The Evolution of Faith
In this week’s issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Scott Turner wonders Why can’t we discuss intelligent design? Here we go again.
The fact that this country actually engages in serious debate over evolution vs. intelligent design says something deeply troubling about our American education system. For scientists and educators such as myself, it means we have fundamentally failed to convey the basic precepts of science to the general public. It also says something troubling about religious faith in this country. It means faith is a truth which cannot be challenged, or even questioned.
Science is powerful precisely because it is challenged. This includes Darwinist evolution, which is continually refined as new evidence comes to light. But Turner argues that Darwinism refuses to be questioned:
In our readiness to proscribe intelligent design, we Darwinists are telling the world not only that we are unwilling to ask such questions ourselves, but that we don’t want others to ask them either. No wonder the war on Darwin won’t go away.
The problem with Turner’s assertion is that he assumes intelligent design asks scientific questions. It doesn’t. Intelligent design is not scientific. It doesn’t ask scientific questions, and it doesn’t make predictions which are scientifically verifiable. Granted, I’m a scientist so I might be a bit biased, so let me explain.
At its most basic level intelligent design makes two assertions:
- There are holes in the darwinist model.
- Since Darwinist evolution can’t address everything it is reasonable to presume some intelligent design plays a role.
Both of these arguments are based on a misunderstanding of science. The first is true for all scientific theories. The fact that you can poke holes in a theory is precisely what makes it scientific. The second is a philosophical assertion. It presumes that mechanistic cause and effect inherently fails.
As Turner points out, intelligent design poses the question of purpose. Is there a purpose to evolution, or does it “just happen.” Supporters of intelligent design often argue that such questions are scientific, or at least should be. But questioning whether there is purpose to evolution is like wondering if there is purpose to gravity. Do we propose a theory of intelligent falling to challenge general relativity? Maybe we should teach children both sides of the gravity controversy. We can teach children about the theory of gravity AND the hypothesis that gravity must be due to some cosmic intelligence which pushes things downward.
Don’t get me wrong, intelligent falling could be right. It is possible that things only fall because God wills it. Science can’t prove such an assertion one way or the other. But if falling is God’s will, science shows it is God’s will that (barring air resistance) objects near the earth fall toward the earth’s center at an approximately constant acceleration of 32 feet per square second. Every single time.
Advocates of “teaching the controversy” never ask that intelligent falling be included in curricula. They never argue that since we don’t know exactly how gravity works (and we don’t) that children should be shown both sides of the issue. They never require that stickers be put on physics books stating that gravity is “just a theory.” They only make those arguments for evolution, because Darwinist evolution challenges their faith. If natural selection is accurate, then the earth is millions of years old. If neo-Darwinism is correct, then God did not literally speak animals into existence, and God did not form Eve from a rib-bone of Adam. If science is right, then Biblical Creation is allegory at best, and not literal truth. Gravity doesn’t challenge the literalist view of the Bible. Evolution does. So rather than question the Bible, they question science. They refuse to let their faith evolve.
The thing is, I’m not opposed to the study of intelligent design. Questioning whether the universe has a divine purpose is a perfectly valid philosophical or theological question. I’m not even arguing that everyone must believe Darwinist evolution. If you want to believe that the universe is 6000 years old that is your right. If an old-looking universe popped into existence a few thousand years ago, science would be none the wiser.
But intelligent design, intelligent falling and every other hypothesis of “purpose” is not science. Science doesn’t concern itself with purpose. It is simply a process for discovering how the universe works. Through a confluence of evidence we now know that stars are not pinholes in the ceiling of heaven. We also know that living things evolve through a process of natural selection over millions of years. Period.
If you still want to discuss the meaning or purpose of the universe, Philosophy 101 is right down the hall.
Be Brave. Be Human.
Brian
January 22nd, 2007 22:56
Brian,
I reviewed your post a number of times to make sure I understood it. I believe you are saying that comparing intelligent design to evolution is not even akin to an apples-to-oranges comparison, but more like an apples-to-roses comparison. One has substance – the apple – from which mankind can benefit. The other – the rose – may be beautiful to some, but could not benefit mankind the same way an apple can, i.e. via its nutritional value. They are on separate planes, and serve different purposes. Hence, to argue one against the other attempts to define a relationship that either does not exist, or merely meets at certain points.
Taken on its own, I understand your point. Taken, though, in concert with a number of your other posts, I am sensing a pattern of taking religion out of all serious debate.
