|
Let's accept the fault line between faith and science
By Edward O. Wilson, USA Today, Jan. 15, 2006 If the perennial culture war between science and fundamentalist
Christianity about evolution seems insoluble, the reason is that it is
insoluble. The
fault line, which affects conservative belief not just in Christianity but in
almost all other religions around the world, can be found along the outer edge
of biology. On one side is the acceptance of evolution of all life
independently of God, a view held by a small minority of Americans. On the
other lies a spread of beliefs, from denial that evolution ever occurred to
acceptance that it did but under the direction of God. This
gap, opened by Charles Darwin in his 1859 On
the Origin of Species, has not been narrowed by the endless debates
that ensued. Quite the contrary, it has been steadily widened by the growth of
science. Modern
biology has arrived at two major principles that are supported by so much
interlocking evidence as to rank as virtual laws of nature. The first is that
all biological elements and processes are ultimately obedient to the laws of
physics and chemistry. The second principle is that all life has evolved by
random mutation and natural selection. Although
as many as half of Americans choose not to believe it, evolution, including the
origin of species, is an undeniable fact. Furthermore, the evidence supporting
the principle of natural selection has improved year by year, and it is
accepted with virtual unanimity by the biologists who have put it to the test. The evolving mind The
great question remaining is whether the human mind originated the same way. Many scientists, I among them, believe
it did so evolve. Nevertheless, how all of the complex operations of the brain
fit together to generate consciousness remains one of the major unsolved
problems of science. In
the explanation of evolution, and especially of the human mind, might
intelligent design provide a compromise between biology and religion? This
now-famous proposal asserts that evolution is real but guided by a supernatural
intelligence. The
evidence, however, consists solely of a default argument
followed by a non- sequitur. Its logic is this: Biologists have not explained how some
complex systems, such as the human eye and brain, could have evolved by random
mutations and natural selection. More important, proponents say such an
explanation is impossible. Therefore, they claim, a higher intelligence must
have guided evolution. Unfortunately,
no positive evidence exists for such a claim. No scientific theory has been
proffered or even imagined to explain the transcription from a supernatural
force to organic reality. This absence of the elementary requirements of
science is why intelligent design is better taught as religion or science
fiction. Thankfully, educators and administrators — including most recently
those in Dover, Pa. — are arriving at a similar conclusion. Scientists
are not opposed to the search for intelligent design, only to the claim that it
is supported by scientific evidence. To think otherwise is to misunderstand the
culture of science. Discoveries and the testing of discoveries are the currency
of science; they are our silver and gold. If positive and
repeatable evidence were adduced for an intelligent force that created and
guided the evolution of life, it would deservedly rank as one of the greatest
scientific achievements of all time. I doubt that there is a researcher alive who would not
race to make such a breakthrough if the minimum criteria of science could be
met. Religious
conservatives risk a loss in credibility by signing on to intelligent design in the absence of a testable theory or
positive evidence.
Research biologists are in the business of uncovering steps for the autonomous
origin of complex systems, and they have become very good at it. As the number
of unsolved systems dwindles, so will the idea that a supernatural force
intervenes in evolution. A
trend is clear: Biology is biology, conservative Christianity is conservative
Christianity. The two world views — science-based explanations and faith-based
religions — cannot be reconciled. Earth's Creation What
then are we to do? Put the differences aside, I say. Meet on common ground
where we can find it. An excellent example taking form is the cooperation
between science and religion, the two most powerful forces in the world, to
protect Earth's vanishing natural habitats and species — in other words, the
Creation, however we believe it came into existence. That
might not be as difficult as it seems at first. There is not a great deal of
variation among segments of society in ethics, patriotism and respect for the
law. American civilization was born of both religion and the science-based
Enlightenment. Science will go on expanding its way, and religion will continue
to evolve its way. Our culture is strong in civility and common sense. As
always, we'll work things out. Edward O. Wilson, biology professor emeritus at Harvard, is
editor of the newly released From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin's Four Great
Books. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-15-faith-edit_x.htm |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
