Background: As part of the Education and Global Social Justice Project, in May 2011, undergraduate student Conor Finnegan interviewed Merrill van der Walt, paleontologist and developer of the Believing in Creation and Evolution program at the Origins Center, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. In this interview, van der Walt discusses the Believing in Creation and Evolution program's importance, the challenges it faces, and its reception by participants.
Can you tell me about your journey to your present position, and how you were inspired to do the work that you do?
I came from a very orthodox Catholic family—mass every Sunday, catechism for 12 years. I was a practicing Catholic in every sense of the word, particularly in high school and at the beginning of university. I did a BSC, an undergraduate science degree, did my honors in genetics and statistics. I did my masters in evolution, where we looked at explaining the mechanism behind change, looking at the plasticity of the DNA strand. And I did my Ph.D. a lot later in paleontology, and we created a cyber or digital museum of all the fossils found in South Africa. There are 30,000, so what that does is recreate the ancient world 200 million years ago, looking at trains of development, so again it was evolution.
Then I left pure academia and came to the Origins Centre, and the Origins Centre is a fantastic museum. It’s a one of its kind in Africa, and the idea behind it is to restore dignity and a sense of value back to Africa because Europe in particular gets kudos for everything. So if there’s cave art found, for example, immediately, “Oh, that’s where art began.” Meanwhile, art in South Africa is double the age of anything in Europe, so Africa is the birthplace of art: it’s the emergence of culture, it’s the start of language, and it’s the birthplace of mankind. And the Origins Centre is on the doorstep of the Cradle of Mankind where we do all of our work.
When I came here, I was put in the position of manager of education, and instead of just having school groups, we also have a lot of sponsorships and a lot of underprivileged children come through all the time. I realized there’s actually more to it because we are dispensing the theory of evolution, looking at it from the development of humankind. But at the end of the day, whether you like it or not, 92 percent of people on the planet believe in some form of deity. The scientists here—a lot of biological scientists—make the mistake of being atheist, by taking a stance that they’re right and everyone else is idiotic, and it closes doors—there’s a refusal to understand the theory as a result. So I thought to myself for me, from a Catholic background and going into science this whole time, I always wondered what the Church’s stance on it was, and you assume because the Church is so conservative in so many aspects—right down to forbidding the use of condoms—you would automatically assume that there is absolutely no way it would embrace any kind of evolutionary theory. So I then approached the Jesuit Institute on my own. What I done long ago was realize you cannot not accept the theory of evolution; there’s too much evidence. But I had never combined the two ways of thinking. One was religion, one was science, and never the two shall meet.
And then I approached the Jesuit Institute and became friendly with Fr. Peter Knox and Fr. Anthony, and I was shocked to discover that the Church doesn’t have the vaguest problem. In fact, it’s never disagreed with the theory, and I thought, “Well, there are a vast number of Catholic school-going children in Hauteng [Province] alone, and never mind that, all their parents that go to mass every Sunday." And so I proposed to the Jesuit Institute that we let schools come here, I say what evolutionary theory is, and the idea was for the priest to say how it links because it’s never been done before. It was a question that I never answered for myself, which I kept separate, and I learned close to the age of 40 that you could link the two, so it’s been better for my faith anyway. So that’s the idea behind it, and then this year to make it even easier, we decided to go to the schools. And we host a week in May and a week in October.
How do you think your religion motivates or influences, perhaps detracts from, or just otherwise affects your work?
Like I said to you, when I was growing up and especially as an undergraduate, I really never questioned the authority of the Church. I went to church and I was very devote and tried to be as devote as I could, etc. etc. After my undergraduate years, I used to teach a lot. And I taught at very, very, very poor schools, in low socioeconomic areas in the deep south of Johannesburg, which were the original mining towns. So you’re looking at huge alcoholism, early teenage pregnancies, smoking, drinking, drug abuse, “gangsterism” among the kids. It’s a very large, what we call, colored community, and I started teaching there. And that was the first time I realized how religion and the fact that if you go to a certain parish or adhere to certain rules, can limit yourself in the sense that you only stick with people who are following the same ideals as you, so you’re kind of in a bubble. And there were a lot of Catholic-going kids in that school, and I had one or two huge shocks that kind of got me questioning for the first time—and I think it’s very healthy to question, I think you should question, and I think if you don’t, you’re deluding yourself. So what happened was that there were one or two incidents that seriously, seriously shook my foundation with the Church, particularly with one girl who I thought could get assistance from a priest. She did nothing wrong, she was a victim, but he gave her penance, and I was devastated. The second one was also dealing with a young boy…anyway, I just moved further and further away, whether that’s right or wrong. So in answer to your question, religion eventually paid not no role, but less and less of a role. Where it plays a role is that I’m surrounded by scientists all day, I write a lot for scientific journals because I still am a researcher, and around at a conference or a tea table when we’re discussing things, I will 99.9 percent of the time be the only person that still has any kind of spiritual belief. The majority is atheist. So I find that it’s still there very strongly for me, but I no longer blindly adhere to manmade principles. So I don’t know if it’s having studied science that allowed me to question, or whether it’s time and just what happens when you get older, but religion played less and less of a role—orthodox dogma played less and less of a role.
