Comment (46)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggIs it kiss and make up for science and religion?
Two leading science bodies in the US have agreed that acceptance of evolution and belief in God are compatible.
In recent years the words evolution and religion in a single sentence have been like firesticks which almost burst into flame on the page. It is rare to find a calm, detached discussion of the major issues. That’s why I was fascinated to read this landmark publication from America’s leading scientific organisations.
Science, Evolution, and Creationism was written by a committee on science and creationism the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine. This is a fascinating book. Its fascination lies not so much in its description of the evolution of picture-winged Drosophilids but rather in what it says overall and in who is saying it. Essentially, this is the first explicit statement by a significant scientific body asserting that that acceptance of evolution and belief in God are compatible.
Science Evolution and Creationism emphasizes the importance of evolution in modern science and technology, and provides a concise summary of the evidence supporting evolution by natural section and the arguments against various creationist positions.
It was written in the context of recent debates regarding the teaching of evolution in US public schools. Indeed, the book gives some very useful excerpts from historical court cases touching on this precise theme. The authors are adamant that there is no room for creationism in science classroom.
But the school-room scuffles ought not overshadow what is really significant about this book. Not only do the authors attempt to pull apart scrimmaging scientists and creationists, they also chalk in boundaries between the two by offering and applying a definition of science: "The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process."
Really this entire debate is about boundaries and definitions. Religion has historically stepped into the domain of science, often disastrously. Science has also stepped outside of its own definition to offer explanations of aspects of reality beyond its scope.
The failure of many to accept the basic tenets of evolution is a source of continual angst for science educators, especially in the United States. Clear and concise explanations of evolution may help. But what is probably more important is that science knows its own boundaries. Disaffection with evolution in the past 150 years has probably come as much from scientific philosophizing as from creationist fundamentalism. This book acknowledges that: "regrettably, those who occupy the extremes of this range often have set the tone of public discussions."
Science studies the testable aspects of natural phenomena. This means that outside of science lie not only "supernatural phenomena" (theology) but also phenomena that are partly natural and partly supernatural (anthropology) AND those aspects of natural phenomena that are non-testable (philosophy of nature). Science can never really answer the question: Why is it so? It cannot fully answer questions about the human person. It cannot even say why it cannot answer these questions. And importantly, science cannot answer the question: how ought we to live (ethics)?
All this could be very frustrating for a scientist. Doing science properly means that, at least during working hours, one cannot seek answers to the really important questions in life. With the theory of evolution it is tempting to drift into the realm of philosophy and theology, something many people, at least unconsciously, consider more exciting.
Real scientists however can go all day on picture-winged Drosophilids. Chesterton once suggested that "a history of cows in twelve volumes would not be very lively reading", but science ultimately depends on its dryness for its success. Boredom is its particular strength.
This publication issued by the National Academy of Sciences is a careful, sober account of what science is, what it has achieved, and what its boundaries are. For New Scientist magazine, the attempted reconciliation of science and religion is "pure pragmatism". This may be, or it may be just jittery self-reassurance on the part of the editor. I believe that this booklet is an important step on the part of the scientific community towards a deeper, more general acknowledgement of the compatibility between evolution and religion.
Phil Elias studies Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
Colm, I’ve never been comfortable with random mutation as the sole explanation for evolution. I’ve long thought that the inheritance of acquired characteristics needs another look. I’m, also, not completely averse to the idea that there is magic in the world, a ghost in the machine.
As far as who picked the fight, the fight was already there. The first time the Church punished a heretic the fight was on. Religious belief is only sacred to the believer. The rest of us have no obligation to couch our words in a way not to offend a group of people who can’t wait to be offended.
Colm, thank you for the clarification.
David - Historically speaking, it was the supporters of early evolutionary theory who sparked the religion v. science quarrel. Darwin himself was publicly rebuked by his peers for being deliberately antagonistic toward religious institutions and leaders. That’s not to say that those on the ‘religious’ side did not resist the baiting; in most cases they in fact exacerbated the conflict.
Susan Reibel Moore said: “The idea, put forward by one David Page, that Religion picked a quarrel with Science, is therefore just a wee bit peculiar. This man loves talking off the top of his head, it would appear.”
Susan, off the top of my head, Philosophy and Theology are
Humanities, not Sciences.
Ikenna, I’m not a scientist. I don’t know why life evolved but I’m pretty sure that it did. I think Darwin created a working hypothesis to try to explain his observations. I don’t think it was his intention to make anyone angry.
David,
One of the problems of the evolution debate is the fact that terms are often misused and confused. The word “evolution” is a very wide and ambiguous term. If by evolution you mean that forms of life has changed through time then evolution is a fact affirmed by many people long before Darwin. But if you mean gradual evolution controlled by natural selection (according to Charles Darwin) then it seem right to clarify terms by adding the qualifier “Darwinian”. I apologize if I may have misinterpreted you.
A fine article and fine answers to people who wrote in, Phil Elias.
For the record: Well over a half-century ago one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, Mortimer J Adler, Chairman of the Board of Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica for 50 years, friend of Maritain, Gilson, and others, made the important point (echoing Aquinas) that Theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Adler--and other esteemed professional colleagues of his--ranked the sciences in order of intellectual merit (rigour).
