ZOOL 304, Evolution

What is my worldview?  A personal commentary on the "conflict" between evolution and religion.

This page is NOT part of the ZOOL 304 curriculum.     304 home page

Related resource:  Dialog on Science, Ethics, and Religion (AAAS)

This page introduces my own understanding of how some common scientific and religious worldviews relate to evolution.  It is included at this ZOOL 304 website to offer some limited engagement with objections to evolution (particularly those based on religion) without expending limited class time for the digression.  

I welcome shared exploration of personal worldviews but prefer to avoid debate:  dgking@siu.edu.

Note: The following is written as hypertext, with the expectation that links will be used to navigate according to the reader's inclination (see question list below).  Although it may also be read from top down (like a normal essay), some awkward transitions may appear.

But test everything; hold fast to what is good.
St. Paul, 1 Thessalonians 5:21

Introduction:  Much of the controversy over evolution involves alternative worldviews.  Many people find that a naturalistic or materialistic worldview (i.e., a sense of objective reality and causation, often associated with modern science) is difficult if not impossible to reconcile with a religious worldview (a sense of spiritual significance, often associated with beliefs about God).  At least to some extent, the conflict over evolution emerges from the simplistic and dogmatic form in which these worldviews are commonly represented (i.e., "godless" mechanism vs. "superstitious" creationism).  

Cautionary note:  The presentation below is simplistic, offering a bare introduction to issues which are truly more subtle and complex.  Certain key terms, notably evolution but most especially God, represent deep concepts for which a meaningful, working understanding requires a substantial investment over a lifetime.  Superficial engagement commonly yields misleading oversimplification or confusion.  And no effort at understanding is likely to be rewarded without a sincere presumption that something worth knowing might lie behind these terms (see Grooks).

Many familiar words, including mind and soul, matter and spirit, natural and supernatural, science and religion, fact and belief, explanation and truth, represent ideas for which dictionary definitions are notoriously unsatisfactory.  These words are related to long-standing philosophical concerns, including mechanism vs. vitalism.  One's worldview most definitely influences how these words are interpreted.  Please do not presume that your understanding of these terms reflects any obvious, generally accepted meaning.

304 home page

Questions addressed at this site:

304 home page

What is a worldview?

A worldview (weltanshauung) is a set of presumptions (or "beliefs") about the ultimate nature of reality (reference).  Intentional, conscious worldview-presumptions are often called "beliefs".  Many or most worldview-presumptions are held implicitly or subconsciously, where they seem intuitively obvious and beyond question.  Furthermore, it's not uncommon for the worldview-presumptions that a person says or thinks that he believes to be different from those which he acts as if he believes.

What are some examples of worldview presumptions?

Except among philosophers, worldview presumptions are seldom if ever subjected to intentional examination and logical analysis.  Even when examined, such presumptions are seldom questioned with sincere and intellectually serious consideration of alternatives.  Nevertheless, such presumptions inform thought and perception in all other areas.  And, most significantly, individuals often differ substantially in their (often subconscious) worldview presumptions.

Liberal education, at its best, can provide an opportunity to examine one's own worldview and to explore alternatives.  Not uncommonly, such examination reveals that the various presumptions comprising commonly-held worldviews appear to entail inconsistency, contradiction or paradox.  Thus open-minded engagement with worldview examination can feel deeply threatening, especially for anyone whose own worldview has never been explicitly recognized as such.  The ego strongly resists any such disturbance to its worldview (see Grooks).  The easiest defense against such upheaval is trivialization and caricature of alternatives.

304 home page

Return to question list.

What are some differing worldviews?

A tremendous variety of divergent worldviews occurs within our culture, even within science.  At least four commonly encountered positions differ in their presumptions about the relative reliability of knowledge emerging from Science and from Religion and about the extent of overlap between these two domains.

  1. Whenever there is an appearance of conflict, trust assertions from Religion.  This stance, sometimes labelled triumphalism, typically presumes that religious truths are based on Divine revelation or direct personal inspiration and thus cannot err, while Science has often been wrong and might even be essentially misleading about Truth.  (This description is an admittedly unsympathetic caricature.)
  2. Whenever there is an appearance of conflict, trust assertions from Science.  This stance, sometimes labelled scientism, presumes that religious assertions are unreliable because they have not been (and cannot be) rigorously and objectively "proven" by the scientific method.  (This description is an also admittedly unsympathetic caricature.)
  3. When Truth is finally known, Science and Religion will necessarily agree on all points.  This stance, sometimes called complementarism, presumes that science and religion are both legitimate and reliable sources of true knowledge and understanding.  They must therefore both provide mutually consistent answers when addressing the same questions.  
  4. Science and religion each apply in distinct, separate, and independent domains of human understanding.  This stance, recently dubbed NOMA, presumes that any appearance of conflict signifies that one or the other camp (either science or religion) must have overstepped its proper boundary.  They do not (or should not) address the same questions.

