The battle between science and religion is artificial, perpetuated by extremists on both sides. Scientists need to better communicate with theologians and vice versa. There is a desperate need for inter-disciplinary dialogue (IDD) that goes FAR BEYOND the immense flaws of intelligent design (ID) and special creationism.
We are a nation fully dependent upon science. Yet, science education in the United States is in decline. In a recent evaluation reported by the New York Times, the U.S. ranked "27th out of 29 wealthy nations" in scientific learning. The question is why? The opposition of religion and science in our American culture is not helping the matter.
Here is how a leading scholar on the sociology of science & religion describes the situation:
Elaine Howard Ecklund, Ph.D., "What Scientists Think About Religion," HuffingtonPost.com, June 28, 2010
We need real, radical dialogue -- not just friendly co-existence between religion and science, but the kind of discussion where each side genuinely tries to understand why the other thinks the way it does and where common ground is sought. This dialogue should reach the rank-and-file in religious communities with the message of how to maintain faith while fully pursuing science. And it needs to reach the rank-and-file in the scientific community as well, providing them with better ways to connect with religious people.
Religious people need to remember that not all atheist scientists are hostile to religion. They need to know that even the most secular scientists struggle with the moral and ethical implications of their work. And scientists need to do a better job of communicating the importance of science to religious people … . Because if people of faith believe they have to become antireligious or completely secular to be a successful scientist -- when this is not a full reflection of the scientific community -- it would be a disaster.
Young students across the country are being taught by parents and religious leaders of various denominations that science is dangerous to their faith and will damage their soul. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of scientists who now believe science is incompatible with religious faith. How many religious Einsteins out there are being scared away from doing science?
As Ecklund suggests, we need radical dialogue. The foundations of evolutionary science (which includes speciation over billions of years) are NOT going away. The earth is round, rotates around the sun, is about 4.5 billion years old, and over the last 3 billion years life has dramatically changed (evolved). Religionists can be upset, but these are scientific facts that are widely regarded in the scientific community.
Theologians who dispute these facts because of doctrinal motivations are NOT promoting progress. They are simply denying overwhelming evidence from the natural world. They are scaring students away from science (whether intending to do so or not).
Conversely, there are some scientists who insist that religionists are mentally flawed. Such a view creates a prejudicial environment for religious students interested in science. It may surprise some, but religious students CAN BELIEVE in ancient dinosaurs. Scientific mentors should never assume otherwise.
The following is an example of a radical debate from two scientists, one religious and the other not. Francis Collins is Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, and he is a world-renowned geneticist. He also is a devoted Christian. Richard Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He also is a devoted atheist, known for his deep-seated hatred for theological claims. The debate came from Time Magazine, Nov. 5, 2010, in an article by Dan Cray entitled "God vs. Science."
Below are some excerpts of the debate, along with some of my own commentary:
Dawkins argues that once one has adopted a belief in the Bible, it is incongruent to believe in evolution. Note the retort of Collins:
DAWKINS: If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings … .
COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?
Even though a Christian, Collins is a thoroughly committed Darwinist. (Count me in his camp). Dawkins seems to believe that atheists should monopolize the facts of evolution.
In the segment below, Collins appeals to the Anthropic Principle, that argues that the universe is finely tuned to support life.
COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. …
DAWKINS: … Physicists have come up with other explanations. One is to say that these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill. The other way is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes. …
COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?"
I like Collins' attitude that religion should never be a roadblock to research. Maybe there are multiverses and maybe there are not. Preconceived theologies should NOT dictate the direction of scientific research.
In the segment below Richard Dawkins argues that evolutionary psychology will provide a complete account of human morality. By contrast, Francis Collins alludes to the moral argument for the existence of God.
DAWKINS: Just as people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn't cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.
COLLINS: … Evolution may explain some features of the moral law, but it can't explain why it should have any real significance. If it is solely an evolutionary convenience, there is really no such thing as good or evil. But for me, it is much more than that. The moral law is a reason to think of God as plausible--not just a God who sets the universe in motion but a God who cares about human beings, because we seem uniquely amongst creatures on the planet to have this far-developed sense of morality. …
In religion, it is God that gives morality any significance. It is God that creates an obligation to behave morally. It is difficult for atheists to maneuver around that argument. Of course, Dawkins believes in morality, but to him the source is biology, not some higher being. Both scientists have good points to consider.
Collins deserves some credit for getting Dawkins to admit the following:
DAWKINS: … If there is a God, it's going to be a whole lot bigger and a whole lot more incomprehensible than anything that any theologian of any religion has ever proposed.
