No observer of the North American scene could be unaware of the recent folly in Kansas. Once again, religious faith and scientific observations have collided in the political arena. Just this past year, less than six months from the end of the 20th century, the Kansas Board of Education in its infinite wisdom decreed that evolution is indeed only a theory and not established fact. Hence, evolution may be taught but only as a theory and a possibility. When taught, it must share, at most, equal billing with the alternative biblical model of creationism. The Kansas ruling says that since there is no way to go back in time and collect unquestionable and complete evidence, any idea of how life began or evolved can be no better than speculation.

To the literal believer of the Old Testament, the first chapter - Genesis - provides a clearer and more believable vision of the beginning of life than any theoretical evolutionary model, no matter how well documented. By this biblically derived logic, only what is directly seen is credible. The Kansas ruling means that the "big bang" model of creation would have to be rejected. Logically, it would also junk much of modern science, including the model of the solar system and the atomic theory of matter. Such attitudes are nothing new and take one back to the days of the Scopes monkey trial. Keep in mind that textbooks in Alabama carry a warning about the theory of evolution. I should add here that not every Christian denomination takes the Old Testament literally, but the few that do are zealous; they brook no disagreement. Their minds are no longer open to alternative facts or theories.

From the times antedating Galileo, and even Aristotle, Western thought has often posited a conflict between science and religion. (Galileo was only the most notable figure with a well-documented case; by no means was he is the only one.) When I look at Sikhism, I find no such conflict. If religion revels in the magic and mystery of existence, science serves to define order in our reality. To me, therefore, the two are complementary disciplines, not at all at odds with each other. But more of this later.

In the Western, primarily Judeo-Christian, view I find two areas that generate the most controversy between scientific observations and religious beliefs. One pertains to the nature of the universe and the beginning of life; the second area deals with complex ethical issues that stem from the applications of modern biological and technological advances. The first has to to do with our often very myopic, anthropomorphic sense of God and creation and, therefore, our place in this universe. It is difficult to comprehend and accept our infinitesimally small existence and role on a fragile planet in an immensely infinite universe. The second zone of disharmony has to do with our humanity and what defines us as humans - in other words, our sense of self. These concepts are intricately intertwined with our understanding of justice, ethics and morality; they often stem from religion but suffer in their application in an imperfect world. These two dominions are demarcated reasonably clearly. I will try to deal with them in two separate but interrelated and interdependent essays, and explore what Sikh tradition has to say about each.

The perceived conflict between science and religion is not new, nor is it surprising. Theology often regards man as central to God's creation, primarily because it also defines God in anthropomorphic terms. Our conceptualizations of God are not all that much different from our views of man - as he is or as we think he ought to be. God, we often think, is like man, only older, wiser and often kinder (though not always), at times even capricious and certainly mysterious.

Such an exaggerated view of man's place in the scheme of things is bound to be at odds with what science tells him. It cannot be very flattering to admit that there is perhaps 98 percent congruity between the human genome and that of a chimpanzee. If evolution is to be regarded seriously, it follows that the human, as presently constituted, is not an ever fixed mark. Evolution will continue to change man substantially, if ever so slowly and quietly.

Current scientific knowledge holds that evolution is not a theory but a fact; however, its mechanism is debated and remains a subject of continuing research. Even the Pope in his most recent pronouncements, and thus the Roman Catholic Church, accepts most facets of evolution and evolutionary evidence. On the other hand, whatever one may think of evolution, one fact is undeniable. Creationism has a big hold in the United States, particularly in the Bible Belt. Why? Why is it even considered a reasonable alternative to evolution by otherwise very intelligent, sane people? The reasons, I think, are rooted in both religion and history.

The religions of the Old Testament - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - start with Genesis. Much of that writing is allegorical and should be so interpreted. (My comments here apply equally to scriptural writings of Sikhism and Hinduism.) Unfortunately, too many believers tend to translate and understand only literally what needs to be received metaphorically.

For example, to perceive the parable of the creation of Eve from Adam's rib as a lesson that Eve cleaves to Adam's side and forms his symbolic half would be beautiful. To look at her as literally fashioned out of some part of his rib would lead to difficulties in logic, anatomy and common sense. My interpretation here really makes no statement about a belief in the possibility of miracles or their need. It merely states that a rational explanation of the metaphors in Genesis does not rob the Adam-Eve relationship of its magic, mystery or beauty. Clearly, too literal a reading of Genesis would induce us to disregard all paleontological evidence and interpret all fossils as the remnants of the Great Flood and Noah's Ark.

For humans to look at themselves as the crown of creation and God's finest handiwork is not unexpected. Of course, it would not necessarily be true, as Bertrand Russell suggests, from the point of view of a cockroach. A human-centered perspective is not necessarily all bad, however. It can allow humans to explore, in ethical and analytic terms, human behavior (and obligations) in the world around us.

Sikhism, too, regards human birth as special, indeed, unique. It exhorts man to recognize the divine spirit within him; the purpose is to awaken one's moral sense. If Sikhism places the human animal in the center of existence, clearly it is not so that the human will think that the world belongs to him but rather to awaken his moral sense. It is not to treat the other species as inferior.