Let me use the term “mosaic” to describe the combination of rights, liberties, traditions, and philosophies that make up the state of America as defined by the founding fathers, and procured through the current day. As we have commented previously, this mosaic is not perfect, as biases and prejudices will always be involved. Although you want civil discourse, your disdain for religion in the mosaic is becoming evident; however, you cannot eliminate faith through reasoned discourse, as faith and reasoned discourse regularly work on separate planes, or are at least askew and intersect at some point.
To refute your point: divorcing religion from the “design vs. evolution” argument is one thing. How do you do it on purely scientific issues such as global warming, where scientists on one side of the argument are calling for scientists on the other side to be decertified, lose their grants, etc.? Religion comes in many shapes and sizes. I say that environmental zeal is as fervent as any Christian denomination’s, if not more so. If you divorce religious fervor from the global warming debate, what would you have?
To maintain purely objective discourse, you will whittle away the mosaic. I believe you stated previously that, in America, we are free to practice religion, where in the U.K. or Europe, people are free from practicing religion. I agree with this assessment. If you believe that, though, then why only offer perspectives that align with the U.K. model? After all, we are Americans, not Britons.
I think you know from my prior comments that I am not in favor of a theocracy. I am also not in favor of pure democracy, as 50.01% of any population could declare that the other 49.99% need not exist any more. While I am not searching in my faith (i.e. the spiritual plane/line), I am searching on the physical plane/line, where I am a responsible husband, father, and citizen. It is my responsibility to appropriately consider both.
Cordially,
Rick
January 23rd, 2007 13:14
Rick,
I think we agree on the issue of democracy. As Bill Moyers recently said, “Democracy is two wolves and a rabbit voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed rabbit contesting the vote.”
Your apples and roses analogy is sometimes referred to as non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA, the kind of separate but equal stance of Stephen Jay Gould and others, which stands in opposition to the Dawkins-style “science always wins” argument. Personally I find both arguments a bit lacking, though I do lean more toward Gould than Dawkins. One can find divine awe in scientific discovery (what Carl Sagan referred to as the numinous), and one can be inspired by God to study the universe. So I don’t think they are entirely separate.
At the same time I disagree with Dawkin’s argument that evidence of process requires a conclusion that faith is delusion. The problem with the “science wins” argument is that it assumes science is more powerful tool than it actually is. When you get down to it, all science does is find relationships between patterns. This is really useful if you want to learn how things work, or build bridges and computers, but that is all it does. What philosophical or theological conclusions you derive from that are not a part of science, because science does not and cannot determine meaning or purpose. It simply studies process. This is why it bothers me when Dawkins argues that if one accepts evolution one must become an atheist in the same way that it bothers me when someone says the Bible is literally true therefore the findings of science must be wrong. My opposition to intelligent design is not that it invokes a designer, but that it makes no new predictions, and to teach it as science misrepresents what science is.
Your mention of global warming is an interesting one. I actually oppose declarations that doubters of global warming be de-certified and the like. As soon as we hold a scientific model as above question then we move out of science and into dogma. At the same time, however, global warming has become a political issue driven by corporate ideology, which makes it difficult to convey a clear understanding to the general public. But rather than clearly stating what we are fairly certain of and why, the popular media sees fit to spin it into a heated argument.
For example, the consensus of real, practicing, climate specialists is that 1) global warming does exist 2) it is driven largely by human activity 3) it will lead to rapid increases in global temperatures which will have serious repercussions. They aren’t sure how much, or how bad, or if any silver linings will help, but it is clear that we are deeply affecting our environment and should probably take steps to address it on some level. This doesn’t mean the world will end in fire, or that humans are likely to become extinct, but it almost certainly means that as individuals and as a society we will see adverse effects. The real question is how much risk to we face, and therefore how hard should we work to address the issue. But instead of looking at the real scientific data, climatologists find themselves having to counter “Dr. Joe” from the “oil-industry funded lobby group” who years ago argued that global warming doesn’t exist, and now argues that while temperatures are rising it’s not the fault of humanity. It is disingenuous to balance a climate research specialist with some lobbyist with a Ph.D. and imply they are equally authoritative. It is not that you can’t scientifically question global warming, it is just that real scientific debate is well past whether or not we are a significant cause and has moved on to whether the increase will be 2 degrees or 10 or somewhere in between. But the general public generally has it in their heads that global warming is still an uncertain hypothesis, which I find deeply disappointing.