Lowest: all of the natural sciences; next, philosophy; next, theology. Adler did this decades before he himself believed in a personal God.
The idea, put forward by one David Page, that Religion picked a quarrel with Science, is therefore just a wee bit peculiar. This man loves talking off the top of his head, it would appear.
Ikenna, I don’t believe I mentioned Darwin. Is it your belief that each species was created whole, owing nothing to the species that preceded it?
The Theory of Evolution is a theory not a fact. Why do certain scientists insist on presenting it as fact? Many scientists don’t accept the Theory of Evolution as fact. Ironically, science shows the Theory to Evolution to have many serious weaknesses from a purely scientific standpoint. (for examples visit http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org). In short, elite members of our scientific priesthood have decided it’s okay to be “religious” as long as you also buy into the Religion of Evolution (disguised as Science, of course).
“The record of the rocks proves the fact of Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt”
I’ll advice David to be very careful about statements such as these. The greatest stumbling block to Darwinian evolution actually comes from the fossil record. Darwin explained away the fossil problem by appealing to the gaps in the sediment and fossil record and predicted that as exploration continues and the rock record becomes more complete his theory will be proved. For 150 years of paleontological research this has not been proven but serious problems like the Cambrian explosion, the prevalent stasis seen in the fossil record and the sudden appearance and disappearance of species which flies in the face of darwin’s theory of modification by natural selection.
I don’t even want to bring up the question of the origin of life itself
Rebecca,
Thanks for your post. Regarding the first point, I’d agree about the inadequacy of the descriptions of faith, but would say that the authors are very careful not to say that scientific knowledge is the best or only kind of knowledge, and also that they never attempt to define faith. It is clear that this is not their intention in writing the book.
With regards to the second point, true, scientific discovery is often not the origin of human progress, but science helps to formalize and carry forward discoveries that we come across by chance or through economic development.
Finally, I agree with your final point, but I think it distracts us from the main theme of the book, that is, that religion and evolution are compatible. I believe this is a remarkable and very positive theme given the source of the book and the current environment.
The record of the rocks proves the fact of Evolution beyond a reasonable doubt. The why of it can be debated, but probably belongs to the realm of Philosophy and Religion. I think it’s important to remember that Science didn’t pick the fight, Religion did.
To JonathanR.
Thanks for your comments. I gather what you are trying to say is that many religious people have contributed to science throughout history ergo religion has not “stepped into the domain of science, often disastrously.”
Obviously many religious people have made major contributions to science, including Copernicus, Mendel, and the examples you mentioned. I would suggest that their contributions were so valuable precisely because they knew they were doing science, not theology, and they understood well the boundaries between science and religion. Christianity supports science because it believes that the physical world is accessible to human investigation, eg the sun is a material object, not a capricious god. But Christianity does not exhaust the category of religion. Religious explanations for scientific phenomena can be found both in ancient and in some modern religions.
I say these boundary breaches can be ‘disastrous’ not just because they can stifle science but more fundamentally when they compromise religion. Saying that some aspect of the physical world cannot be so because revelation says otherwise belittles that revelation. Some aspects of the Galileo affair and of the modern creationist movement are pertinent examples.
Some of the most compelling criticisms of Darwinian Evolution- the one put up by the likes of Micheal Behe and Philip Johnson- is from a scientific perspective: Darwinian evolution is inadequate scientifically to explain the complexity and diversity of of life as it is seen today and also as the fossil evidence shows. They keep insisting that it not just about trying to reconcile Darwinian evolution with creation by God but a question of the theory itself; does it explain the evidence?
Thank you for your article. I must say, I have read the report, and am not as positive. In particular I was struck by three points.
Firstly, the descriptions of religion and religious faith are framed in such a way as to make faith seem like the ‘ugly sister’ of science: “Religious faith, in contrast, does NOT depend only on empirical evidence, is NOT necessarily modified in the face of conflicting
evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities” (emphasis added). Faith is practically seen as the absence of science.
Secondly, I think the authors grossly overvalue the contribution of science and biology to human development. They claim knowledge of evolution to be responsible for major advances in medicine, technology, and industry. But science is rarely the catalyst for progress in history. For instance, in medicine, clean water and public sanitation have played a far greater role in the prevention of disease than anything strictly scientific. In general, it seems that economic development is the motor driving both the development of science and the material well being of society. What good is knowledge of evolution for Africa today?
Finally, I disagree with the book’s imperative tone regarding the need to believe in evolution. For a start, whether or not one believes in evolution has no bearing on most people’s lives. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to work in a field of biology without thinking much about evolution. Sure, evolution is important in thinking about the discipline conceptually, but one easily carry out one’s work with at a purely phenomenological level. In fact, this is exactly the kind of skepticism needed in positive sciences, isn’t it? Evolution is such a huge field- if I am working in genetic shift and drift in influenza viruses, it’s not of great importance to me that in the year x million BC Paranthropus robustus diverged from our family tree.
Page 3 of 4 : « First < 1 2 3 4 >