Rather obviously, triumphalism and scientism, are almost exactly opposed to one another.  Although both presume that the same questions and the same subject matter properly concern both Science and Religion, they disagree over whose methodology is presumed to be more reliable (see Grooks).  These first two views are commonly encountered, in just such simplistic form.  In such form, they are also rather easy to ridicule, as each scorns a widely accepted source of knowledge and understanding.  However, both can also be adopted in more subtle versions which are more similar to complementarism.  

Complementarism is less dogmatic, more willing to pursue both science and religion respectfully with the expectation that both are avenues to understanding the same essential reality.  If there is a disagreement between scientific and religious worldviews, complementarism presumes no automatic basis for resolving the discrepency.  Nevertheless, if there is but one Truth, one side or the other (or both) must be in error about some matter of fact.  In a commonly-encountered caricature of this "science-and-religion-must-agree" position, adherents presume both that modern science already provides a reasonably accurate depiction of reality and that this depiction is fully consistent with all of their essential religious beliefs.  Some, however, recognize (or suspect) that modern science and religious belief, taken together, may in fact entail some deep contradictions.  Although the evolution vs. religion controversy is often argued as if were a simple battle between triumphalism vs. scientism (i.e., between "good" and "evil", with each participant separately choosing which is which), the underlying concern may lie in a complementarist conviction (or fear) that science and religion (as currently practiced) do indeed suffer from a fundamental conflict.

The fourth position, called NOMA, stands apart from all of the first three.  This position has long been appreciated by many as an intellectually plausible basis for reconciling science and religion.  Furthermore, specific points of conflict can often be resolved by agreement over boundaries, without awaiting knowledge of ultimate Truth.  However, adherents of of triumphalism see NOMA as a disingenuous attempt to marginalize religion, by usurping all of "reality" as the domain of science.  Reciprocally, adherents of scientism see NOMA as a misguided attempt to pretend respect for obsolete ideas that are at best meaningless and more likely harmful.  And finally, adherents of complementarism may see NOMA as a mushy-minded failure to recognize essential unity (with or without potential contradiction).  For all such adherents, any concession to NOMA requires abandoning some essential feature of their respective worldviews.

Each of these views has been held, in some approximation, by many well-informed, well-intentioned, and intellectually capable individuals.  None should be casually dismissed (although, as noted, both of the first two are remarkably easy to caricature and ridicule).  This writer definitely prefers the fourth position but finds much of interest in a concerned complementarist viewpoint.

A relevant essay appeared in the New York Times, 3 May 2009, by Stanley Fish, which review the new book Reason, Faith and Revolution by Terry Eagleton.

304 home page

Return to question list.
What is the controversy over "evolution" really about?

In the controversy over evolution, evolution itself is probably a red herring.  The controversy over evolution really concerns conflicting, incompatible worldviews.  But for a variety of reasons it is much easier to engage in controversy over evolution than it is to recognize and address underlying differences in worldview.  As noted above, worldviews are often held implicitly, and intentional analysis may be strongly resisted.  (An effective debater can readily persuade a naive audience by carefully choosing and manipulating terms that have different implications in different worldviews.)  

Certainly, the popular "debate" does focus on evolution.  But this is a consequence of the particular historical path that the controversy has taken.  Whatever philosophical issues may arise concerning the adequacy of explanation in evolutionary biology, such issues also arise in other domains of science.  And as Ken Miller explains in his book, Finding Darwin's God, most of the challenges that evolution supposedly raises for religion are also raised, often more sharply, in other areas of biology (as well as in science at large).  Thus the controversy really concerns the nature of reality and how that reality can and should be "explained" by science.

304 home page

Return to question list.

Isn't the controversy really about religion?  Or is it really just about science?

Yes and No.  The current anti-evolution movement in America often represents itself as being entirely concerned over evolution as bad science.  Nevertheless, the widespread antipathy toward evolution within our culture has well-established roots in fundamentalist Protestant Christianity.  Related concerns have existed in Catholicism, in conservative Judaism, and in Islam.  

Catholic concerns about evolution per se were recently ameliorated by a statement from Pope John Paul II (October 22, 1996):

"In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points...  Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, fresh knowledge has led to the recognition that evolution is more than a hypothesis.  It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favour of this theory."  (full text )

But note that the Pope (like the author of this website) acknowledges that the issue entails a deeper philosophical concern.

"What is the significance of such a theory?  To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology...  Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.  And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution.  On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based.  Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations.  What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology."  (full text ) (further discussion)  (related resource )

304 home page
Return to question list.

Doesn't evolution necessarily conflict with religious belief?

Many religious people believe it is crucial that all of the details in their scriptural stories be understood as literally, factually true.  For example, according to the biblical book of Genesis, in six days God made the Earth and all that is in it.  A great flood in the time of Noah drowned all the world except for two of each sort of animal which were kept alive in the Ark.

Such a literalist stance frequently requires beliefs that are inconsistent with facts in many areas of modern science, not just facts from evolutionary biology.  Literalist interpretations of the Bible have called for belief not only in the fixity of species (i.e., no evolution) but also in a young earth (no more than a few thousand years since creation week), a flat earth, and a geocentric cosmology.

