Community Conversations

 

Evolution and Creative Design

A paper prepared by Deland S. Anderson for the Pratt Museum in conjunction with a Community Conversation on 19 January 2007

This conversation lasted longer than any others in the past six years of programming. It was also more controversial than any other, with the possible exception one dealing with a local ban on smoking. For instance one professional ecologist excused himself from the conversation in advance, as there was, in his opinion, nothing to talk about. Others also expressed this perspective, exhibiting a zero-tolerance policy toward those who profess to believe in creationism over evolution. One biologist went so far as to say he would publish a column in the local paper taking the facilitator to task for even holding a conversation on this topic.

These comments and attitudes are reflective of people who focus on the extreme actions and claims of fundamentalists. Fundamentalists attempt to read their scriptures literally. In the case of the Christian Old Testament, this leads to such beliefs as: 1) the universe was created in 6 days by a divine being who spoke it into existence about 6,000 years ago 2) all species of plants and animals living on the earth are descendents of thousands and thousands of original prototypical parent pairs created individually by that divine being 3) humans have a divine fiat to do as they wish with the earth and all that is on it, unless they are contravened by the aforementioned divine being. These beliefs, and others associated with them, form a worldview. And that worldview is radically different from the one held by the vast majority of people in modernity. Fundamentalists take a sectarian stance, renouncing as evil all who do not subscribe to the “literal” reading of scriptures and the worldview that conforms to them. They are also politically active. Frequently they are violently so. If one has been drawn into the conflicts generated by these sectarian elements in society, it is difficult to see beyond them. But often enough this blinds one to other, less extreme, and perhaps more constructive elements of the world’s religions. And this in turn prevents one from seeing where the questions of science and religions overlap, such as in the fields of astrophysics, sub-atomic particle physics, molecular and genetic biology.

Twenty-four people attended the conversation at the Pratt Museum. They conversed over a broad range of topics, from the String Theory of contemporary astrophysics to personal anecdotes about being brought up in conservative Christian settings. But, as most of those in attendance were in one way or another professional scientists, far more was said about biology than religion. But there were two general fears that anchored this conversation and they threatened to turn it into a debate on the merits of science over religion rather than an exploration of these distinct ways of knowing. The first fear might be paraphrased as follows: evangelical Christians, like George W. Bush, are ignoring the destruction of our global environment because they believe it is up to God to take care of such matters as extinction. The second fear goes something like this: fundamentalists are on the brink of overpowering science in the classroom with Biblical authority. Of course these fears may be linked. If someone with the power of the presidency compromises t he academic authority of science, as George W. Bush has clearly done while in office, biblical stories might become the new guide for environmental thinking. And if this happens, the world will indeed end in an apocalypse of biological catastrophes.

In response to these fears, some people spoke to a growing movement in evangelical Christian circles which focuses on stewardship of the environment. Others spoke to the need to teach both religions and science in schools in order to balance a curriculum that has become negligent of spiritual questions.
The facilitator attempted to broaden the conversation to include reflection on the differing roles of religion and science as ways of knowing. In the simplest terms, science employs an empirical method to say what is, while religion employs a theological method to say how things should be. Consequently, when one asks religions to answer the question of what is, one comes up short. There are vast fields of knowledge on which religions are simply silent. This is largely due to the fact that most religions in existence today were founded in antiquity, and so they are challenged when trying to address such contemporary matters as electromagnetism or atomic energy. Conversely, when one asks science to speak to the meaning of life, little is forthcoming. This is because modern scientific method is based not only in objectivity, but in the neutrality of its findings. The speed of light, for example, just is—it is neither good nor bad. To be sure, occasionally science is tasked with proving the revelations of various religions. The geological record might be used to support the legend of a catastrophic deluge in deep antiquity. But the typical failing of such attempts is that while science can prove that there were devastating and massive floods, it cannot prove that the flood in question is the one mentioned in the Biblical account of Noa h’s flood. On the other hand, religion is sometimes asked to help guide the development of scientific theory. Albert Einstein famously claimed that God would not play dice with the universe. The failing here is that the highly metaphorical language of religion compromises the empirical observations of science. If one believes that God wrote the laws of the universe, for instance, physics must conform to theology.

Two illustrative cases were mentioned in this context. First, Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species denounced the very question of the origin of life. Biology and evolutionary theory, he maintained, speaks to the unfolding of life through geological time, marking the development of simple life forms into highly complex life forms such as human beings. Second, the astrophysicist Stephen Hawking once wrote that if his math was correct, God would have nothing to do in the universe.

