Many controversies of 19th century evolutionary science are now well resolved. For example, modern scientists do NOT seriously debate the age of the earth (~4.5 billion years old) or the fact that forms of life have dramatically changed over the past 500 million years. But, still persisting are many "grey areas" that touch upon religious and/or moral concerns that are not clarified by hard scientific facts. Responsible citizens have an obligation to face these grey areas and make their opinions heard.
This essay will give a sample of relevant questions that intersect with the grey areas of evolutionary science. Here is a list of six key questions and my reactions to them:
1. Should religion of the 21st century be informed by evolutionary science?
Any religion that insulates itself from modern scientific advances puts itself in danger of becoming extinct or irrelevant.
Imagine a religion that taught that vaccinations are against God's will. Such a religious culture probably would be violating national laws, the adherents would have to be quarantined, and disease-caused death in that culture would be rampant.
To those readers who wish to console themselves by claiming that evolution is a "theory" with no practical consequences, I would urge them to think again. Evolutionary principles, for example, are actively used in monitoring the rapid genetic changes in viruses that necessitate yearly changes in vaccines. Further, evolutionary principles are actively used in the recipes that build vaccines from scratch. Any university course in immunology that avoided teaching evolution would be a danger to society and a fraud to its students.
Is it necessary to believe in evolution to be a "good" person? No. Is belief in evolution necessary for religious salvation? No.
Even so, any religion that supports scientific education will not be able to avoid addressing key question #1. Thus, religious universities like Brigham Young University and Notre Dame University teach evolutionary science. Thank goodness.
2. Does the study of evolution undermine the moral foundations of society?
This is a serious question that has been raised ever since the publication of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species in 1859. It is NOT a question to be cast aside. Yet, it makes no sense for anyone to claim that children who believe in dinosaurs are at risk for becoming criminals. There is no such connection.
Some religious people argue that evolutionary science devalues human life by equating us with microbes. The divine purpose of human origins does seems to be eliminated by such evolutionary accounts.
But, could it be that compatibility with evolution merely requires slight adjustments in theological language? For example, could a claim be made that evolution associates humans with all of God's creation? If so, would not the moral value of all life be raised? In fact, Darwin at the end of his most famous book argued, "There is grandeur in this view of life … ."
Science by its nature is neither good nor bad, but society may artificially impose such qualities. We can choose to teach our children that evolution is evil-ution, but in the final analysis it will be such negative stereotypes and attitudes that do the most harm, not the science.
3. Can evolutionary science account for the extreme altruistic behavior often shown in humans?
Evolutionary science has a long history with struggling to account for the behaviors of helping and saving. Those who die for others no longer have the potential to pass on their genes. Or, could that view be wrong? It is partially. Individuals who die on behalf of biological relatives may be promoting those genes shared by biological descent.
We can promote reproduction by parenting babies or by helping relatives to have babies. Such behaviors easily evolve. Thus, evolutionary science can account for the intense family bonds that many animal groups exhibit.
On the other hand, humans are known to die or risk their lives for non-relatives. Such heroic behavior was exhibited multiple times in the Gabby Gifford tragedy in Tucson on the 8th of this month. Soldiers are well known to save others in combat, such as falling upon a grenade to protect comrades. Many other stories of extreme altruism could be generated. In Christianity the most celebrated act of altruism was the death of Jesus who was crucified.
Perhaps such stories are notable because they are rare. But, they exist and they persist.
As of now, evolutionary science does not provide a full account of extreme human altruism. The devotion of religion to compassion, benevolence, and service may well (and probably does) fill an essential niche in human society. Also, other non-religious sources of such moral training may make essential contributions as well.
4. Does the field of evolution promote hatred toward religions?
Science as a whole is neutral to the idea of God and religion. Scientists normally have nothing to say on such topics, but there are exceptions.
Recently, a prominent group of evolutionists, in particular Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, have made a proactive attack on religion. While they reject religion, they would deny that they promote hate toward individuals. Yet, they are responsible for, at least some, increased tensions between science and religion. Dawkins, for example, uses evolution to argue that God probably does not exist.
As someone interested in both scientific and religious education, I find it most unfortunate when my fellow scientists go out of their way to devalue religion. Often it is true that these scientists are counter-attacking arguments initiated by anti-evolutionary theologians. Fights, however, should not be justified by who swung at whom first.