Maintaining such beliefs as matters of objective fact would seem to require a definite rejection of science as a legitimate domain for understanding.  (Incidently, such literalism may also require a certain mental agility to avoid stumbling over those cases where the obvious literal meaning of one scriptural passage flagrantly contradicts that of another.)  However, there actually is an elegant and logically consistent way to respect both a scientific interpretation of history and a recent creation, most infamously argued by Phillip Henry Gosse in his book, Omphalos.

304 home page

Return to question list.
Is there a religious alternative to scriptural literalism?

Many religious people avoid the problems of literal intepretation by reading their traditional religious stories, especially origin stories, as myth.  Myths are understood as embodying deep but essentially spiritual truths, whether or not particular details are historically, factually accurate.  

From such a perspective, the discrepancies between the stories told in Genesis and the stories told by evolutionary biologists are perfectly harmless.  The meaning behind the biblical myths, what the stories reveal about the relationship between God and humankind, is profoundly significant.  The lack of scientific factuality in the details is irrelevant to this deeper meaning.  This perspective is accepted by many mainstream Christian denominations (although individuals who accept this stance may differ considerably on the extent to which they apply it).

Simple fictional stories, presented as fables or parables, are readily understood by nearly everyone as appropriate vehicles for conveying important spiritual messages.  But the richer, more extended literary form of myth, which can be read and interpreted at several different levels, is more challenging to understand.  The word "myth" is often used scornfully (as in, "just a myth, not to be taken seriously"), as if "myth" were a synonym for "superstition".  This cheap usage can hinder deeper understanding, since referring to scripture as myth can thus be seen as disrespectful or even hostile.  

Incidently, a comparable confusion besets the term theory.  In science, "theory" often means a concept of deep explanatory power.  A well-established theory such as evolution by natural selection is as true as any concept in science can ever be.  (And an effective, well-supported theory, like a good myth, can remain powerful even if some details used as evidence in its favor eventually turn out to be false.)  Unfortunately, popular usage treats "theory" as a synonym for "unproven hypothesis".  When applied to evolution, "theory" is often used as a term of derision (as in, "just a theory, not a fact").  Curiously, scientific theories about gravity or atoms or genes are seldom derided as "just theories".

304 home page

Return to question list.
Isn't science also used as a source of myth?

Science, especially evolutionary biology, is commonly, albeit inappropriately, interpreted as myth, as if the factual truth of scienfically validated stories could somehow confer deep spiritual truth as well.  This misapplication of science is sometimes labelled scientism or scientific fundamentalism .  Scientism can sound a lot like science.  But any use of concepts from evolutionary biology to validate and justify moral values, to explain the meaning of life, or to undermine theistic religion is probably understood better as scientism than as science.

304 home page

Return to question list.

Aside from literalism, are there any other theological issues that relate to evolution?

Doesn't the fact that the universe exists necessarily require the action of a Creator?

To some people, it appears self-evident that existence requires explanation, and that the only possible explanation is "God".  However, many philosophers have noted that one might just accept existence as needing no explanation beyond existence itself.  A hypothesis of God is neither necessary nor sufficient; at best it only puts off the question by one step (i.e., How can God's existence be explained without question-begging?  And if one can't or doesn't need to explain God's existence, why should anyone be obliged to explain the existence of the universe?).  

Even without presuming God, one might nevertheless stand in awe before the ultimate mystery of existence and of life in all of its complexity (see Grooks).  Either way, "explanations" of existence do not depend on scientific evidence.  And regardless of how existence is "explained", one may freely choose whether or not to believe that existence has some meaning and purpose.  For some who choose such belief, the creative source or ultimate reality from which that meaning and purpose emerges is conveniently given the name "God".  But beliefs about ultimate explanation or purpose do not seem to depend on any particular presumptions about the physical world or about evolution.  

Doesn't belief in a Creator God preclude a scientific understanding of evolution?

There are at least two different religious views on the relationship between a creator God and the created universe.  According to either one, God is responsible for creating the world and all that is in it.  But in the view which seems most readily consistent with scriptural literalism and which is often labeled as "creationist", God not only created the world at some well-defined moment in time, but He has also intervened in "miraculous" ways which are (in principle) scientifically demonstrable but which are not scientifically explainable.  In contrast, in the view that is readily concordant with NOMA, God accomplishes creation in such a way that all of His creative purpose can play out in full accord with the inherent workings of nature.

In a caricature of this mainstream view, God created a mechanistic "clockwork universe".  That is, God built the clock, wound it up, and ever since has just stood back to let it run.  For some that view makes God seem too remote and leaves no room for the operation of "free will".  However, the nature of free will remains a difficult and contentious issue, no matter what one believes about evolution or about mechanistic explanation.  A related philosophical issue, just as contentious, concerns the nature of causality.  Such issues are widely dismissed as appropriate subjects for polite intellectual discourse, not only because they have historically seemed unresolvable but also because they threaten to disturb complacently unexamined worldviews.

