The divide in society between the religious and the secular is one that is often being tested, redefined and at times eliminated. However, it is always there.
Often, the lines drawn between the two camps change depending on the subject matter. It is difficult to make any sort of generalizations regarding the divide between the “believers” and the “non believers,” as such a divide is entirely dependent on the issue-yet such generalizations are often made.
Many are aware of the conflicts and debates surrounding the issue of evolution or Darwinism. Opponents feel that the practice of teaching the Theory of Evolution in the classroom is threatening and unfair to those with religious beliefs that teach otherwise. Typically, opponents feel that by teaching Darwinism in public schools, such an ideology is institutionalized and “un-teaches” their respective children. Those in support of teaching Darwinism cite the fact that it is a well-established scientific theory. In no way do schools or professors force students to accept the theory by teaching them about the scientific facts of the world. In light of the extreme subjectivity that surrounds the debates between the religiously inclined and those otherwise situated, it is important that we all take a step back and ask whether the chasm between the two camps is really so large. The description of the Darwinism debate as a disagreement between the creationists and evolutionists carries with it unnecessary baggage. Both terms have come to imply that there is no room for agreement between the two camps, and as such one is either for the one and against the other, and vice versa. This depiction is a hasty generalization and should be rejected. There is no need to believe that religious philosophies and the Theory of Evolution are mutually exclusive concepts. Is it not possible that such theories may find agreement in the future? The problem with making such generalizations is two fold. First, it limits the scope of the discussion. This prevents intellectual progress and understanding. The second problem is that it illegitimately puts people into a belief system. By pushing such stereotypes, unnecessary divides are reinforced.
It appears that there is more room for agreement and healthy discussion than often characterized. It is important that with all issues, participants approach with open, critical minds, not unfounded and polarizing stereotypes.