5. Is it possible that aspects of religious belief are biological adaptations for survival?
If evolution is a winnowing process that shapes adaptive behavior over time, then should we view religion, a near universal, as a receptacle of ancient wisdom that should not be lightly dismissed? This is not an easy question to answer.
Eckart Voland (2009; "Evaluating the Evolutionary Status of Religiosity and Religiousness" in E. Voland, W. Schiefenhövel (eds.), The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior, Berlin: Springer-Verlag) effectively argues that religiosity (the psychological ability to be religious) meets the criteria for biological adaptation because: 1) it is a near cross-cultural universal that appears to be inherited from parents to children; 2) it shows many "special-purpose" designs; and 3) it appears to solve problems of adaptation. In that context, Voland discusses religion as: 1) a natural by-product of "theory of mind" (agency detection); 2) a strategy for mastering daily contingencies; 3) a social bonding mechanism; 4) an amplifier of self-awareness distinguishing in-group from out-group; 5) a communication device for building loyalty; and 6) a moral building system for catching "free-riders."
Religion often builds strong dominance hierarchies. Clear lines of leadership appear to be essential for the long-term survival of many different primate societies. Religious organizations across the world, usually dominated by men, are very similar to the ranked-ordered organizations found in non-human primates. The evolutionary stability of such organizations, for better or worse, should not be underestimated. Even so, this argument is NOT a moral justification for male dominance.
Conclusion: Religion may well instill survivability into its adherents.
6. Should society base its ethical system in scientific rather than religious principles?
Sam Harris (2010) in his new book The Moral Landscape makes an effective argument that science is a useful tool for identifying appropriate human values. Unfortunately, he argues that religion should have no role in the matter. He would reject my answer given in #5 above.
There is a strong developing movement among philosophers and psychologists in the search for evolutionary-based morals. So far this search has been better at generating post-hoc explanations of existing moral systems than creating an original conception of morality.
Science has a proven track record in the improvement of human life, but its record is far from perfect. By improving weapons of war, for example, it has increased human misery. Scientific pronouncements, especially those regarding human behavior and society, are usually tentative, being subject to revision and change. Any "values" promoted by science often would be borrowed from religious tradition and other non-scientific sources – such as the humanities. Thus, it is hard for me to imagine science innovating a new moral technology that is historically independent of earlier non-scientific ones.
I cannot envision a time in which human life is devoid of religion. Further, I cannot imagine a time in which an intelligent religion would have no role in moral instruction.
Overall Conclusions:
I do believe religion is best served by being literate in science, especially evolutionary science. Proper education in evolution can serve to strengthen morality, not undermine it. Such education will have to admit that evolutionary science does not explain very well certain behaviors, such as extreme altruism. Evolutionary science should not be concerned about undermining the moral foundations taught in religion or elsewhere. It is quite possible that the mental machinery behind religion is an evolved phenomenon, but that machinery does NOT justify all religious behaviors. Scientific systems can supplement human values, but those systems will NOT be a replacement for traditional systems, such as religion.
Copyright © 2011 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.
14 comments:
Overall, really fantastic post. I am fascinated by evolutionary science because of it's explanatory power to enlighten humankind regarding it's origins. It also helps to explain, via the relatively new science of evolutionary psychology, much of human behavior. Evolution does cause us to ask questions, oftentimes challenging preexisting notions. I further agree that it is not destructive to religious faith, although it has had that effect on some individuals; namely Charles Darwin who felt that it contradicted his notion of an all powerful, all kind, and all knowing creator God.
However, I will take some issue with a few of your points: Question 3 assumes that science cannot explain altruistic behavior. While it's true that science does not give a complete explanation of altruism to non-relatives, it gives us a very good start. I would direct anyone to books such as "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins" and "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer. Altruism is not rare in nature. It's pervasive - especially in social insects, birds, and mammals. Humans are social primates, and as such, are expected to engage in altruistic behaviors - usually to those who share our genes, but also towards others who do not. To hint that because science does not offer a complete answer to the mystery, is really an argument from ignorance. Religion doesn't offer a compete explanation either. If you disagree, then why do non-religious people and countries engage in altruistic behavior just as readily as religious one's?