Someone took up the question of the origin of life by stating that Darwin was pressured by religious authority (perhaps his wife’s) into censoring his thoughts. According to this scenario Darwin knew more about the origin of life than he admitted to. This observation led to a discussion of the limitations of science. If scientists are susceptible to such coercion, their findings cannot possibly be an accurate picture of what is. That picture is incomplete at best and perhaps highly distorted at worst. The suppression of findings regarding the extent and cause of global climate change under the Bush administration is a case in point.

As to Hawking’s remark, someone noted that perhaps God had something to do before the Big Bang. According to the notion of the Big Bang, the universe began with the explosion of an inscrutable particle of infinite mass, at no particular time, and in no particular place. This particle, Hawking maintains, was so dense that it could not emit any information—no light, no heat, nothing. Thus it can only be known indirectly, through its measurable effects. But this is not a new claim, at least not within the realm of religion. Various religions in antiquity were based on the idea that matter and all that comes with it is the result of consciousness, inscrutable consciousness.

To suggest that God breathed life into being, as Darwin does in the Origin of Species, is to overstep the bounds of science. And his successors have taken him to task over this. Huxley and others, for example, have advanced notions that life on earth ultimately came about through a random mixing of atoms. So, too, Hawking’s colleagues have criticized him for making theological claims from the physics lectern.

Another aspect of science that was mentioned falls under the heading of reductionism. Reductionism in the experimental method assures a tighter design for experiments, enabling researchers to ferret out real relationships and causal factors. Unworthy hypotheses are discarded (e.g., poor diet is not a cause of lung cancer) and replaced by better ones (e.g., smoking causes lung cancer). Without this reduction of variables, the experimental method would have little value. But there is a downside to reductionism as well. Sometimes a highly complex phenomenon is reduced to a relatively simple set of relations with the result of oversimplification. An instance of such reductionism is to be found in psychology based in primate biology. The relatively simple behavior of primates is used as an index for analyzing the relatively complex behavior of humans. In the worst cases, human behavior is reduced to primate behavior.

One of the benefits of the life sciences that was mentioned is peace of mind. In short, science allows alternatives to the claims of revealed religions. In Europe prior to the rise of modern science, virtually everyone lived in anticipation of a heavenly reward or in fear of hell. With the emergence of a new, scientifically based paradigm, individuals found that they need not fear the trials of life and punishments after death so often promised by religious authorities. Biology as a philosophical system allows one to live without fear of gods or demons. Biologists, in short, don’t go to Hell. When they die, they end up in the same place as the family pet or creatures in the wild. The sense of liberation from divine judgment inspires biology with a sense of freedom. By the same token, however, science reveals disquieting truths as well. One of the most painful discoveries of modern biology is that humans are degrading the earth’s ecosystems. Extreme and dire consequences will result.

This very insight is often at the basis of a struggle between scientists and conservative Christians, Jews, and Muslims. The scriptures that underpin these sister religions tell of a swift, apocalyptic end to humankind, not of a slow, ecological end, as biology does. Indeed, it might be argued that adherence to the former worldview fulfills the latter prophecy: people with apocalyptic expectations make poor stewards of the environment.

This fundamental difference in perspective is at the root of many arguments about what should be taught in schools today. Religious extremists argue that the doctrine of divine creation should be taught alongside science. On the other side, others argue that the study of religions has no place in schools. Some moderates argue for a “separate but equal” approach to the problem. Science and religion are here viewed as distinct ways of knowing, each with their own validity. Science answers its questions; religion answers different ones. If religions are studied, but not practiced in schools, and if science is practiced, but not privileged, students are well served. Indeed fascinating areas of inquiry are to be found where religion and science touch on one another. For example, biologists are beginning today to consider the evolutionary value of religion: how do religious beliefs and rituals contribute to the evolutionary struggle for the survival of the fittest. In this context, some molecular biologists are searching for the “God gene”, a supposed genetic marker associated with people who display piety. At the same time, psychologists are searching the lobes and folds of the human brain for the seat of god-consciousness. If such attempts are successful, science will have proven the existence of religion according to its own method. This extraordinary step will perhaps put to rest the claims of scientists like B.F. Skinner who maintained that religious thoughts and mind itself simply do not exist. Ultimately many scientists will have to change their tune, for otherwise they will be in the very unscientific position of explaining the origin and purpose of something they oppose. Likewise those who oppose science as a matter of faith will have to admit the value of science to religion.