Fr. Anthony told me that in South Africa, 64 percent of the population believes in Biblical literalism. What do you think are the major reasons that drive that belief?
He is quite right with that. I think if you look at the demographics within South Africa and at this current moment you have a one in four unemployment rate. You also at one stage—I don’t know what the current statistics are, but the last time I looked at the census in 2001, you were looking at 40 percent illiteracy in the country. What also happens is regardless of the fact that you now have a democratic society, there are massive, massive segments of the population that still live in shacks, in tin sheds with no electricity, no running water, no sanitation. You’ll find you have it in Africa, and you have the same thing in India: if people’s lives become so dire, they become strongly religious because it offers a promise of something better later on. So you find that especially among the African population in South Africa, they are deeply religious, deeply devote, and they all go to church on Sundays and sing and worship. But I think linked to the level of illiteracy, linked to the level of the low education standard, especially in the rural communities, it’s far simpler to adhere to a literal interpretation. It makes a lot more sense to say that God made one man, and then He took the rib and a woman came and there’s an apple. These are things that people don’t have to grapple with, it’s easy to understand, the message behind it’s easier to understand, and the message that Christ spreads is a simple message. So I think that is the explanation as to why a majority are literalists. But also, you can think of how we have come from the dark ages of apartheid, where people were deeply hurt. There was a terrible sense of a superior race, which was what was propagated within the people for many, many generations. So what happens is that the concept—and it’s a myth, of course, within the evolutionary theory—but the idea that people might have come from an ape is insulting. It is an insulting concept. The idea that you are made in the image of God and that God is good and great is far more a source of comfort. So there is huge antagonism toward accepting any kind of theory that is believed to say that they come from an ape ancestor. But it boils down to levels of ignorance, levels of illiteracy, and levels of education, and your socioeconomic conditions largely dictate your religion.
Would you say then with those factors like race, poverty, and education, that any one group is more likely to have that belief? For example, ANCs versus Catholics versus Protestants, or the poor versus the middle class versus the rich, or Afrikaans versus blacks—and so on?
Yes. I think what happens is, within the Indian community you have a three-way divide because of where the Indian community came from, so there is a large segment of the population that are Muslim, that are very orthodox fundamentalists, so against evolutionary theory. If you look at the idea of creationism within the Qur'an, there are overwhelming similarities with Christianity, so I would say that would be a literal understanding. With Hinduism—a large proportion of Indian populations in South Africa is Hindu, particularly in KwaZulu-Natal—again the idea of any kind of creation theory would be multiple gods and the gods being the source of creation, which is also more of a literal understanding. Black populations in South Africa are, like I said, hugely, hugely religious, so you have Zionists, a huge Methodist influence as well, and a very great base of Catholics—but again, whatever branch of Christianity that is accepted is going to be literal, very literal. So that’s what you’re fighting against the whole time. Among the colored community, again I don’t know for sure, but where I taught, there are large amounts of Catholic kids, who are again literal. So this is the huge obstacle that you’re met with. Again, if you are born in such dire circumstances and you are studying at night by candlelight, does it really matter if you understand evolutionary theory or not? No, it doesn’t, but it certainly matters that you have an unwavering faith because that hope of salvation or hope for a better life will keep you in a far better state.
Another way to ask the question is: 36 percent of the population then doesn’t believe in Biblical literalism and would then perhaps believe in evolution?
