
But respect does not
require agreement. You can respect someone and their views,
yet criticize their views, which you have evaluated based on evidence,
logic, and values. The intention of our teacher, and the
conclusion of his students, was not a postmodern relativism. The
classroom goal was a rational exploration and evaluation of
ideas in a search for truth, and for practical principles that (combined with good values) lead to strategies, policies, and decisions that are wise and effective.
 |
A "Multiple
Views" Website
As in my teacher's classroom, the goal of this educational website is a search
for truth. Therefore,
you won't find one-sided “Monday without Tuesday” indoctrination. Instead,
you'll get accurate information about a wide range of perspectives.
The
overall result may not be perceived by everyone as being NEUTRAL,
due to perception (because some people want a website to
be biased in favor of their own views, and they consider a website
to be “neutral” only
if it's biased in the way they want) and reality (because it is
impossible to say anything substantial, which also is one of our goals, in a way that is totally
neutral). But
we will try to be FAIR by letting representatives of each perspective
clearly express their own views and criticize other views, and
by treating their views with respect.
Exploring this area will
be an exciting adventure for you, because the awesome creation of God
is wonderful & exciting, and because there is “intellectual
drama” in the conflict of ideas. We won't always agree,
and this will make it interesting for you. But we can make the
process of agreeing (about many things) and disagreeing (about a few
things) more enjoyable and productive. Consistent with our Christian
beliefs, we want to encourage a more consistent use of productive communication — in an effort
to improve understanding and mutual respect — as an essential part of
our individual and collective searches for truth, in what we write and say, during all of our personal interactions.
But productive communication, with understanding and respect, is often hindered by an overconfidence that occurs with all views, in the thinking of many people. Why are so many so confident? Because most of us want our own ideas to be logically consistent, so we adjust our theories (about religion, science, and other aspects of life) until we become satisfied
with the quality and consistency of our own ideas. Thus, vigorous
advocates for every view of origins confidently persuade themselves that they have The
Answer. This overconfidence is described by Del Ratzsch: "Each
side can see the case as so utterly closed that the very existence of
opponents generates near bafflement."
One outcome of skillful evaluative thinking (often called critical thinking) is an appropriate humility — not too little, and not too much. Each of our personal theories about origins (and other aspects of science, religion, and life) has a level of logically justifiable confidence. The result of failing to recognize in our thinking (and acknowledge in our discussions) a rational level of appropriate humility, and thus appropriate confidence, is described by Bertrand Russell: "Error is not only the absolute error of believing what is false, but also the quantitative error of believing more or less strongly than is warranted by the degree of credibility properly attaching to the proposition believed, in relation to the believer’s knowledge."
A page about Quick Education explains our educational philosophy and strategy:
This website will
help you learn quickly, on two levels: introduction and exploration.
INTRODUCTION: First,
we'll quickly provide a coherent overview of important ideas, to help
you understand the ideas and their relationships.
EXPLORATION: And
to help you explore more deeply, we'll provide links to pages that
examine the ideas and relationships in more depth.
In both phases we'll adopt
a “multiple views” approach by explaining the views of people with different
perspectives, so you can be well informed while you develop your own
perspectives. ...<snip>...
We have searched the web
and have selected pages — for introduction and exploration — that
will help you learn quickly and well, because you'll be reading only
high-quality pages. Our careful selectivity also makes it easier to use the website
because you won't be overwhelmed with too many choices, so you can
more easily decide what to do first and what to do next.
But our selectivity is
not censorship, and — for controversial issues, where views differ
among Christians — in our website the range of views will be
wide. In this “multiple perspectives” website, our goal is to give
you accurate information about a wide range of views. We
will try to be fair by providing an opportunity for representatives
of each perspective to clearly express their own views and criticize
other views, and by treating their views with respect. Since
a wide range of views will be cited, our disclaimer is important: "citing
a page does not imply an endorsement by the ASA."
A multiple-perspectives
approach is consistent with the policy of American Scientific
Affiliation: "As an organization, the
ASA does not take a position when there is honest disagreement
between Christians on an issue. We are committed to providing
an open forum where controversies can be discussed without fear
of unjust condemnation. Legitimate differences of opinion
among Christians who have studied both the Bible and science
are freely expressed within the Affiliation in a context of Christian
love and concern for truth." { What are The Creationist Views of ASA? }
As explained in the homepage for this part of the website,
we don't claim to give you The Origins
Answer, but
we will
help you explore Origins Questions.
Why
don't we all agree?
Even when scientists have
the same evidence, sometimes they won't all reach the same conclusion. Does
this show that “it's all opinion and prejudice” so you can
ignore what they say? Some Christians assert that in historical
science — in science that studies the history of nature — the evidence is always inadequate, so the conclusions of scientists
must be determined by their nonscientific beliefs. Most scholars,
including myself and most other members of ASA, think these “radical
relativist” assertions are exaggerated, because science (including historical science) is built on a solid foundation — the logical evaluation of observable evidence — that provides a reliable way to
learn about the fascinating world created by God. We
encourage you to explore the evidence and the claims made for various
conclusions, and decide for yourself the extent to which different
claims are scientifically supported.
What should we do when
we disagree?
Respectful, sincere
truth-seekers from all viewpoints can agree with The ARN
Approach* for seeking truth by using a critical evaluation of ideas, while being open-minded, humble, and kind.
This page describes some basic
principles about understanding
and respect in our search for truth. But the real
challenge is to actually DO IT in this emotionally charged
area that is
filled with intense controversy because people have strong
views about important ideas.
* We hope you will agree with this respectful approach, whether or not you agree with the "intelligent design" conclusions of ARN, which is another organization of Christians. {This website is provided by the American Scientific Affiliation – a community of Christians that includes scientists (and scholars who study science, and engineers) who hold a wide range of views about origins questions.}