Thus the essential conflict is not between science and religion per se, but between science and a particular religious interpretation.  On the one hand is the view that the material universe as originally created by God has required further active Divine interaction (interference?) in ways that must appear to science as "supernatural", occurring outside the laws and regularities of matter and energy as these are currently known to physics, chemistry, and biology.  On the other hand is the view that God's creative action utilizes natural (including evolutionary) processes as elucidated by science, so that all events in the secular universe are explainable in scientific terms.  Note that these two distinct views both acknowledge God as Creator, although only the former is usually denominated as "creationist".  Thus what is commonly portrayed as a conflict between evolution and religion may more accurately be considered a conflict between evolution and one particular "creationist" religious stance -- or, even more appropriately, a conflict between two religious stances.  

Even among conservative Christians, there are those who recognize a place for God in evolution.  According to Richard Colling, a conservative Christian scholar and biology professor at Olivet Nazarene College (as quoted by Sharon Begley in the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 3, 2004), 'the evolution of species according to the processes of random mutation and natural selection, are "fully compatible with the available scientific evidence and also contemporary religious beliefs. . . .  "[D]enying science makes us [Conservative Christians] look stupid."' 

[Colling is author of Random Designer - A New Vision of God as Creator, a book which  "proclaims a new vision of God’s creation.  In easy-flowing narrative, and with practical illustrations, Random Designer explains that the randomness and chaos which play such central roles in our physical existence are actually creative.  The Creator simply taps these random physical processes to accomplish His higher goal – the creation of human beings capable of consciously perceiving Him."  Source:  Colling's response to a curriculum challenge in Dover, PA.  Quoting this blurb is not intended as a recommendation; I have not read the book.]

304 home page

Return to question list.

Isn't the controversy really about science?  Or is it really just about religion?

The current anti-evolution movement in America often represents itself as being entirely concerned over evolution as bad science.  

However, as an evolutionary biologist myself, based on my best understanding of both data and theory, and on the history of the discipline, I emphatically reject the assertion that evolutionary biology represents bad science (although bad science does happen in this field, as in any other).  I also strongly suspect that creationists' assertions that evolutionary biology is bad science are often (if not always) founded on an a priori presumption that evolution must be false.

Based on the history of the anti-evolution movement, any public argument that evolution is bad science almost certainly originates as justification for a previous commitment to religious belief.  The anti-evolution stance may additionally represent a reaction against misapplication of science, especially the scientistic use of evolutionary explanation as myth (i.e., as explanation and justification for moral values and religious belief) (e.g., see Haeckel).  

The decision rendered by Judge John Jones in United States District Court, in the 2005 case of Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, explores this history quite evident.  Full text of the Dover decision.

Most anti-evolutionists who assert this position have chosen to deny (or have not understood) both the explanatory effectiveness of evolution for many aspects of biology and also the lack of any remotely effective alternative explanation.

But aren't there some details in biology which defy adequate evolutionary explanation?

304 home page

Return to question list.

Aren't there some details in biology which defy adequate evolutionary explanation?

Of course, there are many outstanding challenges for research in evolutionary biology.  

Among the greatest challenges are elucidating the origins of eukaryotic cells, of multicellularity, of sex, of complex body plans, and of innumerable complex morphological and behavioral adaptations including intelligence and "mind".  Of course, the origin of life itself remains an outstanding problem, albeit not one for evolutionary biology per se since biological evolution could not properly begin until life had first emerged.

Note that many of these challenges reflect the present state of biology generally, not any special limitation of evolutionary explanation.  We currently have only the most minimal understanding of the molecular organization needed to sustain cellular life, of the relationship between genetic information and organismal morphology, of the basic mechanisms of development, of the relationship between behavior and the organization of nervous tissue, and of the minimal conditions needed for long-term ecosystem viability.

I also recognize that some evolutionary biologists, as well as many popular presentations of evolution, tend to ignore such outstanding challenges or gloss over their significance.  However, at issue is not whether some such mysteries remain, but whether evolutionary explanation is impossible in principle.  There is no compelling reason to think so.

304 home page

Return to question list.
What about ID, IC, and CSI?

In recent anti-evolution apologetics, the hypotheses of "intelligent design" (ID), "irreducible complexity" (IC) and "complex specified information" (CSI) have been represented as being "scientific alternatives to evolution".  However, these hypotheses are basically assertions that the concepts of physics, chemistry, and biology, including evolution by natural selection, are fundamentally inadequate to explain the emergence of life and adaptation (see Grooks).  

Behind these assertions is often a presumption that the existence of challenges for current scientific explanation provides objective evidence for God's continuing creative activity.  Such an approach is fundamentally anti-science, since the assertions of ID, IC, and CSI are, at base, assertions that some aspects of biological organization are out of bounds for scientific explaination.  