I with regard to Dawkins: his writings are, as you suggest, responsible for some increased tension between religion and science. But also, as you state, he is reacting to the root cause of disbelief in certain important scientific discoveries - namely evolution. Religious observance is directly correlated with disbelief in evolution. To Dawkins, his tactic is to criticize religious faith. Other scientists think it's best to just present the evidence. But this can be tough when religious authority specifically preach against evolution (as ours, and others have, and still do).
Charles Darwin took a more conciliatory view on how to help the religiously minded accept scientific facts (which may impinge on religious sentiment):
It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follow(s) from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science
Josh:
I agree that evolutionary science gives us a good start toward a natural explanation of altruism, but the topic remains a thorny problem with much research that remains.
I strongly recommend Oren Harman's (2010) book, The Price of Altruism: George Price and the Search for the Origins of Kindness (New York, Norton & Co.), which is not just a fascinating biography but also an in-depth history of the biology of altruism.
You might be interested in my posted review, "The tragedy of the Price equation."
But, honestly, I do believe that the extremes of human benevolence and compassion outstrips the explanatory power of natural selection, kin selection, reciprocation, and strong reciprocation. Instead, I think we need other sources to explain the considerable plasticity of the human cortex. I have not given up on behaviorism.
I tend to disagree with where I believe you are going with your thoughts. I do not agree that evolution is the cause for our being religious or for having moral ethics. To me, evolution plays no role whatsoever in these areas. If we understand the gospel correctly then we know that moral decency and ethics in society is purely a spiritual matter and has its origins in the nature of the spirit.
Take the brothers- Nephi and Laman for example- two almost polar opposite types of thinking. And yet, they share the same genetic makeup. We cannot nor should not say that Laman was less religious because of his genetics. Neither should we say that Nephi was more religious because of his genetics. It appears from reading the scriptures that the nature of our spirits pretty much decides in large part the nature of how we act morally in society.
Science to this point should not try to explain spiritual matters in a purely naturalistic way- like that of evolution. When it seeks to do this it steps outside its bounds and creates problems between it and the religious community. We go to church to learn how to be a moral society, not biology class!
Rob Osborn
Rob:
I think you make a number of excellent points. I agree that biology class is NO substitute for Church. Further, as you imply, there are spiritual motivations that our current science has no grasp upon.
I sometimes wonder whether being "born again" means in part to overcome our genetic nature.
Thanks for chiming in.
S Faux.
I am not sure exactly how evolution in small degrees has impacted the human race. I do know that the Lord has told us to overcome the "natural man". Somehow, the nature of spiritual things can be stronger than anything physical which raises the question of why or how the spirit is able to overcome natural tendencies, perhaps even, dare I say..what evoltion may have done to our genetics. I am not implying macro-evolution here but rather the small changes in society that leave one type of people more weak to alcohol abuse than another.
I do believe that some people may battle overcoming the natural man more than others due to the way their genetics have been selected over the years through natural means. But, in saying that, somehow this does not directly effect exactly what an individual may or may not do. It also raises the ultimate question of what or who in us makes the final end decision? Personally I believe it is the spirit in charge. The spirit may have ultimate power in creating change in our race. Our spirit literally has the power to create the changes that will be seen generations down the road.
Suppose that science indeed were to find out the existance and nature of the spirit. Would this then become a spiritually scientific endeavor? Would we be able to explain this phenomenon in purely scientific means or would religion also have to be included?
I have long believed that science and religion at some future point must merge. If all truth leads to God, then at some point, science and religion will come to fully embrace each other. I believe in some regards we are making good headway, and in other regards we are failing completely. I understand the role science is trying to make in being able to explain the human experience but I believe it fails where it matters most to this point. That area is the explanation of "intelligence". It is the greatest phenomenon in nature and yet no scientific explnation yet can explain it's existance or how it works. Religious belief, morales and ethics are all determined by intelligence ultimately. Our genetic makeup may help drive this in some respects but again,ultimately it is spiritual matters that give answer to why we act the way we do in society.
Rob Osborn
S. Faux,
It seems like behavior and genetics are being linked too tightly here. While I am sure that genetics influences aspects of our behavior, I see no reason to defend the notion that this or that behavior has a strict genetic correlate.
Rob:
I know you reject the concept of speciation (which you call macroevolution). The logical problem is that macroevolution is simply microevolution over the long-term. All living organisms are "designed" for biological change over generations.
In evolutionary terms, the concept of species is a very fuzzy category. Any given organism might be categorized as being a new species or a variant of an existing species. There is no such thing as an unambiguous list of biological characteristics that cleanly categorizes individuals into groups without mistake. Such is the legacy of evolution.