Actually, I don't think Dawkins, in the quote above, is too far off the mark. There is much to God and his purpose that we do NOT understand. Most theologians, I think, would readily admit that point. Consequently, I am confused by those who insist upon arguing that God would NEVER use evolution as a means of creation. How do we know what God would NEVER do?
Francis Collins is correct in the sense that there does not need to be any considerable conflict between science and religion. Richard Dawkins also makes many excellent points. As long as there are human beings, the nature of God will be unsettled. To the dismay of Dawkins, religion is here to stay.
Do we really want to build a society in which religious people are steered away from science? To do so would be to our considerable detriment.
Scientists should NOT be making pronouncements about the existence or non-existence of God. The concept of God is really out of their league. Similarly, theologians should NOT be making pronouncements about the truth-value of evolutionary science. They are also out of their league. What is needed is a mutual dialogue – based in respect – if not for each other, then for the truth.
Science and religion must find ways to co-exist. Our children need both scientific and religious education. It will be science that improves the temporal salvation of humanity. It will be religion and morality that should be teaching us to cooperate in a diverse world that includes many races, orientations, ethnicities, denominations, and nationalities.
Having science and religion at odds is highly counterproductive. We need the honest conversation of IDD and not the pseudo-science of ID, which is a distraction from larger and more important issues.
Copyright © 2010 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
9 comments:
As usual, your post is very thought-provoking and insightful. I think there are indeed some conflicts between scientific truth and revealed truth as we understand each today, but also believe we do not yet have the final word on either. And I think we need not be afraid of these differences, knowing that truth will out over time.
I am reminded of a quote by the great physicist Neils Bohr, who said "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth."
The reason for the ongoing debate with no resolution is that it's pseudo-science debating pseudo-religion. Neither acknowledges the body of ancient evidence that would resolve the debate. Both are arguing from a position of ignorance. As long as that persists, so will the acrimony.
Anthony:
It sounds like you have thrown overboard all of science and religion. Is that what you mean to imply?
In general, I have great respect for both fields: science & religion. Both have positive roles to play, but I also believe both become most effective when they can interact with mutual respect.
Heres a novel idea- let both ID and evolution be taught in school and then let the student decide for himself what to make of the whole situation. What bothers me most about all this is the insistance from the evolution side that ID is not science and should be banned from the publics view. And then you come along and wish there to be dialogue, but only from the angle that we are right and you are wrong principle!
Ha! Thats ridiculous! How can we have dialogue when you won't aknowledge us for what we want. It's not like we want to abolish evolution from the classroom. No, we just want a fair and balanced apporaoch- a true dialogue setup to discuss the angles. We want that- dialogue. But you guys don't want it at all. You only want to dialogue if it is done on your terms. But, as anyone can see, that isn't dialogue at all, it's the exact opposite.
As for labeling us as scientifically unknowledgable because we believe in a higher power. You have it all wrong. 99% of science has nothing to do with the evolution/ID debate. It has to do with other countries are teaching advanced scientific material (the real facts like the periodic table, etc) at earlier ages than we are in this country. We place such a great emphasis on the social skills like communication, english, etc that it is no wonder we are falling behind in the sciences and in math. It isn't because we are telling our kids not to beleive in teachers of science or anything like that. Heck, that is what some evolutionists wish for, but in reality it is becuase we haven't raised the bar for science and math education in this country while other countries have.
If you are going to pick a battle, don't pick this one from the angle you propose cause you will never get anywhere but deeper in the pit.
If you want true dialogue, then at some point you must allow us ID'ers a chance to equally present ideas scientifically with the same respect we allow you to teach publicly.
As for your complaint about having a low general scientific IQ for our citizens, take that up with your politicians and school boards. Don't make that a ID= poor knowlege debate. Trust me, you will get nowhere with that angle!
Rob Osborn.
Rob:
Thanks for your reaction. You make a number of good points.
For me, ID is merely a case in point. As I state in the first paragraph: "There is a desperate need for inter-disciplinary dialogue (IDD) that goes FAR BEYOND the immense flaws of intelligent design (ID) and special creationism."
In order for ID to be called science, it needs to start showing up in mainstream peer-reviewed science journals, and it needs to be actively presented at mainstream science conferences. ID just has gone nowhere, except among the ID believers.
Right now, ID (special creation) can only cut it as a weak religious idea. It has a lot of maturing to do, if that is even possible.
This spring semester I will be teaching a creationism versus evolution course. The class will consist of debate from both sides of the issue. However, students will be allowed to pick and choose the theories they believe are the strongest. The class will consist of debate teams, and I will not be dictating to them how to present their arguments. I will tell you how it goes.
ID has not earned the right to be put in biology textbooks, but I do think scientists and theologians should be willing to respectfully discuss the issue.
Yes, there needs to be more conversation, not less.
Good post. I agree that the current fervor surrounding the religion-science debate is a disservice to our youth. How did we get here? As you point out, scientists overstepped their bounds and started making theological claims about the existence of God. On the other side, religionists overstepped their bounds and started making unfair claims about evolution. So here we are, taking shots across the demilitarized zone with only a tenuous cease fire agreement keeping us from engaging in all out war. We need a long term peace treaty and I think that the reconciliation that you've proposed will go a long way in helping out in this regard.
However, SFaux, hidden in your reconciliation is a bold assault on an endeavor dear to many believers - ID.
Reconciliation that you call for will never happen as long as the scientific gate-keepers, the evolutionary establishment, carte blanche rejects ID as a worthless knock off of creationism.
Now in your reply to Rob Osborn, you take a more conciliatory tone, a more rational approach to ID which is that it has to prove its mettle by getting published, etc. Let's not foreclose on ID before it has a chance to prove that it is a science. It's ok to be skeptical, but let's not outright reject it as another creationist assault on evolution. Evolutionists have very little to fear from ID. I submit that evolutionists' attempts to intimidate IDers will only incite believers against science and paint a picture of science as being the 'big bad bully' on the playground.
If all out war comes to pass I predict that science will lose to the zealous, driven religionists. I predict that this country would opt for a sort of anti-scientific theocracy before allowing secular science to take over; thus reconciling with religion is in the best interests of science.
A good place to start would be inviting religionists to the table by giving their pet theory (ID) a fighting chance. By so doing scientists could educate religionists on what is and is not science and invite them to play along. At the same time religionists could express their concerns regarding scientific "creeping atheism".
Dave C.:
Great comment; thanks for your reaction.
True, I cannot resist potshots at ID. But, I think ID is dishonest. It would be more honest if it accurately represented itself as an attempt at being a religious explanation of nature. It has not risen to the level of science at this point.
An honest conversation between scientists and religionists would be an accurate portrayal of what we know, what we think we know, and what we hope is true. For creationists, ID falls into the "hope is true" category.
I am in Collins' camp. It is fair to call me a Christian evolutionist. I am willing to let nature speak for itself, and I am willing to set preconceived ideas aside. Yet, I also know that my religion teaches me that there is a higher purpose to life, something science is incapable of teaching. I would NEVER claim that my sense of "higher purpose" is science.
If you and I have differences, I still think the similarities are the majority. E.g., how many people LOVE multivariate stats? That, to me, goes a long way.
This is a fantastic post! Being that this is my first comment on this blog I should probably begin by stating that I am very much a novice when it comes to science. I've read a few things here and there on evolution, the big bang, etc. but I am far from being on the level of most of your readers. My area of interest is in history, particularly early American religious history.
With that said, I'd like to quote my favorite early American historian, Gordon Wood, who said:
"If totalitarianism was the greatest threat of the 20th century, then extremism is, thus far, the greatest threat to the 21st."
I couldn't agree more. When it comes to history (particularly early American religious history) I cannot tell you how many times I encounter people who insist that our nation's Founding Fathers were deists or atheists, while the opposing extremists proclaim them to be devout Christian men of God (usually of their respective faith). The truth is that some were deists, others were devout Christians, while most were (as my friend and historian Jon Rowe calls them) "Theistic Rationalists."
My reason for mentioning this is that I believe the same battle between extremist fringes exists on so many different levels, science and religion being one of the main events. Obviously Mr. Faux has presented a very compelling case in which extremist religious zealots are unable (or at least unwilling) to accept the general consensus of the scientific community out of fear that it might damage their understanding of God, while some secularists are trying to replace God with science entirely. I call this phenomenon "Baby with the Bathwater Syndrome" (BBS). The tenancy of the extremists on both ends to adopt this "all in" philosophy is a real danger that seems to be everywhere these days. Why some people are unwilling to stretch their theological and political muscles a bit is a mystery to me. As Martin Luther King stated:
"Nothing is more dangerous to the world than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."
I think the main point to make is that there is too much we don't know about religion or science to make final pronouncements about either.
Personally I don't find science at all threatening to my testimony of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. That actually is the non-overlapping part, I think, because it can't be proved scientifically.
As Brigham Young said, Latter-day Saints can accept truth from any source.
Post a Comment