Note that particular assertions of ID, IC, and CSI usually involve matters of fundamental cellular, genetic and developmental organization for which modern biology has not yet produced thoroughly satisfactory, detailed explanations.  What makes such assertions unscientific (while contrary assertions, that mechanistic explanations involving evolution are plausible, remain fully scientific) is the absence of an effective research program to determine the boundary between that which is unexplainable in principle and that which is merely unexplained in current practice.

A more subtle version of this anti-evolution position asserts that the emergence of organization from complexity must logically require an explanation that lies fundamentally beyond reach of science.  Such an argument may be met by recognizing that all scientific explanation logically depends on ultimately-unexplained principles of logic and mathematics.  This applies to simplicity no less than complexity.  (I've yet to encounter a worldview which accepts the importance of logic and also purports to explain where logic comes from or why logic should matter.  Logic simply is.)  Thus this is not an argument against mechanistic evolutionary explanation in biology, only a complaint (or a celebration) that explanatory abstractions themselves transcend scientific explanation.  (Mathematics can derive complex and beautiful structures from seemingly simple postulates and algorithms -- e.g., the awesome, infinite detail of the Mandelbrot Set.  But mathematics cannot "explain" why the emergence of such structure inheres in its postulates.  Similarly, science can describe how adaptation emerges from mutation and natural selection, but cannot explain why the fundamental principles governing matter and energy are such that this emergence is possible.)

304 home page

Return to question list.
Do recent anti-evolution arguments reflect a new philosophical perspective on the adequacy of mechanistic explanation?

The territory of ID, IC, and CSI -- that is, the domain of complex phenomena whose working parts and principles have not yet been satisfactorily explained in detail -- is remarkably similar to that occupied by vitalism in prior centuries.  As science, a hypothesis of vitalism has very limited explanatory power beyond the hypothesis itself, while an alternative hypothesis of mechanism presumes that there are indeed working parts and principles which can be discovered and described.  

It was once widely believed by many scientists that the internal chemistry of cells, which we now label metabolism, must require some "vital principle" for explanation.  Biochemistry has advanced and continues to advance by rejecting that presumption (although much about the complex organization of cells still remains to be explained).  Similarly, it was once believed that embryonic development (and, by implication, heredity) required some invisible model to guide the formation of the embryo.  In one version of preformationism (see Bonnet), all future generations were somehow nested within every germ cell, having been established there at the moment of original creation.  Again, developmental biology and genetics progressed by rejecting such self-contained "explanations" (although, again, much remains to be explained).  Currently, neuroscience is progressing apace with the mechanistic presumption that perception, thought, emotion, memory, and personality all are the products of chemical and cellular activity, rejecting any dualistic ("vitalistic") presumption of "mind".  

At its heart, vitalism in all its incarnations (including ID, IC and CSI) reflects an ancient unease with the profound strangeness of existence, with "the mystery of mysteries".  What, exactly, is it that science is being asked to explain?  And what is acceptable as an adequate "explanation"?  In some worldviews, science does not begin to touch the real mystery.  Science does not explain why anything exists, rather than nothing at all (see Grooks).  And science does not explain why the rules or principles or laws that seem to govern matter and energy, space and time (even mathematics and logic) are what they are.

Incidently, ID, IC and CSI are seldom presented as openly vitalist presumptions (i.e., as presumptions that some principles from outside of science are needed to explain the workings of the created universe).  Although these hypotheses are usually offered as reasons to reject an evolutionary explanation of life's history, they are seldom presented as part of a wider, philosophically consistent world-view that rejects mechanistic explanation of any event but instead insists that God's necessary action and intelligence is objectively discernable in all natural phenomena..  

There is remarkably little noise in our society about conflicts between cell biology and religion, nor between neuroscience and religion, nor between ecology and religion. Yet the same technical challenges of inadequately-understood complexity permeate these fields as much as they do evolution.  And the same specter of mindless mechanism replacing free will emerges in these fields even more starkly than in evolution.  

Can science provide mechanistic explanation for all of the complexities of life?

304 home page

Return to question list.

Can science really expect to provide mechanistic explanation for all of the complexities of life?  

The only honest answer is, it depends on what one means by "explain".  

"Evolution" provides an ultimate explanation for nothing.  Evolution takes for granted the basic workings of the physical universe, of organic chemistry, and of the ability of organic compounds to exist in forms which function as enzymes and as bearers of genetic information.  For example, without the remarkable properties of water, life could not exist.  Evolution does not "explain" these qualities; neither does quantum mechanics.  Water displays "emergent properties", somehow inherent in the profound complexity of natural laws.  And deeper than this, evolution takes for granted the underlying necessity of logic and mathematics.

Suppose, for the purpose of argument, that science were eventually to discover that certain patterns of "irreducible complexity" or "complex specified information" have emerged spontaneously over the history of life.  Would this prove God's existence and disprove evolution?  Or would this simply add to the list of marvellous, fundamentally unexplainable laws, including the working of evolution, which govern (i.e., mechanistically "explain") the universe?  

