The Lafayette Journal & Courier ran an opinion column by Prof. Nancy Pelaez entitled Science Need Not Threaten Faith. The author’s basic point is that the National Academy of Science’s book “Science, Evolution, and Creationism” was the subject of very different reporting by the New York Times as compared to the Associated Press. The New York Times reported the new book is “intended specifically for the lay public and … devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.” Meanwhile, the AP reports that the book “takes swipes at creationism and other anti-evolution views,” and that “evolution is a continuing topic of debate in some states.”
Prof. Pelaez goes on to report on data suggesting that people want to know more about evolution and suggesting some of the ways in which evolutionary science is important to our modern condition. She concludes:
The lay public deserves access to intelligible explanations about recent science discoveries without fear that scisence has anything to say about their deeply held faith or personal beliefs.
Readers are encouraged to practice scientific skepticism and to access the original source from experts and not rely on an Associated Press article with biased statements about the teaching of evolution in public schools.
All of this is fine for most religions, I suspect. As I’ve mentioned ad nauseum around here, I’m not a religious guy. But, it seems to me that most people of faith don’t abandon their own powers of observation and judgment just because their holy texts say something different. “Who you gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes?” But, there is a non-trivial segment of the population who feel that the Bible (and, for all I know, other holy texts for other faiths) commands them to do just that because of its supposed inerrancy. If the Bible is the literal, unchanging, inerrant word of God, contradictory evidence can’t be viewed very favorably. And, so, we have the evolution “controversy.” Scientific skepticism is anathema to those who believe that Truth is exclusively revealed rather than observed. Something in the Bible might prove to be falsifiable in which case a brittle sort of faith would shatter.
Even in this context, it’s never quite been clear to me why evolution seems to be the Holy Grail of wingnuttery. I mean, I get that the Bible says that God created all of the animals and that evolution suggests that this is not the case. But why doesn’t geology showing that the earth is a few billion years old come in for quite the same firestorm? There are Young Earthers out there, but they don’t seem to cause nearly the same level of fuss.
At the moment, I suppose this is mostly of academic interest to me. I’m not afflicted by doubts when presented with contradictions between scientific observations and the writings in the Bible. Others are free to believe what they want to believe and that alone does me no harm. However, if this nonsense “controversy” is a factor in the public schools my kids go to, I might have to have words with someone.
As a religious person who thinks the theory of evolution gives an accurate scientific account of how humans came about, here’s some reasons why religious persons who don’t share my view of evolution are frightened by it. First, I think they think that humanity’s value is lessened somehow if God did not create human’s specially and separately from “lower” animals. Second, and closely related I guess, there was a lot of concern in the early part of the 20th century anyway, not completely unfounded, about Social Darwinism–not something Darwin himself expounded, but nonetheless some people, including a lot of scientists, used the theory of evolution to justify eugenics and so forth. I think the Scopes trial was more an attack against eugnenics and Social Darwinism than anything. Curiously, William Jennings Bryan was willing to compromise that neither creationism nor evolution be taught in schools, if that was the only way to keep eugenics-type theories from creeping into schools. That was a legitimate concern in the 1920s. Okay, I’ve rambled long enough…
Not sure I get this:
people [the lay public]
deserve [access to intelligible explanations]
scientific evidence [about recent science discoveries]
as long as it doesn’t conflict with their faith [without fear that science has anything to say about their deeply held faith or personal beliefs]
Huh? Sounds like they only deserve to hear the stuff that doesn’t conflict…? Or they deserve to hear an interpretation that doesn’t conflict?
Yeah, I had trouble parsing that passage myself. I took it to mean more like “without regard to fear” their fear. But, that’s not a very literal reading of “without fear.”
I don’t understand why those who believe in creation (“intelligent design”, etc.) can’t seem to take the idea that perhaps God created the universe, and from that point, beings evolved.
I get the “humans as higher beings” as Glenn points out, but it still doesn’t seem to me that creation and evolution need be mutually exclusive.
As for me, I could care less about the origin of the universe. If I came to know, it wouldn’t change my life a bit. It’s trivia.
If you’re prepared to accept a sort of clockmaker Deism where God invented the universe, wound it up, and let it go; there is no contradiction at all.
However, if your particular religious belief has the inerrancy of the Bible as a fundamental underpinning, evolution is a disaster. That the Bible could be demonstrably wrong might suggest that the Old Testament was written by Bronze Age shepherds rather than by the Almighty.
In the middle of those two possibilities is a more flexible reliance on the Bible – perhaps some of the Old Testament stories are metaphors or fictional, but useful, morality tales.
I would say this: If science conflicts with faith it’s the perception of the individual ,not the presentation of science. There’s an old saying that nothing is out of Gods realm,and I’ve always understood that as literally. Surely , science is included,and that means without having to parse words so God won’t be offended.
Doug, a couple of things:
To clarify: Within the pale of Christian orthodoxy, The Bible is often taken as inerrant, but no one takes it literally. (E.g., Jesus is a lamb, a lion, and a door?) The question is the extent to which it should be taken literally.
The other predominant problem is that people conflate two different definitions of evolution: the so-called micro and macro versions. The former is indisputable; the latter is fanciful as a comprehensive scientific *explanation* for the development of life. At the end of the day, it relies on as many just-so stories as the hand-waving of any creationist. Those who conflate the two are remarkably blind or are trying to pull the rhetorical wool over our eyes.
Eric Schansberg,
Your characterization of of macroevolution as “fanciful” is not the consensus view of modern biologists–though, judging by some of the terms you’re deploying, I’ll grant that you may regard that as an advantage rather than a drawback.
I direct the curious to the talk.origins FAQ entry on the subject of macroevolution.
The following except appears to speak most closely to your implicit claim that macroevolution is unscientific.
There is vastly more evidence that one species can evolve into another (fossil record showing transitional species, DNA evidence, etc), than there is that the creation story is true (one book, author(s) unknown but purportedly “God”).
From what I understand, evolution is the single, most unifying theory in science. It’s also the most tested. If one follows evolution honestly, it’s possible to conclude that there’s no creator.
I think the evidence is clear that religion has, is, and always will be at war with science. And sadly, it looks like religion is winning in the U.S.