Evolution vs. God, Round II
I want to thank everyone who commented on my original post, both on my regular blog and on my Livejournal mirror. Several commenters raised issues that I wanted to respond to in detail.
First, there is the issue of whether the theory of evolution is “silent” on the question of God, as Jay Lake suggested in his comment:
Insofar as I know, evolutionary theory is silent on the question of God. That falls under First Causes, which is a whole nother branch of science usually included in cosmology.
True, evolutionary theory is silent on the question of First Causes. But it is not silent on the issue of whether God might have interfered with evolution in order to direct the development of some species, including humans.
By definition, what drives evolution is natural selection, random genetic mutation, and genetic drift. If, for example, humans selectively breed horses (or other forms of life), that is not natural selection, it’s artifical selection. If humans make changes to the fruit fly genome, that’s not that’s not random genetic mutation, that’s genetic engineering.
By definition, intentional changes to direct the development of a species are not evolution.
So to claim that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor is to deny that there was anything intentional about that development.
I will concede that does not contradict the existence of a “watchmaker” type of deity who set the initial conditions of the universe and is merely watching it play out, as Matthew Rotundo suggested in his comment:
But I disagree with your premise, that evolution is taught as “anti-God.” As I’ve argued in the past, the existence of randomness does not preclude the existence of a Supreme Being. One could argue that God created the universe to be random. After all, if I can set up a random situation, certainly an omnipotent Being could, too.
But it certainly contradicts the existence of the type of God who intentionally created human beings — which I think is the type of God that most Americans believe in.
What I was trying to explain with my example about the pennies was that even if the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the origin of the species, mere sufficiency does not exclude other possibilities. (The theory of random coin flipping may be sufficient to explain the pattern of pennies, but cannot not rule out the intentional coin placer.)
Since we have absolute proof that it is possible to interfere with natural evolution — human beings have done so for thousands of years — the most that the theory of evolution can claim is that it is sufficient to explain how any particular species developed.
Just because evolution could explain how the horse developed to its current size doesn’t mean there wasn’t intelligence directing the process by breeding horses capable of being ridden. Just because evolution could explain the development of St. Bernards and chihuahuas doesn’t mean humans weren’t involved. (Yes, I know they aren’t separate species, but as James Maxey points out, a far-future paleontologist could certainly make that mistake from a fossil record.)
But the theory of evolution is taught as the one and only explanation for the origin of humans. We’re not talking about Creationists saying that “any hole in the theory is evidence of God,” as joycemocha put it in her comment. This is Evolutionists denying the existence of a hole that definitely exists.
I’m not denying that proponents of “Creation Science” and “Intelligent Design” have politicized the issue of the teaching of evolution. But proponents of evolution have done so, too, by refusing to acknowledge the limitations of the theory.
So, what’s my policy prescription? Public school textbooks that teach the theory of evolution should include a caveat along the lines of: “The theory of evolution only explains the development of species in the absence of intervention by intelligent beings.”
What do you think about this article???
In mysterious ways
Science and faith have clashed from the days of Galileo to today. But the outcome is not always what you may expect: A biologist finds God. A biblical historian loses his religion. ANNE McILROY tells their tales
ANNE MCILROY
Bart Ehrman was a believer. An evangelical Christian, he learned Greek, Coptic and paleography — the study of ancient handwriting — to analyze New Testament documents. Today, he chairs the University of North Carolina religious-studies department, where he investigates the forgery of Christian documents in the second and third centuries. But he no longer has Jesus in his heart, and no longer goes to church.
Sharon Moalem was not religious when he began to study evolution in microbes, plants, animals and humans. Today, he is at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, where he investigates the role bacteria play in Crohn\’s disease, a digestive-tract disorder. He found God through science. He has become an Orthodox Jew who attends weekly services, and doesn\’t use his computer, BlackBerry or any electric devices on the Sabbath.
[Edited to remove the rest of the article so as to not infringe on copyright. Unfortunately, it appears the article is available on the web only behind the Globe and Mail's pay gate. -- EJS]
Interesting article.
I don’t believe there’s any fundamental conflict between science and religion. Ultimately, I believe they are one and the same — that all knowledge is part of a complete whole.
“The theory of evolution only explains the development of species in the absence of intervention by intelligent beings.”
I could accept this solution only if expounded upon so that the phrase “intelligent beings” was elaborated to mean human intervention via genetic engineering or directed selection. That is, I’m not comfortable with the terminology you use because it invokes intelligent design.
Teach the theory of evolution completely, its strengths and its weaknesses. That’s fair. It’s not fair to introduce an unprovable element (intelligent design, for example) into a classroom for a class that’s built around quantifiable, testable theories.
Scott, the whole point is to leave open the possibility of intervention by someone other than human. Defining the “intelligent beings” as human would defeat the purpose.
But if the word “intelligent” is a sticking point because it’s too easily associated with “Intelligent Design” theory, I’m open to changing my proposed disclaimer to:
“Scott, the whole point is to leave open the possibility of intervention by someone other than human.”
I don’t understand why this is neccessarily important; I think it’d be a detriment to both science and religion. Schools can teach science because science is grounded in provability and quantifiale evidence which yields consistent measureable results. There’s a basis teachers can work with.