Conversely, suppose that science eventually establishes that there really has been no event which requires a new concept of "irreducible complexity" or "complex specified information".  Would this disprove God's existence?  Or would this simply add to our appreciation of the awesome creative potential that inheres ("endowed by the Creator") in matter and the process of evolution as these are already known?

304 home page

Return to question list.

Can the existence of God be proven (or disproven) by science?

Although recent anti-evolution argument has chosen to attack evolution as bad science, the long-standing "conflict" over evolution is also related to a theological question.  Can the existence of God can be tested (proven) by human observation and intellect, or does the Creator stands apart from His creation, untestable and unprovable except by act of faith?  This is an ancient question.  

Attempts to prove the existence of God have a long history within Christianity.  Science, upon its emergence during the Renaissance, was quickly adopted as a powerful tool both on behalf of religious apologetics and also for the opposite purpose of attacking religion.  Newton's laws of motion could be interpreted as expressions of Divine authority or as the blind workings of mindless mechanism.  The regular motions of the heavenly spheres could be seen evidence of God's power or as mere clockwork.  The deep divide between these two (mis)applications of science predates Darwin by at least a couple centuries.

The urge to co-opt the growing power of science on behalf of religion was especially strong during the 18th and 19th centuries, but arguments based on simple physics didn't work very well.  Physics could be too easily interpreted as mindless mechanism, with no necessity for Divine design.  But efforts to find God through science continued, reaching a zenith in the popular acceptance of Natural Theology.  A central argument in Natural Theology held that adaptation -- i.e., the unmistakable evidence of "design" in living things -- was proof not only of God's existence but also of his beneficence.  Where "design" appears, there must be a designer.  

The classic reference is Natural Theology - or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearances of Nature, written by William Paley and published in 1802.

Darwin's theory toppled this "argument from design" by explaining how the appearance of elaborate design could be generated by the workings of rather simple underlying principles.  Perhaps the biggest affront of Darwinian evolution, which made evolution rather than some other domain of physical science into an archetypal enemy of religion, was its absurdly simple (and inadequate-seeming) mechanistic explanation for adaptation.  

With its central argument demolished, the edifice of Natural Theology collapsed.  With it went a formal rationale for religious belief that had been taught to generations of believers (and that is still taught to many).  Mainstream religion has been readjusting ever since, largely by noticing that Natural Theology was not good theology in the first place.  By treating God as provable from within the created universe, Natural Theology also rendered God subject to disproof, in effect making the Creator a lesser thing than His creation.  Meanwhile, the anti-evolution movement has been fighting against the collapse, trying to resurrect evidence for Divine design as discerned in ID, IC, and CSI.

What about the human mind?

304 home page

Return to question list.

What about the human mind?

Although evolution is commonly viewed as the contested territory, the real dispute in religion more closely concerns the nature of the human soul (often equated with "mind" or "consciousness" or "free will").  In other terms, are human beings spiritual entities?  Can human lives have meaning and purpose (e.g., "to enjoy God and worship Him forever")?  Or is human existence merely a temporary product of matter in motion, devoid of ultimate purpose?

This concern is evident in a recent statement from Pope John Paul II concerning evolution (see also comments above).  

"St. Thomas observes that man's likeness to God resides especially in his speculative intellect...  Consequently, theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the mind as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.  Nor are they able to ground the dignity of the person."   (full text of the Pope's letter)

In a commentary on this statement, David S. Thaler (microbiologist at Rockefeller University) writes:

"The pope's argument follows from that of Thomas Aquinas...  Since the mind is man's most God-like aspect, any attempt to explain human consciousness in terms of biology is, apparently, still heresy...  Furthermore, the pope seems to say that although the soul and the body are separable, the soul and the intellect are inextricably intertwined...  Depending on how things play out, the next Galileo may be a neurobiologist, or we may anticipate future theological retrenchments on the relationship of mind, brain, and soul."  (full text of Thaler's commentary)

The simplest escape from this difficulty is to recognize that "mind" and "soul" should not be treated as synonyms.  The attributes of "mind", including perception, thought, memory, emotion, and personality, can each be altered by tinkering with brain-stuff (whether by surgery, drugs, accident, or disease).  Thus it is quite clear these attributes of mind do emerge from "the forces of living matter" in the brain, just as much as "strength" (in the everyday, literal sense) emerges from chemical activity of muscles.  Modern language commonly equates mind with soul, but this familiar usage may be misleading.  Perhaps surprisingly, Christian scripture supports a distinction:  "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength" (KJV, Mark 12:30; parallel passages occur in Matthew 22:37 and Luke 10:27).   

The important question, therefore, should not be, Does the mind emerge "from the forces of living matter"?.  To that question, neuroscience has already provided an affirmative answer (more on consciousness -- an interview with David Chalmers).  But such an answer should be of no necessary significance for theology.  The religious question needs to be, Is or is not the mind a "mere epiphenomenon", in the words of the Pope, with no spiritual significance or value?  Such weight hangs on the simple word, "mere".

