Is Evolution a Secular Religion? [Sometimes yes, sometimes no]

Science Magazine ^ | March 2003 | Michael Ruse

[PatrickHenry]

A major complaint of the Creationists, those who are committed to a Genesis-based story of origins, is that evolution -- and Darwinism in particular -- is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion, pushing norms and proposals for proper (or, in their opinion, improper) action. Evolutionists dismiss this argument as merely another rhetorical debating trick, and in major respects, this is precisely what it is. It is silly to claim that a naturalistic story of origins leads straight to sexual freedom and other supposed ills of modern society. But, if we wish to deny that evolution is more than just a scientific theory, the Creationists do have a point.

The history of the theory of evolution falls naturally into three parts (1). The first part took place from the mid-18th century up to the publication of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection as expounded in his Origin of Species published in 1859. Up until then, evolution was little more than a pseudo-science on a par with mesmerism (animal magnetism) or phrenology (brain bumps), used as much by its practitioners to convey moral and social messages as to describe the physical world. At the end of the 18th century, Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus, wrote evolutionary poetry, hymning the progress of life from the monad to man--or, as he put it, from the monarch (the butterfly) to the monarch (the king). He derived this notion of biological progress from the successes of the Industrial Revolution and then used it in a circular fashion to justify the cultural progress of the Britain of his day. For example, in his Temple of Nature(2), Erasmus Darwin wrote:

Imperious man, who rules the bestial crowd,
Of language, reason, and reflection proud,
With brow erect who scorns this earthy sod,
And styles himself the image of his God;
Arose from rudiments of form and sense,
An embryon point, or microscopic ens!

The same sort of stuff can be found in the writings of other early evolutionists, notably in the Philosophie Zoologique, published in 1809 by the Frenchman Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.

Charles Darwin, a serious full-time scientist, set out to change all of this. First, he wanted to give an empirically grounded basis for belief in the fact of evolution. Second, he wanted to persuade his readers of a particular mechanism of evolution, the natural selection of the successful brought on by the struggle for existence. In his first aim, Darwin was spectacularly successful. Within a decade of the publication of his Origin of Species, thinking people were convinced of the fact of evolution. However, regarding his second aim to convince folk about natural selection, Darwin had less success. Most people went for some form of evolution by jumps (saltationism), inheritance of acquired characteristics (Lamarckism), or some other mode of change. Darwin failed in another respect, too. He hoped to upgrade the study of evolution to a respectable, professional science -- the kind offered in lectures at universities, with dedicated students and well-funded research. It was not to be. A kind of bastardized Germanic evolution did make it into academia -- but it was concerned less with mechanisms and more with hypothesizing about histories, being more connected to Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") than anything to be found in the Origin of Species. As a mature professional research area, evolution was a flop. It simply did not materialize.

Why was this? Darwin himself was an invalid from the age of 30, and any profession building had to be done by his supporters, in particular by his "bulldog," Thomas Henry Huxley. In many respects, Huxley played to Darwin the role that Saint Paul played to Jesus, promoting the master's ideas. But just as Saint Paul rather molded Jesus' legacy to his own ends, so also Huxley molded Darwin's legacy. At the time that the Origin of Species was published, Britain was a country desperately in need of reform, as revealed by the horrors of the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. Huxley and others worked hard to bring about change, trying to move public perceptions into the 20th century. They reformed education, the civil service, the military, and much else. Huxley's own work was in higher education, and he succeeded best in the areas of physiology and morphology. He realized that to improve and professionalize these fields as areas of teaching and research, he needed clients (a must in all system building). Huxley sold physiology to the medical profession, just then desperate to change from killing to curing. Huxley's offer of a supply of students, ready for specialized medical training, with a solid background in modern physiology was gratefully received. Morphology, Huxley sold to the teaching profession, on the grounds that hands-on empirical study was much better training for modern life than the outmoded classics. Huxley himself sat on the new London School Board and started teacher training courses. His most famous student was the novelist H. G. Wells.

Evolution had no immediate payoff. Learning phylogenies did not cure belly ache, and it was still all a bit too daring for regular schoolroom instruction. But Huxley could see a place for evolution. The chief ideological support of those who opposed the reformers -- the landowners, the squires, the generals, and the others -- came from the Anglican Church. Hence, Huxley saw the need to found his own church, and evolution was the ideal cornerstone. It offered a story of origins, one that (thanks to progress) puts humans at the center and top and that could even provide moral messages. The philosopher Herbert Spencer was a great help here. He was ever ready to urge his fellow Victorians that the way to true virtue lies through progress, which comes from promoting a struggle in society as well as in biology -- a laissez-faire socioeconomic philosophy. Thus, evolution had its commandments no less than did Christianity. And so Huxley preached evolution-as-world-view at working men's clubs, from the podia during presidential addresses, and in debates with clerics -- notably Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford. He even aided the founding of new cathedrals of evolution, stuffed with displays of dinosaurs newly discovered in the American West. Except, of course, these halls of worship were better known as natural history museums (see the photographs).

As with Christianity, not everyone claimed exactly the same thing in the name of their Lord. Yet, moral norms were the game in town, and things continued this way until the third phase, which began around 1930. This was the era during which a number of mathematically trained thinkers -- notably Ronald Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane in England, and Sewall Wright in America -- fused Darwinian selection with Mendelian genetics, and thus provided the conceptual foundations of what became known as the synthetic theory of evolution or neo-Darwinism. Rapidly, the experimentalists and naturalists -- notably Theodosius Dobzhansky in America and E. B. Ford in England -- started to put empirical flesh on the mathematical skeleton, and finally Darwin's dream of a professional evolution with selection at its heart was realized. But there is more to the story than this. These new-style evolutionists -- the mathematicians and empiricists -- wanted to professionalize evolution because they wanted to study it full time in universities, with students and research grants, and so forth. However, like everyone else, they had been initially attracted to evolution precisely because of its quasi-religious aspects, regardless of whether these formed the basis of an agnostic/atheistic humanism or something to revitalize an old religion that had lost its spirit and vigor. Hence, they wanted to keep a value-impregnated evolutionism that delivered moral messages even as it strived for greater progressive triumphs.

This all meant that by the 1940s and 1950s the study of evolution was of two sorts. There was serious empirical work, very professional, containing few or no direct exhortations to moral or social action. Along with this, almost all of the leading evolutionists were turning out works of a more popular nature, about progress and the ways to achieve it. By the 1950s, evolutionary works, such as those by the Darwinian paleontologist G. G. Simpson, discussed democracy and education and (increasingly) conservation. In 1944, Simpson published Tempo and Mode in Evolution: straight science about natural selection and the fossil record. Then, in 1949, he published The Meaning of Evolution: science for the general reader, packed with all sorts of stuff about the virtues of the American way over communism. (Remember, the Cold War was then settling into its long winter, and Trofim Lysenko was destroying Russian biology.) Finally, in 1953, came Simpson's The Major Features of Evolution, and we were back to straight science.

Things have continued in much the same way to the present. There is professional evolutionary biology: mathematical, experimental, not laden with value statements. But, you are not going to find the answer to the world's mysteries or to societal problems if you open the pages of Evolution or Animal Behaviour. Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation. Consider Edward O. Wilson, rightfully regarded as one of the most outstanding professional evolutionary biologists of our time, and the author of major works of straight science. In his On Human Nature, he calmly assures us that evolution is a myth that is now ready to take over Christianity. And, if this is so, "the final decisive edge enjoyed by scientific naturalism will come from its capacity to explain traditional religion, its chief competition, as a wholly material phenomenon. Theology is not likely to survive as an independent intellectual discipline" (3). An ardent progressionist, Wilson sees moral norms emerging from our need to keep the evolutionary process moving forward. In his view, this translates as a need to promote biodiversity, for Wilson believes that humans have evolved in a symbiotic relationship with nature. A world of plastic would kill us humans, literally as well as metaphorically. For progress to continue, we must preserve the Brazilian rainforests and other areas of high organic density and diversity (4).

So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism -- often an alternative to religion -- exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.

[PatrickHenry]

Photographs, author information, and footnotes are in the original article: HERE.

[PatrickHenry]

PING. [This ping list is for the evolution side of evolution threads, and sometimes for other science topics. FReepmail me to be added or dropped.]

[jjm2111]

Interesting....

[LiteKeeper]

Leading anti-creationist philosopher admits that evolution is a religion

[John Beresford Tipton]

"It is silly to claim that a naturalistic story of origins leads straight to sexual freedom"

But it does lead to POOL, right there in River City!

[gcruse]

If creationists wish to include in their definition of religion a belief in worshipless theories of the origin of the universe, postulates which rely on no deities, that is their prerogative, I suppose.

But then would that not include such beliefs as that my TV will come on when I hit the power switch? My belief is based on electromagnetic theory, I do not worship its derivatives, no god is involved, yet, though I turn it on successfully a million times, there is always a chance the TV will not come on, and one day, it will not. The surprise I will feel when it doesn't is related to the amount of confidence (faith to cover any gaps in performance) I have in past performance of the theory.

If every expected occurence, by this definition, must be rooted in religious belief that it will occur, based on the correctness of the theory, then God is nothing more than the next guy's probability wave collapsing in a way pleasing to him. Any unpleasant outcome, as we see time and again, is the work of Satan or the ACLU.

[Physicist]

Then, sometimes from the same person, you have evolution as secular religion, generally working from an explicitly materialist background and solving all of the world's major problems, from racism to education to conservation.

I don't see how this makes evolution a religion. The temptation to employ scientific facts to prop up one's personal value judgments exists in many fields, not just evolutionary biology. Look at the number of nuclear physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project, who parleyed their knowledge of physics (and feelings of guilt) into books about how the whole world should just live in peace and sing Kumbaya. Look at the AIDS researchers who feel compelled to make statements about the tolerance of homosexuality. Look at the climatologists who make dire pronouncements about the moral turpitude of capitalism, and how it's killing the planet.

But these bloviations are almost never derided as being in any way religious.

Modern cosmology, on the other hand, is often called a secular religion, and yet I rarely (if ever) see cosmologists attempting to draw moral conclusions from their work.

What sets cosmology and evolution apart from other scientific fields is that they cover topics previously staked out by religious texts. That's it. That's the only reason these studies are called "secular religions". It has nothing to do with anybody's moral pronouncements, no matter how ridiculous, or how inappropriately they claim a scientific basis.

Henceforth, I will disregard any "secular religion" accusations.

[bert]

.....Is Evolution a Secular Religion?.....

Of course not.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Henceforth, I will disregard any "secular religion" accusations.

Would you accept "long term periodic religion"?

[Sabertooth]

So, what does our history tell us? Three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry.

Scientists make excellent scientists when they stick to being scientists.

Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism -- often an alternative to religion -- exists.

This popular evolutionism does indeed creep into the thinking of professional evolutionists. That isn't even bad, by itself; it's the disingenuous and hubrisian denial by some that they've taken extrapolated leaps of faith into realms beyond science that spooks the horses.

In these instances, there is almost a recapitulation of the political bias of the mainstream media where the problem isn't the bias so much as is the denial of bias.

Somewhere on this thread we'll read a post to the effect that there are no realms beyond science, sans the acknowledgement that such a conclusion requires a nonscientific leap of faith. Though the irony of a leap of faith to remain in place is entertaining, it engenders a certain tedium.

The likelihood of a scientist also being an apt theologian is about equivalent to a dice roll.

Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.

I wouldn't even go this far. Scientists simply need to be honest with themselves and others about what is and isn't science.

Teach evolution, and salt it with a few caveats such as "to the best of our understanding..." or "the sum of the available evidence indicates...."

When the subject of origins leads to inevitable questions about existence, consciousness, and purpose, close the science books and have a free theological dialogue.

This might not impress the die-hard literal creationists, who appear to have extra-scripturally made anti-evolutionism a prerequisite for salvation. However, if scientists and the science-minded would supplant their hubris with some humility, then evolution could be discussed without the suspicion by the curious and devout that it's a Trojan Horse to undermine their faith.

[PatrickHenry]

What sets cosmology and evolution apart from other scientific fields is that they cover topics previously staked out by religious texts. That's it. That's the only reason these studies are called "secular religions".

Agreed. But not only cosmology and evolution. The solar system could also be called a "secular religion," and so could geology, because both provide conclusions contrary to those suggested by a literal reading of Genesis.

Rather than "secular religion," which is a term that claims too much, I would prefer an expression like "secular explanation." But it's impossible to change popular usages, so the struggle goes on. It's good, however, to recognize that it's largely a linguistic problem.

The other prong of the problem is that scientists, like everyone else, often speculate about theological questions. When a plumber does this, it doesn't cause any outcries that plumbing is a secular religion. So it should be with science. But alas ...

[Sabertooth]

I don't see how this makes evolution a religion. The temptation to employ scientific facts to prop up one's personal value judgments exists in many fields, not just evolutionary biology. Look at the number of nuclear physicists who worked on the Manhattan Project, who parleyed their knowledge of physics (and feelings of guilt) into books about how the whole world should just live in peace and sing Kumbaya. Look at the AIDS researchers who feel compelled to make statements about the tolerance of homosexuality. Look at the climatologists who make dire pronouncements about the moral turpitude of capitalism, and how it's killing the planet.

But these bloviations are almost never derided as being in any way religious.

Sure they are. And they are.

Those physicists are recapitulating ecumenism, those AIDS researchers are recapitulating hedonism, and those climatologists are recapitulating paganism.

Evolution just had a head start of about a century to incubate its quasireligious components, which tend to vary between pantheism and atheism.

Modern cosmology, on the other hand, is often called a secular religion, and yet I rarely (if ever) see cosmologists attempting to draw moral conclusions from their work.

Keep in mind the distinction Ruse's (perfect surname for this piece) distinction between professional evolutionism and popular evolutionism.

If we apply that to cosmology, don't we find the origins of moral relativism?

On the other side, don't some cosmologists interpret the beginning, the Big Bang, as indicating a Beginner?

[DoctorMichael]

Is Evolution a Secular Religion?

No. It is merely a statement of fact.

[Sabertooth]

The other prong of the problem is that scientists, like everyone else, often speculate about theological questions. When a plumber does this, it doesn't cause any outcries that plumbing is a secular religion. So it should be with science. But alas ...

No. When a plumber speculates about theological questions, he doesn't adopt the conceit that the dynamics of cavitation and the superiority of copper over galvanized steel indicate certain theological conclusions, or that existence can be explained by a sufficient understanding of plumbing.

[ZULU]

"They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion.."

Evolution per se, is NOT a secular religion. It may BECOME a secular religion if it is presented as negating the existence of a Deity, i.e. that a mere series of fortuitous accidents produced Homo sapiens. In a courtroom that would termed calling for a conclusion on the part of the witness.

I believe in Evolution as do the overwhelming number of biologists and zoologists, and the overwhelming number of biologists and zoologists are NOT atheists - just those who attempt to throw a personal "spin" on the Evolutionary theory. In itself Evolution neither negates nor posits the existence of a Deity. It is merely the mechanism by which the body of Homo sapiens was produced.

[js1138]

Does this mean we have to take all the banned trolls back?

Seriously, there is nothing in this article that hasn't been said here on FR. There are always people willing to justify their political aims with whatever they can find in current trendy philosophy.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[PatrickHenry]

When a plumber speculates about theological questions, he doesn't adopt the conceit that ...

It's true that scientists can be more pompous than plumbers. This shouldn't disqualify them from expressing their opinions; nor should it invalidate their science. Frankly, I don't know why anybody would listen to anyone but a theologian when it comes to theological matters. Or -- creationists take note -- a scientist regarding scientific subjects.

[Stone Mountain]

Great post - that is the distinction that I see also.

Any unpleasant outcome, as we see time and again, is the work of Satan or the ACLU.

LOL!

[RobbyS]

I am afraid you ignore the obvious. Just as in the case of the abortion controversy, where two embrylogists look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions, one's background necessarily enters in. Futhermore, if the majority of, say, biologists in a college department are philosophic naturalists and one of their colleagues is know to be a Christian and to believe in the supernatural, then whose work is most likely to be devalued? Whose scientific world is more likely to have a hard time finding a publisher? Every society has its orthodoxy and is to a lesser or greater degree intolerant of dissenters and disinclude to reward them.