Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can biology do better than faith?
New Scientist ^ | November 2, 2005 | Edward O. Wilson

Posted on 11/05/2005 6:34:38 AM PST by billorites

Darwin's On the Origin of Species was published 150 years ago, but evolution by natural selection is still under attack from those wedded to a human-centred or theistic world view. Edward O. Wilson, who was raised a creationist, ponders why this should be, and whether science and religion can ever be reconciled

IT IS surpassingly strange that half of Americans recently polled (2004) not only do not believe in evolution by natural selection but do not believe in evolution at all. Americans are certainly capable of belief, and with rock-like conviction if it originates in religious dogma. In evidence is the 60 per cent that accept the prophecies of the Bible's Book of Revelation as truth, and in yet more evidence is the weight that faith-based positions hold in political life. Most of the religious right opposes the teaching of evolution in public schools, either by an outright ban on the subject or, at the least, by insisting that it be treated as "only a theory" rather than a "fact".

Yet biologists are unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact. The evidence they and thousands of others have adduced over 150 years falls together in intricate and interlocking detail. The multitudinous examples range from the small changes in DNA sequences observed as they occur in real time to finely graded sequences within larger evolutionary changes in the fossil record. Further, on the basis of comparably strong evidence, natural selection grows ever stronger as the prevailing explanation of evolution.

Many who accept the fact of evolution cannot, however, on religious grounds, accept the operation of blind chance and the absence of divine purpose implicit in natural selection. They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer's faith.

Flipping the scientific argument upside down, the intelligent designers join the strict creationists (who insist that no evolution ever occurred) by arguing that scientists resist the supernatural theory because it is counter to their own personal secular beliefs. This may have a kernel of truth; everybody suffers from some amount of bias. But in this case bias is easily overcome. The critics forget how the reward system in science works. Any researcher who can prove the existence of intelligent design within the accepted framework of science will make history and achieve eternal fame. They will prove at last that science and religious dogma are compatible. Even a combined Nobel prize and Templeton prize (the latter designed to encourage the search for just such harmony) would fall short as proper recognition. Every scientist would like to accomplish such a epoch-making advance. But no one has even come close, because unfortunately there is no evidence, no theory and no criteria for proof that even marginally might pass for science.

In all of the history of science, only one other disparity of comparable magnitude to evolution has occurred between a scientific event and the impact it has had on the public mind. This was the discovery by Copernicus that Earth, and therefore humanity, is not the centre of the universe, and the universe is not a closed spherical bubble. Copernicus delayed publication of his master work On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres until the year of his death (1543). For his extension of the idea, Bruno was burned at the stake, and for its documentation Galileo was shown the instruments of torture and remained under house arrest for the remainder of his life.

Today we live in a less barbaric age, but an otherwise comparable disjunction between science and religion still roils the public mind. Why does such intense and pervasive resistance to evolution continue 150 years after the publication of On The Origin of Species, and in the teeth of the overwhelming accumulated evidence favouring it? The answer is simply that the Darwinian revolution, even more than the Copernican revolution, challenges the prehistoric and still-regnant self-image of humanity. Evolution by natural selection, to be as concise as possible, has changed everything.

In the more than slightly schizophrenic circumstances of the present era, global culture is divided into three opposing images of the human condition. The dominant one, exemplified by the creation myths of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - sees humanity as a creation of God. He brought us into being and He guides us still as father, judge and friend. We interpret His will from sacred scriptures and the wisdom of ecclesiastical authorities.

The second world view is that of political behaviourism. Still beloved by the now rapidly fading Marxist-Leninist states, it says that the brain is largely a blank state devoid of any inborn inscription beyond reflexes and primitive bodily urges. As a consequence, the mind originates almost wholly as a product of learning, and it is the product of a culture that itself evolves by historical contingency. Because there is no biologically based "human nature", people can be moulded to the best possible political and economic system, namely communism. In practical politics, this belief has been repeatedly tested and, after economic collapses and tens of millions of deaths in a dozen dysfunctional states, is generally deemed a failure.