Standing apart from openly voiced concerns about evolution and even about the "soul", but doubtless contributing to general unease over mechanistic explanation, is the matter of free will -- whether or not human choices and decisions are made freely or caused mechanistically by prior conditions and forces.  The question of free will is closely tied to the question of causation, which troubles modern physics as much as it does philosophy.  Philosophy has explored a variety of proposals, from dualism to denial, to explain free will.  But awareness of such concerns seems to be largely suppressed in mainstream religion (and in most of popular culture).  Many religious worldviews simply presume that free will is a meaningful concept.  Debate over evolution thus may substitute for more intellectually-challenging engagement with this underlying issue.  

Note that seldom-examined presumptions concerning free will (or lack thereof) inform many practical matters of great importance, ranging from child rearing to education to psychiatry to criminal justice.

What are some other unexamined presumptions in popular worldviews?

304 home page

Return to question list.

What are some various worldview presumptions?

The following are listed in no particular order, although there is a rough attempt to list the most common (or most "obvious") first.  Many of these are presented in pairs.  In some cases both members of the pair are quite popular; in other cases one or the other alternative is widely disregarded.  Many of these statements are interdependent, such that one can be meaningless without also accepting another.  There is no attempt at completeness or philosophical precision.

Note that commonly encountered worldviews include an assortment of these presumptions, often combined without any obvious regard for consistency.  It is not unusual for people to espouse some worldview presumptions in certain circumstances and other, contradictory worldview presumptions in other circumstances.

Which presumptions would you say that you believe?  Which presumptions do you act as if you believe?

As an exercise, print out the list above.  Then cross off all presumptions which seem silly or "obviously" wrong.  For each presumption which remains, how might you test whether it is true?  (If it can't be tested, what does it mean to believe it to be true?)

304 home page

Return to question list.
Where do I stand?  

Operationally, my stance toward the "conflict" between evolution and religion is implied by the fact that I am both an enthusiastic evolutionary biologist and an ordained elder in a local congregation of the Presbyterian Church USA.  

I reject the common presumption that evolution necessarily conflicts with religion.  I believe that conflict between science and religion can appear only when one party or the other (i.e., either Science or Religion) mistakes matters of objective (material) fact for matters of spiritual significance.

But such a stance clearly depends on what one regards as essential religious belief.  Maintaining this stance has required substantial (and ongoing) negotiation among worldview-presumptions to achieve some semblance of reconciliation, one that respects both scientific practice and religious belief without imposing intellectual blindness nor obvious inconsistency (although paradox must sometimes be tolerated, as it is within science itself, notably in the wave/particle duality of modern physics).

How can science and religion be reconciled?

304 home page

Return to question list.

How can science and religion be reconciled?

One plausible stance toward a compatible relationship between science and religion has been given the designation of NOMA by Stephen Jay Gould.  NOMA is an acronym for Non-Overlapping MAgisteria; see Gould's book, Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life.  Although the NOMA position is reasonably popular, it tends to be inconspicuous since its adherents do not pass out leaflets on street corners.  Nevertheless, much of apparent basis for conflict between science and religion simply disappears when the appropriate spheres of influence for Science and for Religion are recognized and respected.

A basic assertion, in the style of NOMA, is attributed to Galileo on the occasion of his censure by the Church for proposing that the earth revolves around the sun:   "Science tells us how the heavens go, not how to go to heaven."

Science is the domain ("magisterium") of human understanding which addresses questions concerning the behavior of matter and energy, time and space.  Science discovers and describes consistent patterns, principles, or laws in the appearance of natural phenoma.  Science says how things work. But science does not explain why the "natural" universe is governed in this way nor why nature even exists in the first place.  Science works with tools of "objective" observation and induction, hypothesis and experiment, and deduction from established results.  Within this domain, the methods and conclusions of science rule.  (And just because some particular question, such as how life first emerged, cannot yet be clearly and satisfactorily answered does not mean that the question lies outside the magisterium of Science.)

There are, however, areas where Science simply does not apply.   According to NOMA, even within the secular world science should only describe what is, not prescribe what ought to be.  Thus science can say nothing about right and wrong, or good and evil.  For example, science may provide information about the biological processes of conception and embryonic development, about the medical and economic consequences of various methods of birth control, and about the occurrence of infanticide in various species.  But science cannot decide whether or not abortion is sinful.  Nor can science address questions about ultimate purpose or "the meaning of life".   In the infamous words of physicist (and 1979 Nobel laureate) Steven Weinberg, "The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless."  But this appearance does not represent scientific evidence that existence has no purpose; it only highlights the boundary of science's applicability.  Ultimate purpose (or pointlessness) lies outside the magisterium of science.

The other domain ("magisterium") of human understanding is commonly called Religion.  The magisterium of religion addresses the ultimate nature of existence, including questions about God and about the meaning and purpose of life.  Even though various religions differ substantially in their essential beliefs, most religions do offer some assertions about morality.  Hence NOMA typically characterizes this magisterium as the domain of ethics, of right and wrong.  But NOMA requires no particular views about essentials in this magisterium.