No, I completely disagree that it would be that high because when you speak about 64 percent Biblical literalism, then you’re only looking at the Christian branch. You are leaving out any eastern religion that again has a more literal approach. Also, looking at the amount of people that then go on to study at a post-graduate level, I would say you’re looking at a tiny portion in South Africa that have anything but a literal interpretation of any kind of creation.
If so many people do believe in Biblical literalism and creation, is this a social justice issue then? Are people disadvantaged, and is that why they have this belief?
Yes, I do think it’s a social justice issue—not so much social justice, but social wrongs and social hardship. I would go so far as to say this: The level of poverty is more or less directly correlated to the extent of the literal faith, the literal interpretation of faith. There definitely seems to be a very strong correlation between the two, and it’s very easy to explain because like I said, illiteracy would add to it and also the hope of something better. So you get that comfort of reading the Bible—why would you question something that’s giving you comfort? You’re not going to. You’re going to be afraid to question it because you’re going to think that God, who you want to give you comfort, might turn his back on you. People are afraid to question. So yes, it’s definitely related to social imbalance.
So then looking forward, are students who believe in Biblical literalism disadvantaged as they grow up and into the rest of their lives?
That’s why I do what I do. I know what I’m up against—certainly I know that. And I understand the need for it, and I understand that people require hope and comfort—fine. But in saying that, I think if you can truly get the idea, the correct idea of what evolutionary theory is without anyone upset, without any offense, the advantage of it is it broadens your world view. You then are more open to understanding the natural world. By understanding the natural world, it creates a sense of respect, a sense of awe, a sense of wonder, and that translates to a lessening of intolerance, a need to want to learn more. A need to want to learn more—continuous learning throughout your life—can only make you better. My drive for people to understand evolutionary theory is actually to dispel ignorance not just of the theory, but by learning and accepting something that you would never normally accept, it just breaks that wall down a little bit, and you’re open to all kinds of other things that can only benefit you. So that is my reason for doing it.
When did you first identify the need for a program like this?
When I started teaching at a very impoverished school, I was a math teacher, but I’ve always loved science. And you know, you’d have five or ten minutes a day or I’d be substituting for someone and I wanted to feel what they thought. And I found that such literal understanding of things is like looking at the world through a tiny sliver, and I felt saddened by it because you can see just by opening your mind to all kinds of things, you can be in dire poverty but you can see beauty in things that ordinarily you wouldn’t have seen. So as much as the Bible gives comfort, so can a widening of your worldview, and that’s when I realized, hang on, I can start over. I know evolutionary theory—it was my passion—I did my master’s in it and my Ph.D. So I can start with that and just say, “Listen if you’re prepared to listen to this, it can spark a love of learning,” because no matter how dire your situation, whatever you learn in life cannot be taken away from you. Your shack can be taken away from you, but not what you’ve learned, and I think that is the greatest idea behind it. I’m not foolish enough to think—evolutionary theory is a theory; it’s not vital that everyone knows it. But it’s the principle behind it, of accepting it, that can help you as a person.
The pushback is that the work the program does in a way does change someone’s religious beliefs and their beliefs about science, which can be pretty fundamental to a person’s own identity, their own conception of their self. How does that come in? Do you see that as dangerous at all? What’s your goal?
It is very dangerous, that’s why I agree with you. And I must say, I was very aware of what you told me earlier and was very worried and concerned because I think the biggest mistake you can make is trying to undermine someone’s religious belief, trying to lessen it. Why would you want to do that? The idea is not to do that. The idea is to strengthen your faith but allow for an awakening of the awe and beauty around you by incorporating the theory. And that’s why it rests so strongly on your presenter. When I come in, my job is to make evolutionary theory sound easy because it is easy. There’s nothing diabolical about it: it’s a simple law of nature. But the pivotal role is the second talk because the priest’s role is not to undermine, not to lessen, but to show how that whatever faith you have, it can grow and remain steady. And they come away a more enriched person. That’s the idea. It is very dangerous ground. Your objective is not to walk away with those kids feeling less faithful, but enriched. That’s the objective, and if you lose sight of that objective, you must stop the program.
When you are dealing with kids, it is a very delicate process. What sort of tools do you use to get on their level and explain what is a very complex idea?
