Virginia Heffernan is a prominent technology reporter, which means that she’s basically a science writer, which means that certain corners of the internet exploded last week when Heffernan published an essay on Yahoo! News entitled “Why I’m a Creationist.” Gawker warned Heffernan that the article would “erode your credibility.” Slate‘s Laura Helmuth tried to sympathize, but ended up delivering familiar lecture points about the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Science writer Carl Zimmer—who writes for The New York Times, as Heffernan did for years—engaged her in some Twitter sparring.
To summarize: Heffernan was not raised a creationist. And her opinion about the world’s origins owes more to postmodernism than it does to John Whitcomb and Henry Morris. Heffernan describes learning about the Big Bang as a child, and then comparing it to the Biblical stories she knew. “I was…considerably less amused and moved by the character-free Big Bang story (‘something exploded’) than by the twisted and picturesque misadventures of Eve and Adam and Cain and Abel and Abraham,” she writes. Because she doesn’t really understand evolution, and because she finds the Biblical account so much more compelling, Heffernan opts for creationism.
The outrage from science-minded writers isn’t surprising. What’s unfortunate is that there hasn’t been a greater backlash from religious folks. Heffernan’s ideas about science may be ignorant, but the way she talks about religion is downright offensive.
Heffernan ends with a quote in which Yann Martel, author of the pretty-but-inspid Life of Pi, summarizes his novel’s message: “1) Life is a story. 2) You can choose your story. 3) A story with God is the better story.” Heffernan, who has a PhD in literature from Harvard, has opted for her preferred story. “I guess I don’t ‘believe’ that the world was created in a few days, but what do I know? Seems as plausible (to me) as theoretical astrophysics, and it’s certainly a livelier tale.”
One would hope for a little more respect for stories, especially from someone who writes them for a living. As scientists and religionists both know, the ideas we have and the stories we tell are not inconsequential things. They matter. Sure, in the modern world we do have the freedom to choose our guiding stories. And, here in postmodernity, we do have theories that relativize and contextualize, making that choice seem arbitrary. But none of this means that, once we’ve chosen an idea, it exists in a vacuum, tickling our minds and having no effect on things like, say, funding for scientific research, or the rights of children to have a public education that’s free of religious influence.
Really, Heffernan is no creationist in the political sense of the word. Vocal creationists, at least, understand that their ideas have weight. They grasp that conversations about evolution can also be conversations about pluralism, and materialism, and the role of human beings in nature and society. And they link their creationism to worldviews that aren’t sourced from Canadian novelists and graduate literature seminars. Incuriosity may be a flaw in a journalist, but Heffernan’s bigger sin is to speak flippantly (not humorously, or cleverly, or angrily, but flippantly; with intellect but no care) about ideas that matter deeply to people. And that’s something no writer should do—especially when talking about religion.
Then again, it’s never wise to take trolls too seriously. Heffernan has clearly mastered a strategy that’s been used by plenty of anti-evolutionists before her. When the currency by which you live is publicity and page counts, it never hurts to be a contrarian. In the short run, at least.