Because science commands such widespread respect as a source for knowledge about the world, there is a temptation to extend this power of science into the domain of religion as well, to use science to distinguish one true religion from various false doctrines.  Within the NOMA position, this temptation should be resisted.  The essential presumptions of religion can only be accepted or rejected (somewhat like the postulates of mathematics), not "proven" by argument or evidence.  Religion develops the implications which follow from presumptions about the Ultimate, exploring why (or whether) and under what terms human life is worth living and how life ought to be lived.  But Religion is not the domain of objectively verifiable facts about historical events or the behavior of material objects.

NOMA is not a wishy-washy or intellectually lazy position.  NOMA invites and encourages informed interaction between the domains of science and religion, for example in addressing the most effective ways to apply scientific information toward the advancement of particular values.  Unfortunately, in our modern culture Science and Religion have each extended malignant growths into the other's territory.  And like invasive cancers, these growths often cannot be readily excised without endangering the patient.  (Uninvited, forcible attempts to persuade anyone to change his or her worldview are likely to cause more harm than good, especially if the patient is not openminded and philosophically resilient.)

Historically, religion has often been entangled with superstition (i.e., with pre-scientific explanations for physical phenomena).  Many religions tell stories about origins.  These stories frequently include details which differ substantially from the descriptions that are revealed by geology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology.  For example, according to the biblical book of Genesis, in six days God made the Earth and all that is in it.  A world-wide flood in the time of Noah drowned all life that was not kept safe in the Ark.  Some religious people believe it is crucial that all of the details in such scriptural stories be understood as factually true.  Such a stance is inconsistent with NOMA, since it requires a definite rejection of science as a legitimate domain of understanding when science conflicts with such belief.

A statement by the Interacademy Panel on international issues (pdf file).

304 home page

Return to question list.
What about scientific hostility toward religion?

One more point...  I have tried to explain that although certain religious positions might find some conclusions from science disagreeable, a religious stance can nevertheless accommodate a thoroughly mechanistic, scientific perspective on the workings of life and evolution.  But can Science also accommodate religion?

A few prominent scientists (Ernst Haeckel offers a classic model; more recently Steven Weinberg, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett come immediately to mind) have expressed rather sharp hostility toward religion and have incorporated that hostility into their public explications of science.  But two observations can usually be made about such presentations.  

First, even though such scientists may believe that they are rejecting religion in general, the concept of religion which is rejected is usually one which is itself hostile to scientific, mechanistic explanation (i.e., which itself transgresses the NOMA concept).  That is, anti-religion scientists often show little awareness that a religious stance can be non-superstitious and thoroughly compatible with science.

Second, such scientists often themselves transgress the NOMA concept, making assertions about the ultimate meaning and purpose of existence (or the lack thereof) which are utterly indefensible by the tools of science.  The science which accepts science as a source and justification for meaning and value, or for hostility toward religion, is sometimes called scientism or scientific fundamentalism.

Finally, more than a few scientists, including some evolutionary biologists, do maintain strong personal engagement with religion.  And at least some of these do so with their eyes open and their intellect engaged.

304 home page

Return to question list.
To conclude with a lighter touch...  some Grooks by Piet Hein.

PROBLEMS
Problems worthy of attack
prove their worth by hitting back.

A grook by Piet Hein

LOOK AND THOU SHALT FIND
Foes of what's cooking see no worth behind it.
Those that are looking for nothing - will find it.

A grook by Piet Hein

THE OPPOSITE VIEW
For many system shoppers it's a good-for-nothing system
that classifies as opposites stupidity and wisdom.
Because by logic-choppers it's accepted with avidity:
stupidity's true opposite's the opposite stupidity.

A grook by Piet Hein

SIMILARITY
No cow's like a horse, and no horse like a cow.
That's one similarity anyhow.

A grook by Piet Hein

THE MIRACLE OF SPRING
We glibly talk of nature's laws
but do things have a natural cause?
Black earth turned into yellow crocus
is undiluted hocus-pocus.

A grook by Piet Hein

THE PARADOX OF LIFE
A bit beyond perception's reach
I sometimes believe I see
that Life is two locked boxes, each
containing the other's key.

by Piet Hein

304 home page

Return to question list.

REFERENCES.  These are not intended to be comprehensive.  

The following three books played a formative role in my own understanding.  

Two more-recent books do a wonderful job of explaining many aspects of evolution, but these also exemplify an arrogant and narrow-minded hostility toward religion (i.e., without any apparent understanding or even awarenness of non-superstitious modern theology):

Cited in the discussion above:

Also of potential interest:

For material related to scientific issues, the Talk.Origins Archive is a good place to begin.  

Related sites, science and religion:

 

304 home page

Comments and questions: dgking@siu.edu
Department of Zoology e-mail: zoology@zoology.siu.edu
Comments and questions related to web server: webmaster@science.siu.edu

SIUC / College of Science / Zoology / Faculty / David King / ZOOL 304
URL: http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/king/304/wrldview.htm
Last updated:  22 June 2009 / dgk