The fact that I’ve taught for so long helps me a lot, and I think kids are very, very perceptive about what your motive is. I think you’ve got to let it come across sincerely, and it will only come across sincerely if you truly are sincere about it. I have total respect for the fact that they have a religious belief—I’m very, very respectful of that, and I want them to know that. And under no circumstances, no matter how long I speak, will there be anything derogatory coming out of my mouth. That would be the most stupid thing to do. So it would not be derogatory. You make them realize that you are respectful of it, and you very, very clearly explain what your role is. Your role is not to change their way of thinking but for them to open their minds a bit and see, hang on, this is interesting. It doesn’t undermine God, it doesn’t offend anything; it’s just a theory about the natural world, and you’re surrounded by nature, and it changes all the time—hey, not the end of the world. There’s no point trying to dazzle them with different theories—how the anklebone evolved—who cares? Just take it down to its basics: change, how things change, why things change—end of story.
What do you think the program does best in its lectures?
I think the good thing about the program is that it’s novel. It’s taking something that people always grapple with—the RE [religious education] teacher and the science teacher. Religion is there, and the program has finally taken something that’s really obviously polarized and said, “You know what, it really doesn’t have to be so polarized. Listen to what we have to say.” It’s a bit of a brave step because it hadn’t been done before. I think the most important part of the program is for each presenter to know exactly what the objective is, clearly defined: evolution explained really easily, and then the Church’s stance must be explained really easily, but also how it links to what I’m saying. Otherwise they’re left confused. They must be told, “This is what the Church says, this is what Genesis says, this is what Genesis 2 says”—but also how this links to what I’m saying. It must be positive, positive, positive, all the way, so they’re left enriched and not confused.
What do you think are the weaknesses of the program, and what could be improved?
The weakness of the program is that we need to reiterate the importance of the second presentation. It shouldn’t matter which priest is doing it. The points need to be far more salient and also less broad. So don’t bring in cosmology, it doesn’t matter, we’re only speaking about evolution. Speak about Genesis very, very clearly. Speak about different parables in the Bible, and then plant the concept that indeed Genesis could be almost a parable or representative of something far more complex and then link it to evolution, and then end with the fact that the Church has never said evolution is a bad theory. Really cut the talk down to a simple concept because it is a broad topic. Don’t make it broad. It’s too much. Simplify—keep it as simple as possible.
What do you see as the greatest challenge that the program faces, that maybe inhibits it in some way?
I would certainly say money. We charge a fee, so the people you truly want to reach can’t afford it. So if there’s any kind of funding available, that would be hugely beneficial because then you can truly get to learners that you want to meet. At the end of the day, going to DeSalles, you’re more or less preaching to the converted. You would like to enrich people’s lives that ordinarily would not have heard this message. So it’s hugely a financial constraint—I would say that’s the biggest challenge. Other than that, I would say the challenges are relatively minor. I do think it’s something that must continue. I think it must happen. But by the same token, the presentations must be so refined and so specific that anyone can come in and give both presentations. They must be done in such a way because you need to keep your objective in mind, and the two presenters must not have opposing objectives. They must have the same goal for wanting to do the program.
Have you faced any sort of opposition to the ideas you’re putting out there and the work you’re doing? If so, who or what constitutes the greatest source of opposition?
I have actually; it’s interesting. The source of opposition I got was from fellow scientists, people I work with here at Witts University, and it was almost like, “Why do you want to do that? Why bother?” They’re not going to listen to you. I got a lot of opposition from them, a lot of fear—like, “Listen, don’t mix science and religion, you’re just asking for trouble.”
As far as opposition goes, you would expect the audience to be more opposed. I have only found them to be receptive, which tells me that it is a good thing to do. But saying that, I’m very glad you gave an interview [to students and teachers at DeSalle] because later on, people start remembering and start to question, so that’s a very good thing that you did there—it picks up on points that normally I wouldn’t have been aware of. That particular school I think I spoke and then I had to leave, so I never got to pick up the second half of the talk. But as far as opposition, no, schools are very receptive. The schools that aren’t receptive: a. don’t have the money, or b. might have the money but have never booked the program. So those that book are going to be receptive automatically. It’s the ones that don’t book that might be opposed.
How do you see a way to get to them, if there is a way to get to them?
Well, my plan is, and I do it all the time: I put the concept out to potential donors. As soon as I get money in, then I approach schools. Last year, I managed to do three schools in Soweto, underprivileged schools. And it was excellent because I got funding so we managed to pay for buses, we managed to pay for entrance to the museum, we managed to give them lunch, I managed to give them a pack with a dinosaur book and a whole bunch of stuff because I got 80,000 rand from SAASTA [South Africa Agency for Science and Technology Advancement]. So I managed to then bring them in and give them this talk, but I also had another scientist speak about dinosaurs, and I had someone else speak about something interesting, so they had a full day of learning. And they were extremely receptive. So funding is the way to go, to not give up and try to get as much funding as possible. It’s ideal, and it works because then you phone the school and say, “Look, we welcome you. Please come enjoy the day.” So it comes from a point of friendliness. It’s not just, “Listen, you guys need to learn something.” It’s a different thing, and honestly, it’s almost heartbreaking. I got letters back—“Oh, Ms. Merrill, I had a fantastic day!” That is the way to go—funding.
What do you think is the next step for the program then?
My first thing is constantly looking for funding. My second thing is my concept of a mobile museum. With a mobile museum, we would get the artifacts here at Witts University, and we set it up. You get funding to build it. It’s a container. I’ve got all my contacts. I’ve already deployed one or two containers, but as educational pods. This will be a museum pod. The idea there is to have a telescreen with this message, “This is what the Church says, this is what science says,” have that playing, have the school kids in the surrounding villages come. But the trick is to make it a sustainable business. So you have on someone running that little museum, someone paying money so that it becomes an economic investment for the community. That’s a way to reach people because I’m only one person. So that’s one idea—a mobile museum, which the community gets donated, and they invest in as a business for their kids’ learning.
Any other ideas?
My other idea was to actually record the lecture on DVD and give donations to schools, should they want to use it or not. The problem with that though is that there will be subsequent questions that will come, and can they answer them? I don’t think that’s ideal. I think for now, the best way is to kind of just visit schools slowly, continuously. Get money, and visit a school. Get money, and visit a school. Also, we have visitors that come here, and we market this idea and if they choose to listen, they can.
Do you think the Jesuit identity has any effect on people’s reception of the message or any influence on the program itself?
I don’t think that they’d be aware of it. I think the fact that the audience knows it’s a Roman Catholic priest is what’s important. But for myself, knowing the Jesuit Institute and Jesuits, they are very liberal, and they do think very differently than parish priests, which may have shocked and surprised people in the audience who were expecting a parish priest with the collar on. Maybe it does need to be toned down a bit with its liberalism; maybe it needs to be more in line with generally accepted dogma. But no, I don’t think people are aware of it. I think they know him to be a priest, and they are waiting to hear him speak as they would expect priests to speak. I think it’s a very good thing. I mean, saying that a priest is coming along is what makes the program important—that’s the key thing about the whole program. That’s why they welcome me into the school because if I just came on my own, I wouldn’t get the audience.
What do you think educators around the world could learn from the program and take away from it?
I think using South Africa as an example, and as I explained the demographics to you before, you’re looking at a conservative way of thinking. And in that conservatism, we’ve been welcomed, and we’ve allowed some discourse and debate and talking. And indeed, if it can happen here, then it most definitely can happen elsewhere. Also, I think you need to understand that the vast majority have a religious background, have a religious belief. But by the same token, you need to find some way to take scientific theory and bring it in with religion because it’s enhancing; it’s not detracting. It actually becomes imperative. I really think so. Maybe in a first-world country, there might be different reasons for doing that. You can be in a first-world country, but you can have a very closed-minded view of the world, and a program like this encourages tolerance and a broadening of the mind view. So it doesn’t matter whether you’re in a first-world country or a third-world country, that’s what its objective would be.
Anything else you want to add?
No, I think it just points to the fact that school kids or children are receptive. You just have to approach them in a friendly, fun, exciting way, and they’re totally receptive. It’s very heart warming to see it, and it gives hope that there is always a willingness to learn. So it’s a very hopeful thing. And it’s been fun and enjoyable. You just hope that you might have just got one or two people, and that’s fine, that’s enough. So it will be ongoing. I want it to be ongoing. As soon as I start to feel that it’s no longer of any use, then I’ll stop, but I definitely do not feel that for one second. I believe it to be of use. I’m in no way delusional—there are far more useful things going on, truly. But for that little bit of contribution, for an hour in a day, it’s got its use and its point, and for that reason, we’ll keep doing it.