Both of these world views, God-centred religion and atheistic communism, are opposed by a third and in some ways more radical world view, scientific humanism. Still held by only a tiny minority of the world's population, it considers humanity to be a biological species that evolved over millions of years in a biological world, acquiring unprecedented intelligence yet still guided by complex inherited emotions and biased channels of learning. Human nature exists, and it was self-assembled. Having arisen by evolution during the far simpler conditions in which humanity lived during more than 99 per cent of its existence, it forms the behavioural part of what, in The Descent of Man, Darwin called "the indelible stamp of [our] lowly origin".

So, will science and religion find common ground, or at least agree to divide the fundamentals into mutually exclusive domains? A great many well-meaning scholars believe that such rapprochement is both possible and desirable. A few disagree, and I am one of them. I think Darwin would have held to the same position. The battle line is, as it has ever been, in biology. The inexorable growth of this science continues to widen, not to close, the tectonic gap between science and faithbased religion.

Rapprochement may be neither possible nor desirable. There is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict. The toxic mix of religion and tribalism has become so dangerous as to justify taking seriously the alternative view, that humanism based on science is the effective antidote, the light and the way at last placed before us.

Religions continue both to render their special services and to exact their heavy costs. Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost? Surely that ranks as one of the great unanswered questions of philosophy. It is the noble yet troubling legacy that Charles Darwin left us.

Edward O. Wilson is a professor of entomology at Harvard University. He has written 20 books and received many awards, including two Pulitzer prizes and the 1976 National Medal of Science. This is an extract of the afterword to From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's four great books, published next week by W.W. Norton.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: biology; faith; homosexualagenda; queerstudies; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last

1 posted on 11/05/2005 6:34:38 AM PST by billorites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: billorites
Can scientific humanism do as well or better, at a lower cost?

Not to denigrate the advantages that flow from scientific research...
but knowing what to do with that knowledge did go seriously off
the rails with two great materialistic movements in the 20th century...
and millions died.
2 posted on 11/05/2005 6:41:50 AM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
"Yet biologists are unanimous in concluding that evolution is a fact."

Did I miss something? When did the Theory of Evolution become the Law of Evolution?

3 posted on 11/05/2005 6:44:31 AM PST by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites

A lot of us prefer to believe God instead of man, because He's never lied. He doesn't have to keep correcting his theories, either.


4 posted on 11/05/2005 6:48:16 AM PST by RoadTest (God is on the side of those on His side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites

"It is often maintained that Bruno was executed because of his Copernicanism and his belief in the infinity of inhabited worlds. In fact, we do not know the exact grounds on which he was declared a heretic because his file is missing from the records. Scientists such as Galileo and Johannes Kepler were not sympathetic to Bruno in their writings."

http://galileo.rice.edu/chr/bruno.html


5 posted on 11/05/2005 6:48:50 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry; Junior
FYI. My favorite paragraph:

They support the alternative explanation of intelligent design. The reasoning they offer is not based on evidence but on the lack of it. The formulation of intelligent design is a default argument advanced in support of a non sequitur. It is in essence the following: there are some phenomena that have not yet been explained and that (most importantly) the critics personally cannot imagine being explained; therefore there must be a supernatural designer at work. The designer is seldom specified, but in the canon of intelligent design it is most certainly not Satan and his angels, nor any god or gods conspicuously different from those accepted in the believer's faith.

6 posted on 11/05/2005 6:56:55 AM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites
The main thrust is there is a genetic basis for behavior in all animals, including human animals. This is the main reason the successful classes in the USA could abdicate all their wealth to the "poor" and "minorities" and leave the country, and within two years the place would turn into Haiti.

