Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Is Evolution a Threat to Religious Belief?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_12-2005_06_18.shtml#1118942329
Michael Shermer -- with whose views I often agree -- posts at
[1]Huffington Post about the evolutionism/creationism debates; and in
the process he says two things that strike me as worth considering
together:
The primary reason we are experiencing this peculiarly American
phenomenon of evolution denial (the doppelganger of Holocaust
denial), is that a small but vocal minority of religious
fundamentalists misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to
their deeply held religious convictions.
OK, sounds plausible on its own (though Iâll say some more about it
later) -- the theory of evolution doesnât speak to whether God exists
or what he has done, but simply aims to explain how things likely
happened, and if you believe that God made them happen that way,
thatâs something the theory just doesnât discuss. But hereâs another
quote from earlier in the piece (emphasis added):
In March of 2001 the Gallup News Service reported the results of
their survey that found 45 percent of Americans agree with the
statement âGod created human beings pretty much in their present
form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so,â while 37
percent preferred a blended belief that âHuman beings have
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life,
but God guided this process,â and a paltry 12 percent accepted the
standard scientific theory that âHuman beings have developed over
millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no
part in this process.â
(For more on this poll, see [2]here.)
Well, if âthe standard scientific theoryâ is that âGod had no partâ in
the process of evolution -- not just that human beings developed in a
particular way, but that God didnât guide this -- then it seems to me
that the theory of evolution is a challenge to many peopleâs deeply
held religious convictions. And thatâs so not just as to the
young-earthers who believe the Earth was created several thousand
years ago, but also to people who are willing to embrace the
scientific evidence but see the guiding hand of God in the process.
Whatâs more, how exactly do scientists come to the conclusion that
âGod had no part in this processâ? Whatâs their proof? Thatâs the sort
of thing that canât really be proved, it seems to me -- which makes it
sound as if scientists, despite their protestations of requiring proof
rather than faith, make assertions about God that they canât prove.
And on top of that, if the standard scientific theory is that âGod had
no part in this process,â then the opponents of evolution are right --
the standard theory of evolution may not be taught in the schools. The
Court has repeatedly said that the Establishment Clause bars both
government endorsement and disapproval of religion. Teaching that God
exists and teaching that God doesnât exist are both unconstitutional
in government-run schools. Likewise, if teaching that God created
humans is unconstitutional, so is teaching that God had no part in
creating humans.
Now hereâs what I think Mr. Shermer is driving at by saying that âGod
had no part in this processâ is the standard scientific theory: The
standard theory tries to explain how humans might have evolved without
calling on God as an explanation. This isnât because scientists can
prove that God doesnât exist in any logical or even empirical sense of
âprove.â Nor is it because assuming that God had no part in the
process is more consistent with the facts than assuming that he did
have a part in the process; the God assumption is perfecty consistent
with the facts. Nor is it even because in some abstract sense omitting
God yields the simplest explanation; âGod did itâ (3 words!) is a much
simpler explanation than the theory of evolution.
Rather, looking for naturalistic causes is standard scientific
operating procedure because it seems more likely to produce more
useful results, and has in the past produced useful results. Science
canât prove to us that there are no angels pushing planets around the
sky; maybe they do push the planets around, though in extremely
regular patterns. But if you look for a naturalistic explanation,
youâre more likely to come up with useful, predictive explanations of
the world than âthe angels are doing it.â
In that sense, the theory may be described as âHuman beings have
developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, and
we can explain that without bringing in Godâs intervention.â Many
scientists conclude that this explanation makes it more plausible that
God had no part in the process. Others may conclude that if thereâs no
evidence supporting the existence of some influence, itâs
methodologically more useful to assume that the influence doesnât
exist until some supporting evidence is found. Still others may use
âGod had no part in this processâ as shorthand for âGod had no
observable part in this process.â
Nonetheless, the phrasing that the poll used -- and the one that Mr.
Shermer endorsed as the scientifically proper theory -- didnât include
these subtleties. It essentially asked people to decide whether, given
that they thought that humans evolved from less advanced life forms,
âGod guided this processâ (which could include the most indirect sort
of guidance, perhaps guidance that yields results identical to the
naturalistically predicted results, or guidance in the form of having
created the world that yielded this process) or âGod had no partâ --
not an indirect part, but no part at all -- âin this process.â Small
wonder that many religious Americans, even those who are quite happy
to accept evolution, preferred the approach thatâs consistent with the
theory of evolution but that let them acknowledge their religious
faith. And small reason, it seems to me, to complain. (The âcreated in
the last 10,000 yearsâ group, on the other hand, is definitely reason
to complain.)
In fact, science is deeply subversive of religious belief in what one
might call âdescriptive religionâ (religious claims that purport to
describe what exists, what happened, what is happening, or what will
happen, as opposed to purporting to make normative assertions about
whatâs morally right and morally wrong). This is not because science
in some logical sense disproves such assertions. Rather, the
scientific mindset, for better or worse, leads people to find
descriptive religious claims less plausible.
The more science explains processes that were once thought to be
divinely or supernaturally operated (the movement of the planets, the
spread of disease), the more likely it is, I think, that people will
be skeptical of other claims of divine or supernaturally operated
processes; thatâs not a logical mandate, but it is a psychological
effect. The more science trains people to be skeptical about
descriptive claims in the absence of evidence that leads us to endorse
those claims, the more people will question things that they are asked
to take on faith. There are certainly scientists who are religious
(even in the âdescriptive religionâ sense); it is possible to have a
scientific worldview but believe in descriptive religion. But the
spread of scientific habits and principles makes it less likely that
people will accept descriptive religion.
Yet scientific popularizers and educators have to deal with the fact
that in our society, many people are still religious, and still accept
descriptive religion (at least ostensibly). If the popularizers and
educators describe science as taking no stand on the existence or
influence of God, and as leaving such questions to others, I think
theyâll have great success; and, whether they want to or not, they
will indeed further undermine descriptive religion. But if they
insist, in my view unnecessarily, that the standard scientific theory
does take a stand that God is not influencing the world -- and that
accepting evolution as the best scientific hypothesis while seeing
Godâs hand in its operation is an inferior conclusion that is worthy
of scientific criticism -- then they will encounter much more
resistance.
I have turned on comments; please, keep them polite, substantive,
on-topic, and nonobvious.
References
1.
%E2http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/michael-shermer/id-works-in-mysterious-wa_2711.html%E2
2. %E2http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm%E2
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