It is interesting you see a disdain for religion in my writing. I can see where it could be read that way, but I actually don’t disparage faith. I’m not even an atheist. Faith has a purpose in human society, and I don’t believe the world would be better off with a purely secular scientific world view. But I do find simplistic, unquestioning, authoritarian religion troubling in all its forms. It bothers me when certain people of faith see answers which are easy, and black and white, and always in their favor because “God says so.” Clearly such people aren’t the majority of believers in the world, but they can often be the loudest.
Still, you make a valid point about my rationalist approach to argumentation. It largely stems from my training as a scientist. When someone makes an assertion, even a religious one, my tendency is to analyze it scientifically if it makes a measurable claim, or philosophically if doesn’t. Personally, that is how I approach issues.
I also agree with you that BraveHumans currently has perspective generally aligned with my approach. That isn’t our long-term goal, so I would like to ask if you would be willing to help broaden BraveHumans. Please. Contribute posts which draw upon theological or conservative values. Ask others to contribute. We really do want a broad range of view to be presented here. But I can’t argue a conservative Christian position since I’m not a conservative Christian. If you can help us find a wider range of thoughtful viewpoints (either yourself or others) we would be happy to have them posted here.
January 23rd, 2007 21:48
Brian,
Thank you for your added explanations. Science is not my bag, and I would never claim to be even average at scientific methods. But, as you mention, variety adds color to the discourse.
I understand your point regarding NOMA. I am not yet convinced by the arguments of intelligent design, and therefore don’t believe the concepts are separate but equal. To me, the I.D. push sounds like a hastily created movement to combat evolution. (Oh, I have part skeptic in me, too, and my “entertaining” writing tends toward the cynical or satirical, as you have already discovered on my blog.)
Does the Bible say “six days”? Yes. Does it say “six, twenty-four hour days”? Um, not in my reading. For each iteration, the Bible says that night came, and was followed by day. The same Bible says, to paraphrase, that God transcends time. (Please don’t ask me to cite references; I’m not a walking biblical library, either.) So, who am I to know how long it really took? I’ll ask Him when I get there, at which time the question will be irrelevant, anyway.
You said, “At the same time, however, global warming has become a political issue driven by corporate ideology, which makes it difficult to convey a clear understanding to the general public. But rather than clearly stating what we are fairly certain of and why, the popular media sees fit to spin it into a heated argument.” I considered posting a similar thought in my initial post, but it would have strayed from the purpose for my comments. It’s interesting that our conclusion is the same, but from the different side of the discussion. For example, why would the National Association of Arborists based their climate zone maps on a 15 year study, rather than on a 30 year study like the Dept. of Agriculture does? To me, the shorter study discounts the whole “we’re freezing to death” argument of the 1970s. I can be convinced, but not when common sense tells me something is missing.
Finally, I would be happy to contribute. Please drop me an e-mail indicating what I need to do in order to post. Make sure you clearly identify yourself so I don’t automatically purge it as spam.
Thanks,
Rick
January 23rd, 2007 22:23
Rick,
It is interesting that you write “So, who am I to know how long it really took? I’ll ask Him when I get there, at which time the question will be irrelevant, anyway.” Wouldn’t science be a way for us to answer that question on our own? If we are creations of God, then our ability to understand the workings of the universe even a little bit would thus seem to be a gift from God. Personally I find the anti-science attitude of many religious people puzzling.
The whole “we’re freezing” idea from the 1970s was actually a few hyped-up articles in the popular press based on the general pattern of Milankovitch cycles, which plotted ice-age cycles. These are natural cycles, and a few scientists in the 70s speculated that we were beginning to enter such a cycle. It was blown way out of proportion.
The generally poor quality of science reporting in this country is deeply troubling. Granted, writing about science clearly is VERY difficult, but most of the time scientific findings are reported with lots of hype and little background research. It drives me nuts.
I will send you an e-mail soon.
January 26th, 2007 19:09
Hi Brian,
To your question, “Wouldn’t science be a way for us to answer that question on our own?”: It depends on the intent behind the asking.
If the intent is to validate my faith, then no.
If the intent is to scientifically pursue the question of the earth’s age and its development, that is a fair pursuit in my opinion.
The answer does not change my faith, which is not in the age of the earth, but in Christ crucified.
Hope that helps.
Rick