There’s no ground floor for religious discussions. There’s no universally recognizable, solid standard to begin with. (Admittedly, I’m skeptical about the ability of schools to teach religion, even the small details we’re talking about here, correctly. 17 years of being a member of a minority religion taught me lots about misinterpretation and cultural bias)
The study of evolution in schools should be focused on what we know, and what evolution doesn’t explain. It should not touch at all, not even barely, on the unprovable idea that God set things in motion. That teaching belongs in the home.
> I don’t understand why this is neccessarily
> important;
It’s important because right now, vast numbers of Americans perceive the teaching of evolution as an attack on their belief in God. Because propenents of evolution show immediate hostility toward any mention of the merest possibility that God might have had something to do with directing the development of the human species, is it any wonder people think evolution is anti-God?
My proposed caveat is a true statement about one of the limitations of the theory of evolution. It does not say that God (or aliens or the Flying Spaghetti monster or anyone else) directed the evolution of man or any other species. It merely makes clear that the theory of evolution does not preclude the possibility of intentional intervention in the development of species.
> The study of evolution in schools should be focused
> on what we know, and what evolution doesn’t
> explain.
As I see it, that’s exactly what my caveat does.
> It should not touch at all, not even
> barely, on the unprovable idea that God set things
> in motion. That teaching belongs in the home.
And where does my caveat say that God set things in motion? It doesn’t.
Will some people who see the disclaimer think that it leaves open the possibility that God set things in motion or even actively directed the development of humanity? Yes — that’s the whole point of this thing: to let religious people know that the theory of evolution doesn’t preclude the idea that God was involved.
Your caveat can imply that it’s God who set things in motion; in the wrong hands, it’s a wink at intelligent design.
I don’t see why teachers should be required to assuage the doubts of the believing; they’re simply not equipped for it in the way that parents are.
Scott, you’re looking at this from the wrong angle.
The Newsweek poll I linked to in my original post showed that 48% of the American public does not believe in evolution. And since I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of the 48% comes from the 91% who believe in God, that means a majority of believers in God reject the theory of evolution.
Why are they doing that, given all the scientific evidence for evolution? It’s because they perceive evolution to be anti-God.
Setting up evolution as anti-God seems to be doing more to make people doubt evolution than to make them doubt God.
What I’m proposing is more a way to let evolution be more acceptable to believers in God than a way to let God be more acceptable to believers in evolution. The caveat is intended to assuage doubts about evolution.
Yes, and I don’t think it’s the school’s responsibility to introduce that dialog to students.
It’s the parents’ responsibility. Which speaks to your point about needing to have a wider public recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. This way, the Creationists’ bad science can be gently laid away, AND the raving against religion that some Evolutionists participate in can be turned into productive discussion. We agree on this point, I think.
But this isn’t a dialog for school teachers to be having with children.
Scott, I’ve pointed out a weakness in the theory of evolution: that it does not cover cases of intentional intervention in the development of species. You say that you want wider public recognition of the weaknesses of the theory of evolution, but you rule out actually mentioning one of them in public. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
I rule out mentioning it in public SCHOOL.
I’m all for holding that dialog between adults.
OOPS: By “it,” I mean the implication of intelligent design– not flaws in the theory of evolution.
Eric, I think it’s fine to discuss artificial selection in school along with natural selection, if you limit it to actual, demonstrable artificial selection. Teaching how we turned wild grasses into crops, for instance, is perfectly valid science, and I don’t think you would find a single scientist opposed to teaching this sort of intentional intelligent selection. The thing I oppose, though, would be introducing the utterly speculative notion of a prehuman intelligence that shaped human beings. I’m not even denying that such a thing is possible, but mere possibility doesn’t constitute evidence, or even a theory.
I have a huge problem with any statement in PUBLIC schools mentioning God. Intelligent design is just another way of sliding God under the back door. seperation of church and state seems rather incontravertible. No matter what people try. The fact of evolution is just as true as the fact that world is NOT flat,or the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Eric,
There are two problems I have with your disclaimer and argument. The first is that artificial selection isn’t a “hole” in evolution. Artificial selection is simply a changing of selective pressures. It works in the exact same manner as natural selection, only there’s a person deciding, to some extent, what pressures will allow an organism to succeed (meaning successful fecundity). I recognize from your point of view this may be splitting hairs, but it is simply inaccurate to say you have found a “hole” in evolutionary theory.
This leads to the second problem, the disclaimer issue. Imagine humans make a gravity gun, like in the Half-Life videogame series, that allows us to alter gravity. Would we then put disclaimers on our physics textbooks stating that the theory of gravity only explains the orbit of planets in the absence of intelligent intervention? Of course we wouldn’t. Why? Because there’s no reason to postulate intelligent intervention. None. It is unsupported by the evidence.
Now if your religion compels you to believe that God set the paths of the planets according to his divine will and manipulated, or created, gravity to that end, this is in no way in conflict with current theories, and you are welcome to teach it in church, and believe it as fervently as you wish. But science deals with real world evidence and provable (that is to say, disprovable) theories. To put caveats like you suggest, or the physics caveat I suggest, on textbooks, would lead to a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science. Until there is some credible physical evidence for intelligent intervention, it is inappropriate for a science class.
It seems your real worry is caused by the public confusion that states that evolution compels atheism. It seems odd to me that the solution to this misunderstanding is to try and make “exceptions” in science for religious premises, rather than just flat out teaching that science simply doesn’t affect matters of religious belief (i.e., matters that are unprovable, or un-disprovable as it were) one way or the other.