We all have our stories of how we got here and who we are in the universe. Most stories told by every culture point out the unique origins of that culture, like as not, springing directly from that particular cave or mountain in distant and mysterious times in the past. When the National Geographic Genographic research team gently informed aboriginal Australians of their African origins, according to the DNA evidence, the Elders reacted with a simple "no, we originated here and maybe they came from us." Comforting and upholding of ancient aboriginal beliefs, but not scientifically true. You could feel the tension this new information brought into the cultural beliefs that for so long had encouraged and sustained them. I doubt they will change their understanding of themselves with this bit of scientific information. A similar reaction occurred when the team informed the Navajo in the Americas of their DNA origins linking them to a still existant people in Siberia. The immediate reaction was understandably defensive for Navajo origin stories which had them always living in the Four Corners area of the now United States. In time, I believe they agreed that there was room for both the science and the tradition and, in this case, both maintained their truths on tribal origins. But the science was more literally correct. The uneasiness was palpable. And now the Indigenous People's Council on Biocolonialism, the IPCB is raising even more concerns about the effect this knowledge will have on belief systems of indigenous peoples. For better or worse, "Indigenous peoples have consistently voiced their opposition to this type of research because it breaches cultural values, bioethical standards and human rights law. The IPCB believes the project is being undertaken at the expense of indigenous peoples. Debra Harry, the organizations executive director, writes on their website, It is quite likely this project will advance new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowledge of ourselves. There can be no claim as to which understanding is correct, and will result in a clash of knowledge systems. Moreover, there could be serious political implications that result from a so-called scientific assertion that indigenous peoples are not indigenous to their territories, but instead are recent migrants from some other place. This cuts at the heart of the rights of indigenous peoples, which are based upon our collective, inherent right of self-determination as peoples, under international human rights law. A standard ethical requirement in human research is that the benefits must equal the risk. The IPCB believes that in this type of research, there will be no benefit to indigenous peoples, yet the research creates substantial risk for the individuals and peoples affected." It is this advancement of "new theories of our origins that may contradict our own knowlege of ourselves," that seems to be so difficult for humans to handle. Truth is still true though denied by all. In such defensiveness science always get's called "science so called" and even does in the Bible as "Science, falsely so called" (I Tim. 6:20). This phrase is always used when the science is really not false, but it is threatening to sincerely held beliefs. I don't like someone knocking the nose off my idols any more than the next guy, but that's progress, painful and ever moving forward. The Bible makes fun of learning at times in this nervousness over knowledge when it mocks those who are "ever learning, but never able to come the knowledge of the truth" (II Tim. 3:7), to which I say, at least they keep trying and even Jesus is reported to have said, "seek and ye shall find." Of course he meant spiritually but it's good advice in all endeavors too. We all have our origin stories that, in time, will probably prove to not be true, at lest not literally. We live in an age where even most Christians realize that the origin stories of mankind in the Garden of Eden, through a first set of parents, Adam and Eve, are not literally true. The problem with believing that is that much of the doctrine in the New Testament requires the story of the first Adam and Eve to be literally true as they lead to such literally true doctrines as the role of women in the church, why women have babies painfully, Jesus being the "Second Adam" and the Doctrine of Original Sin. All of these beliefs and teachings are destroyed by the Genesis story not being literally true. If there was no real Eve, or Adam whose fault this wasn't ;) who really caused all of mankind to fall into original sin, for which we all must repent etc, then there is no need of repenting of that which never happened or of needing a Savior in the way portrayed in the New Testament. Stories and ideas have implications to say the least. Many Christians think it is ok NOT to believe in things being literally true. But that has incredible implications for other things they think they believe but dont' realize the connection and contradictions their position causes theologically. Plainly, if there was no literal Genesis like creation of mankind and fall into sin, and it is shown to not be true by good science, the implications are staggering in how we will have to change our views. Frankly most won't but will, as always, attack the messenger and burn the message, or just burn both. Actually, a simple cheek swab was all it took for me to find out my own amazing DNA trip out of Africa 70,000 years ago. Perhaps this is done for some reason somewhere, but for the Genome project, this fear is very unfounded. Our genetic history is easily taken from the inside of our mouths. Every cell contains the whole. Simply speaking, it appears that ALL modern humans originated in and then spread out from Africa within the last 100,000 years or less. What a great story to read at Clan meetings! All the "differences" we see in humans are adaptations we made along the way in our trek from there to Europe, Asia and the Americas. Good science gives us good explanations, always subject to new information about this process. Indeed, we do need to insure the privacy of the individual if they wish it and we need to be sensitive to the process that others go through when they are faced with the implications of such information and research. It takes time to accept change and as stated, many won't, but rather will just become angry and defensive. We see this all the time in the attacks Christian literalists launch into from their pulpits when new knowledge threatens old ideas. It's funny, in my previous church affiliation there was a belief that always annoyed me scientifically. It was the belief, now long discredited, that the Lost Tribes of Israel turned up as the powerful nations of Europe, The British Empire and of course, America. I was Dutch, so that clearly put me in the Tribe of Zebulun, according to the theory. I never gave a sermon on this topic! However, my DNA shows I made no such trip through the middle east to become an Israelite and go on into Europe. Rather it shows a long trip through Iran, Iraq the various "Beckastans" on out onto the steppes of Asia and then one big swing into Europe as Cro-Magnon and then into France, Holland and England in much more recent times. That British-Israelism idea is bunk and DNA testing will show it to be so. That particular idea is racist if ever there was one. So good science is not "science, falsely so called" or "so called science." Yes, it has implications for theologians and Christians but believing something is true never makes it really true and we need to always have a love of discovery. Sorry to say, it is usually the reactions to new information by those most threatened by it that plunges our world into chaos. |