If Sikhism, along with other major Eastern religions, articulates the system and cycle of birth and rebirth, the purpose is to link all of creation, as we know it, into an integral whole. It is to prevent the disconnection that occurs when we become too self-absorbed. When Sikh scriptures say, "Kyee janam bhaye keet patanga," literally they are asking man to think how his soul was cycled in the many phases of God's creation, including birds or insects. It is absolutely not meant to provide the bases for religious edicts for or against the killing of cockroaches, the eating of meat, or searching for one's ancestors in the animal kingdom. It is meant to engender respect for all life. Moreover, I might add that the concept is entirely consistent with the theory of evolution. When Sikhism repeatedly speaks of 8,400,000 species that make up the living world, the number, in my view, is not meant as an exact count. We need not be flattered or demeaned if the number comes close to or departs significantly from what science currently propounds. It is a number from Hindu mythology that is used to express the expansiveness and the variety in God's creation.

When we look at the creation of the physical universe as we understand it, once again, conflicts surface primarily because of a literal reading of the Judeo-Christian scripture, where some understanding and sensitivity would be more meaningful. It would be quite futile to look for the exact order and sequence in which parts of God's creation appear in Genesis and seek consistency with what science tells us. Certainly, it would have to be a very "human" god (a lowercase god!) to need or seek rest. One has to look at these writings in the context of the times when they were written. The seven days of creation are best interpreted and understood as a beautiful metaphor for the cycle of activity in creation.

Nevertheless these are important issues, though not many Sikh scholars have yet examined their tradition from this perspective; some notable exceptions are D.S. Chahal of Montreal and Professor H.S. Virk of Guru Nanak Dev University in India. However, I fail to see any conflict whatsoever between the teachings of Sikhism and what modern science tells us.

When Guru Nanak asserts that no one knows the date, day and time when the universe came into being or when it will end and under what circumstances, his words are in complete agreement with the pronouncements of modern science. Guru Nanak speaks of the void that preceded the creation of the universe. When he speaks of multitudes of universes, planets and stars - unfathomable, innumerable - he is most modern and au courant. Guru Nanak rejects the idea of a bull supporting the weight of the earth on his horns as enunciated by Hinduism and Hindu mythology, much as Greek mythology suggests that the giant Atlas carries the earth. (I wonder if we get an earthquake every time the bull or Atlas shrugs his shoulders.) Every modern astronomer and physicist would agree with Guru Nanak and every Sikh can recite the lines, for they are enshrined in the Sikh morning prayers.

Don't forget that Nanak spoke over 500 years ago. This was at the time when the church condemned and hounded Galileo for not toeing the line of its teaching. Galileo insisted that earth was not the center of the universe but traveled around the sun powerlessly. His punishment and recantation were enforced by the religious authorities of the day. In an interesting footnote to history, it should be pointed out that the Roman Catholic Church finally forgave Galileo about 20 years ago, almost 500 years after his purportedly heretical theories.

Men and women of every religion have always recognized that the ultimate reality is such that our senses cannot perceive and our intellect cannot fathom, but our souls can commune with it. It is such a giant step in our awareness when we realize that the more we know the more there is to know.

If theologians resist the march of science, perhaps it is because the esoteric theories of science are difficult to comprehend and are subject to revision. Scientists make no claims to infallibility or theories that are written in stone, never to be rejected or modified and expanded. How, then, can man make sense of science without losing his slippery hold on the universe and his place in it? These matters never seem to enter the scientists' calculations. Their only obsession is with establishment of "objective" evidence. I highlight "objective" because even half-decent scientists know that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. We deal with different levels of subjectivity, even in the most rigorous observation and experiment. Scientists often feel that establishment of facts or evidence is their only business and they need not concern themselves with their interpretation or application. In this process, science invariably comes into conflict with religious interpreters of the meaning and significance of scientific observations who act from an incomplete understanding of the scientific facts and evidence.

If religion revels in the magic and mystery of existence, science to me is the other side of the coin that defines order in reality and in nature. However, instead of probing each other's limitations as mutually complementary disciplines that explore the nature of knowledge and how we acquire it, science and religion become adversaries. Their shamans (priests and scientists) fight over turf in battles that destroy what they aim to love and understand - the human being and his humanity.

When religious interpreters fail to explain science and to include it in the reality of human existence, science becomes threatening. Scientific evidence and scientific facts clearly change with new facts and new evidence. Religious revelations, on the other hand, are made at a point in time and space, yet they are made for all time; it is their timelessness that gives them their worth. Scientific findings are hypotheses, tentatively held, not for all time, to be renewed or buried with new observations. What is meant for all eternity is not written to be applied for all time in the interpretation of what science reveals to us at a given point in time. Conflict becomes inevitable when we interpret literally what needs to be understood perhaps metaphorically.

There is undoubtedly many a mote in the scientist's eye when he fails to see the implications of his research, but there are also mighty beams in the eyes of the religious experts who try to micromanage scientific progress.

I wrote this essay a year ago. Now, with George W. Bush in the Oval Office and the religious right flexing its muscle, I think we need to revisit the juxtaposition of science and religion. We need to critically reexamine and reexplore some of the pseudoconflicts between faith and reason. I must confess that in exploring Sikhism I fail to discern any meaningful conflict between science and religion.

Reference:

I.J. Singh 2001 Science and Religion: Creation, Creationism and Related Issues. From: THE SIKH WAY: A Pilgrim's Progress, The Centennial Foundation, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Pages 11- 17.