Jared*:
I like Ernst Mayr's distinction between open versus closed genetic programs. All behavior has some genetic connection, but some behaviors are more "open" to the environment than others. "Closed" programs would be tightly genetic and might be called "instinct." "Open" programs might be called "learned." Even so, all behavior has some tie to genetics.
Now, one could effectively argue that many aspects of altruism are an outcome of open genetic programs. I think so.
Religion as a cultural phenomenon is a VERY open genetic program, but I do think it could still have biologically (cognitively) adaptive components -- as well as maladaptive.
Behavior also affects which genes turn on and which turn off. These systems are complex.
So, true, I do not separate behavior from genes as much as others -- at least in a theoretical sense.
Just a thought to anyone:
Clear distinctions between modern species do not generalize very well to the past. The characteristics of a species is time specific. Gradual evolution blurs all species categories -- to the point where those categories become obsolete or inappropriate. Sure, there are "living fossils," but extend the time scale further and the same principle will apply.
You mentioned living fossils which I deem appropriate here. Some of the living fossils have supposedly not changed hardly one bit in hundreds of millions of years while others living in their habitat changed drastically. What is troubling, and even more so for science, is why these haven't changed when others have.
How is it that we know some changed drastically? We don't. For all we really know, no species has ever gone through any massive change. Living fossils to me explain that in reality there is no massive change over time. Some species go extinct and others do not. Could one imagine if all the alligators were to have gone extinct in the 1700's?
No satisfactory idea has ever been produced to show why living fossils exist- why they haven't changed over the course of millions of years. To me that is the nail in the coffin for evolution. The all too famous caelocanth is perhaps the greatest of all these because it was supposed to be a transitional fossil between fish and land . What we find is that it hasn't chaged like they supposed in millions of years. It is not a transitional fossil at all.
Rob Osborn.
Rob:
A coelacanth is a broad order of lobbed-fin fish that have leg-like structures supported by bone. While it is true they have not changed much over time, they have changed. See this link. So, yes, they are an excellent example of transitional fish produced by evolution, and they are discussed in nearly every beginning evolution class at the university level.
Hey Rob, you've posed some good questions, but I have one for you.
"How is it that we know some changed drastically? We don't. For all we really know, no species has ever gone through any massive change."
We do know that virtually all species that exist today do not exist in their current form in the fossil record. We do not see modern whales, humans or any life form in its modern form in ancient strata except for those few "living fossils". So my question to you is where did these modern forms come from? If species have never changed, why don't we seen modern apes in Cambrian strata? They don't exist in their current form in antiquity, only in similar forms which diverge from their modern form as the fossil record progresses backward in time. How do you explain this while maintaining that species never change?
Stan,
Concerning the fact that rocks are usually dated by the fossil found in them it is impossible really to date the rocks themselves.
Tell me, why is it that they have found dinosuar soft tissue in supposedly millions of year old dino bones?
They find lots of fossils but yet do very little acyual scientific dating as to the rocks they are found in.
Too much conjecture here to line up any real truths concerning the age of the rocks.
Rob Osborn
"Concerning the fact that rocks are usually dated by the fossil found in them it is impossible really to date the rocks themselves."
This is a bit backwards. Fossils are dated by the age of the rocks nearby. That's pretty fundamental. The nearby rocks are dated using known decay rates of radioactive elements. There are a few different methods used, all of which agree on an estimated date for the rock's creation from chemical reactions in magma.
"They find lots of fossils but yet do very little acyual scientific dating as to the rocks they are found in."
Again, there is no scientific dating of fossils based on the rocks they are found in, nor on the fossils themselves. Fossils are always found in sedimentary rocks, which cannot be dated directly. Only igneous rocks can be dated directly and fossils are never found in igneous rocks.
Imagine a multi layered cake. Some layers can be dated, others cannot. You can estimate the age of the layers that can't be dated by looking at surrounding layers that can be dated. I can't remember if you dispute the geologic column or not. I thought you were an old earth ID proponent.
But you never answered my question. Where did modern life forms come from if they did not evolve? Does your comment about soft tissue in dinosaur fossils imply that you think modern life forms coexisted with ancient life forms? If that is the case, aren't all modern life forms "living fossils"? Please be clear.
Post a Comment