The USA was designed for people from successful societies to enter, join, work hard and make something of themselves without the burdens of a State Church and an aristocracy. I have pity for the hungry and oppressed people of the world, but by and large they are the products of dysfunctional societies, typically matriarchal, tribal, communal, dictatorial theocratic, or a combination of the four. When they migrate to a really successful capitalistic and paternal society and refuse to integrate (or are just born from a culture of perpetual victim-hood within a successful society, endowing themselves with the attitude they are owed something for past perceived slights) they should be shipped back home.

Check out the Dutch oath of loyalty.
7 posted on 11/05/2005 7:01:44 AM PST by 308MBR (If we ain't supposed to eat animals, how come they're made out of meat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billorites

Science is what it is, evolution is man's (the "gods" of the supposed modern era) interpretation of what science is.

As it is Written, there is nothing "NEW" under the sun and there is nothing new about denying the Creator.


8 posted on 11/05/2005 7:03:38 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
"Did I miss something? When did the Theory of Evolution become the Law of Evolution? "

In short, evolutionary theory as a complete explanation for biological diversity (and the origin of life if you include abiogenesis as part of evolutionary theory) is just a theory with incomplete evidence to consider it a fact. Evolution as the process of life changing through variation and natural selection though is a fact. Explained more here: Fact and Theory

9 posted on 11/05/2005 7:07:50 AM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

I'm not disregarding any of the science. I'm questioning that there was a not so subtle leap from theory to fact.

Personally, I do not believe we can from the ooze by a single organism. I'm more in the camp that we were placed here by God and nature was allowed to be nature. What I mean by that is nature has a way of adapting, cross breading and sometimes extinction. Of course I have absolutely nothing to back it up but my own philosophy.


10 posted on 11/05/2005 7:58:53 AM PST by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thanks for the ping. This is a good weekend thread. I'm cranking up the ping machine ...


11 posted on 11/05/2005 8:35:32 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 310 names.
See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.
See what's new in The List-O-Links.

12 posted on 11/05/2005 8:36:50 AM PST by PatrickHenry (Reality is a harsh mistress. No rationality, no mercy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy
When did the Theory of Evolution become the Law of Evolution?

Evolution is a observed fact. Evolutionary Theory is what explains how and why evolution occurs.

13 posted on 11/05/2005 8:39:59 AM PST by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: billorites

Once again, to all those who believe in Creationism and reject Evolution:

How do you explain dinosaurs?

(The question that never gets answered!)


14 posted on 11/05/2005 8:42:07 AM PST by canuck_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

"As it is Written, there is nothing "NEW" under the sun and there is nothing new about denying the Creator."

And Creationists will always trot out the lie that evolution is a denial of God. Some things never change.


15 posted on 11/05/2005 8:45:16 AM PST by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Can biology do better than faith?

Biology is better at what biology does.

16 posted on 11/05/2005 8:47:04 AM PST by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: billorites
Most of the religious right opposes the teaching of evolution in public schools, either by an outright ban on the subject or, at the least, by insisting that it be treated as "only a theory" rather than a "fact".

Right off the bat, the scientist from Harvard Yard makes a false assertion absent any proof at all. But what the hell, he's only lying about the evil "religious right" so how bad can it be?

17 posted on 11/05/2005 8:47:16 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
One may, I suppose, take issue with the word "most", but then the rest is rather difficult to dispute...


18 posted on 11/05/2005 8:49:43 AM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: billorites
There is something deep in religious belief that divides people and amplifies societal conflict.

One need only examine the 20th Century to understand just how 'right' this particular assertion is.

I mean after all "something deep in religious belief" evidently motivated the non believing commies Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot to murder tens of millions. Would that be categorized as "societal conflict"?

19 posted on 11/05/2005 8:53:57 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
Evolution, small e is fact, the TOE is just that, a theroy.

Like wise, intelligent design, small id, is a fact.

Facts are tricky things sometimes.

20 posted on 11/05/2005 8:55:23 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson