Can biology do better than faith?

New Scientist ^ | November 2, 2005 | Edward O. Wilson

[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.

[b_sharp]

"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.

If you are assuming that the Bible is the direct and literal word of God, then yes he has lied to you. The creation and Noachian floods are both demonstrably incorrect.

The reason science corrects theories is because our technology and thus our ability to see deeper into the nature of nature improves our conclusions. Because science is self correcting it becomes more and more accurate.

[b_sharp]

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

That did not happen. You simply have a misapprehension of the terms.

[b_sharp]

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

Apparently this can not be stated too many times. Perhaps PH should have this on his ping notification.

[b_sharp]

Giant lizards that Noah forgot to feed?

[b_sharp]

"A theroy, I like it.

But what does it mean?

[PatrickHenry]

Perhaps PH should have this on his ping notification.

If I tried to tell the creationists what they need to know, my ping logo would be 500 pages long. All I can do is provide a link to The List-O-Links, which the ping logo does have. The definitions necessary to engage in our dialog are in links provided in the first section (ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT SCIENCE). After that, the horse having been led to water ...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Can biology do better than faith?

That question could best be answered by the homosexuals and the homosexual monogamy (gay marriage) advocacy...

[b_sharp]

"IF evolution is indeed a fact, how do I go about evolving eyes in the back of my head so no one can sneak up on me from behind?

The observation of the variation of allele frequencies in a population and differential reproduction are fact. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in nature.

Evolution is not a result of the desire of organisms, no does it have a goal or direction. As for your little bit of appeal to emotion and strawman, compare the position of eyes in predators and prey. Take a look at the Flounder fish (Paralichthys) in particular.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Can biology do better than faith?

That question could best be answered by the homosexuals and the homosexual monogamy (gay marriage) advocacies...

[b_sharp]

"We all have a different DNA...each one of us have our own fingerprint...foot print...eye print.

"Whats the chances of that happening by happenstance?

Wrong question. What is the likelyhood of any two of us having the same fingerprint/footprint/eye print? (Doesn't the ink used in an eye print really sting?)

[RoadTest]

And when they finally see all the way they'll see the God was right all along. You see, He can see into the future.

[Junior]

The CrevoSci Archive Just one of the many services of Darwin Central "The Conspiracy that Cares"

• PatrickHenry's famous List-O-Links
• Webster's On-Line Dictionary:  Creationist

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

OpenTag Date ATag Title BTag Notes CloseTag
1. 2005-11-05 Do space aliens have souls? Inquiring minds can check Jesuit's book
2. 2005-11-05 Can biology do better than faith?
3. 2005-11-04 'Intelligent design' trial set to conclude [at last]
4. 2005-11-04 Is science driven by inspired guesswork?
5. 2005-11-04 Shaped from clay [origin of life]
6. 2005-11-03 Vatican Cardinal Says We Should Listen to Science
7. 2005-11-03 Science versus scientism
8. 2005-11-03 The Specter of Difference
9. 2005-11-03 Origin of board decision probed [Dover Evolution trial, 03 Nov]
10. 2005-11-03 Scientists See Light that May Be from First Objects in Universe
11. 2005-11-03 Bees solve complex colour puzzles (Bees solve puzzles computers can't - maybe they're designed!)
12. 2005-11-02 Board member to resume testimony in 'intelligent design' trial
13. 2005-11-02 Darwin v God case nears its conclusion on creationism
14. 2005-11-02 Picky female frogs drive evolution of new species in less than 8,000 years
15. 2005-11-02 'Design' Vs. Darwin
16. 2005-11-01 """Intelligent Design"": Stealth War on Science"
17. 2005-11-01 Tension Over Intelligent Design
18. 2005-11-01 Study: Engaging prior learning on creationism and evolution may benefit college biology students
19. 2005-11-01 Kosky rules intelligent design a faith (Only religious classes can offer I.D. Down Under)
20. 2005-11-01 Darwinian Democrats
21. 2005-11-01 Judge grills Dover official [Dover trial 11/1/05]
22. 2005-11-01 Contract dispute ignites Dover race
23. 2005-10-31 Kansas Fight on Evolution Escalates (Teachers groups punish Kansas school)
24. 2005-10-31 None Dare Call it Reason (Intelligent Design Article)
25. 2005-10-31 Scientists and engineers apply nature's design to human problems (Man borrows from God's DESIGN)
26. 2005-10-30 A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
27. 2005-10-30 Meru Foundation eTORUS(tm) Newsletter #30 (Intelligent Design: Don't be taken in)

---

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of November:
 

2000-11-10 AncientAirs 2000-11-21 AndrewC 1998-11-18 angelo 1999-11-22 Blood of Tyrants 2003-11-26 blowfish 2004-11-08 CarolinaGuitarman 1997-11-28 cd jones 2001-11-30 claptrap 2001-11-16 CobaltBlue 2002-11-21 DannyTN 2004-11-16 DaveLoneRanger 1997-11-30 Ditto 2001-11-16 dmz

2000-11-11 Ernest_at_the_Beach 2000-11-02 Exit 109 2000-11-22 FFIGHTER 2000-11-12 ForGod'sSake 2001-11-07 FourtySeven 2000-11-10 Godel 2004-11-06 GreenOgre 2000-11-04 harbinger of doom 2000-11-28 HiTech RedNeck 1999-11-05 Ichneumon 1998-11-13 jennyp 1998-11-25 Junior_G 2002-11-17 Just mythoughts

2004-11-11 kaotic133 2003-11-18 little jeremiah 1998-11-18 malakhi 2000-11-19 Mike Fieschko 2000-11-06 mrjeff 1999-11-05 muleskinner 2003-11-17 Nathan Zachary 2002-11-12 NCLaw441 1999-11-25 Nebullis 2000-11-13 NYer 2000-11-24 old-ager 2004-11-03 PajamaHadin 2000-11-10 Patriotic Teen

1998-11-01 Pharmboy 2000-11-11 P-Marlowe 2000-11-16 presidio9 2002-11-14 Remedy 2000-11-30 Right Wing Professor 2004-11-18 rightwinggoth 1998-11-15 rob777 1998-11-04 RobRoy 1999-11-16 TerP26 2000-11-04 TigerTale 2004-11-11 untrained skeptic 2000-11-05 will of the people 2003-11-29 woodb01

---

In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:

---

ALS angelo Area Freeper Aric2000 Askel5 biblewonk bluepistolero churchillbuff claptrap codebreaker Con X-Poser ConservababeJen DittoJed2 dob

Ed Current f.Christian followerofchrist general_re goodseedhomeschool gopwinsin04 gore3000 IllumiNOTi JediGirl JesseShurun JethroHathaway jlogajan Justice Avenger Kevin Curry

kharaku knowquest Le-Roy malakhi Marathon medved metacognative Modernman n4sir NoKinToMonkeys Ogmios peg the prophet Phaedrus Phoroneus

pickemuphere ret_medic RickyJ SeaLion Selkie Shubi Tomax tpaine Truth666 twittle Unalienable WaveThatFlag xm177e2

---

Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!

---

Lost CrevoSci Battlefields (Pulled Threads)

• 2004-04-27 Stop Teaching Our Kids this Evolution Claptrap!
• 2003-10-29 The Mystery of the Missing Links (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution)
• 2003-10-27 Physics Nobelist Takes Stand on Evolution
• 2003-10-23 Gene Found for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
• 2003-10-21 Artificial Proteins Assembled from Scratch
• 2003-09-23 Solar System Formation Questions
• 2003-07-18 Unlikely Group May Revive Darwin Debate [Evolution v. Creationism]
• 2003-07-02 "Unlocking the Mystery of ""Unlocking the Mystery of Life"""
• 2003-06-26 Darwin Faces a New Rival
• 2003-06-06 Amazing Creatures
• 2002-09-13 Oldest Known Penis Is 100 Million Years Old
• 2002-04-10 (Creationists) CRSC Correction
• 2001-08-28 The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [6th Revision]
• 2001-08-26 A Scientific Account of the Origin of Life on Earth [Thread I]
• 2001-01-13 A Christian Understanding of Intelligent Design
• 2000-10-10 Another Lost Generation?
• 2000-08-30 Evil-Ution
• 1999-11-14 Creationism's Success Past 5 Years: (Gallup: 1 in 10 hold secular evolutionist perspective)

---

Longest CrevoSci Thread Ever

• 2002-12-11 Evolution Disclaimer Supported (6,871 replies)

---

Glossary of Terms

Crevo:  Creation vs. evolution
CrevoSci:  Creation vs. evolution/Science
CrevoSci Warriors:  Those who take part on CrevoSci threads
Freepday:  The day a Freeper joined Free Republic

---

The
official beer
of Darwin Central

[RoadTest]

The New Testament is the fulfilment of the Old testament. There is no disagreement.

God has no reason to change His mind after a time because He saw all the way into the future when He began creation. That's why He doesn't need to practice evolvement.

[b_sharp]

I respectfully disagree.

[b_sharp]

In general I agree with you, however the misunderstanding of this particular definition is the crux of the matter at Dover and other school districts.

As usual it is just a suggestion, just one of the many I make. :)

[Thatcherite]

Did I miss something?

Yes, you wer asleep in your science classes when the qualitative difference between theories and laws was explained. I bet you think theories become laws when they get solid enough. Wrong..... Theories and laws serve different purposes. Theories are much more interesting and important than laws, which are usually just observations of simple empirical relationships in nature with no implied understanding of mechanics behind them.

[Thatcherite]

IF evolution is indeed a fact, how do I go about evolving eyes in the back of my head so no one can sneak up on me from behind? I suppose evolution is possible, but then, so is producing a complete Encyclopedia Britanica by repeated explosions in a print shop.

You managed two absurd strawman arguments in two sentences.

Plenty of creatures do have a very wide field of vision. However a wide field of vision comes at a cost. Predator animals do much better with accurate binocular vision (for assessing distance through parallax) in a narrow forward-facing field of view. People are predators, not prey.

No biologist proposes that anything like "an explosion in a printshop" produced any living organism. You should perhaps learn something about the theory, or you just make yourself look militantly ignorant when you sound off about something with nonsensical analogies.

[Thatcherite]

Not much to explain, they were created animals who are now extinct.

God seems to have gone to a great deal of trouble to create an absolute raft of extinct animals that look exactly what you would predict if the theory of evolution were true. He also placed them in the strata that match their position in the tree of life. Perhaps He is trying to trick scientists into going to Hell, while only the credulous acceptors of bronze-age myths get to go to heaven. Truly He works in mysterious ways.

[nightdriver]

"Start early. (By early I mean a few hundred million years.)"

Guess I better get right on it, then, huh?

[Ready2go]

"Wrong question. What is the likelyhood of any two of us having the same fingerprint/footprint/eye print? (Doesn't the ink used in an eye print really sting?)"

LOL...b_sharp; I betcha it would hurt for awhile....ouch :)

Airport authorities also say iris scanning can weed out impostors. The British Airport Authority (BAA), which has been working with the scheme at Heathrow, says the risk of fake identity is minimised because biometric information ***is unique to every individual***.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/03/27/schiphol.security/