Here is an interesting article about what it is like to teach evolution at a place where a lot of people, I would say, are blinded by religious prejudice and irrationality. My thanks to our Ethical Leader Randy Best, and Jack van Dijk, for making me aware of the article. It is well worth reading.
https://orionmagazine.org/article/defending-darwin
In one way, I think the author does not go far enough. I want to take issue with one thing he says, and I’m very interested in what others think, whether they are members of the Ethical Humanist Society of the Triangle (EHST) here in central North Carolina, or visitors to our blog from elsewhere.
My hope is to begin a genuine dialectic about this here on the EHST blog. I mean something more than just taking turns expressing opinions. I mean a respectful but critical series of arguments, objections and rejoinders in a shared search for truth. Maybe I am wrong, and if so, I hope to be shown that this is the case through this process of rational inquiry; it is better to get it right than to be right.
Roughly three quarters of the way into the article, the author says the following about the introductory biology class he teaches: “I make it clear that one can accept evolution and maintain their religious beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive.” He goes on to cite many religious organizations and individuals, including the current Pope, who say they believe in both religion and evolution. It is indeed true that there are many such organizations and individuals. But that does not mean they are consistent in these beliefs. It may be the case that some religious beliefs and evolution are mutually exclusive, but these organizations and individuals don’t realize it.
So I want to argue that in fact certain widely held religious beliefs are inconsistent with Darwinism, whether the Pope or anyone else thinks they are or are not. I will present my argument with numbered premises, and it is my hope that those who may disagree with my conclusion will show me what error I have made in my reasoning or, if there happens to be no such error, which of my premises is wrong. Because, if my conclusion is wrong, there must be something wrong with my logic, or with my premises.
The key to my argument is to appreciate that Darwinism is not really about evolution, but rather a particular explanation of evolution. It is easy enough to believe that evolution was just the mechanism God used to create life and humanity, by “pushing along” – so to speak – the evolutionary process. And a belief in evolution long pre-dated Darwin. His great contribution was not noticing evolution. It was his theory of natural selection, according to which no supernatural “push” whatsoever is needed. In the struggle for survival, random genetic variations are selected naturally and are passed along to the offspring of those able to reproduce.
Evolution happened all by itself, without any need of help from God or anyone or anything else, thank you very much. So this brings me to my argument, and here it is:
(1) Most religious belief systems include the idea that humanity was created by a God or a spiritual force.
(2) Such a process of creation would require something other than the natural processes of variation and selection.
(3) But Darwin’s theory of natural selection shows us that nothing besides these natural processes are necessary to fully explain evolution, and demonstrates that it is entirely gratuitous to posit “creation” of any kind.
Therefore, there is a contradiction between most religious belief systems and Darwinism, and it is not the case that most people can accept it and maintain their religious beliefs – they are exclusive.
I don’t offer this as a matter of opinion, or as “my two cents.” (I hope we all strive to have reasoned judgments worth a lot more than that.) I offer this as the truth, but I could be mistaken. If I am, there must be something wrong with at least one of my three premises, or with my logic. So, if you disagree with my conclusion, please explain what you think is wrong with my argument, don’t just state a contrary view as though nobody is right or wrong.
If one of my premises is false, please give an argument of your own as to why it is incorrect. Or, if my conclusion does not follow from the premises, show me how that is. And even if you agree with my conclusion, you still may have something to say to strengthen my argument, or a rejoinder to an objection I may not have anticipated.
I look forward to reading your contribution to the philosophical dialectic about this issue. It is, I believe, an important issue. It relates to the metaphysics of naturalism, which Randy and others are exploring through their study of the book by Richard Carrier: Sense and Goodness Without God. If the natural processes Darwin identified are fully adequate to explain life and humanity, naturalism as a general metaphysical philosophy or world-view seems to have very strong confirmation in the realm of the biological sciences.
Sometimes we say that Darwinism and religion are compatible just because we want to smooth over conflict, and prevent a quarrel. But that approach, however kindly motivated, neglects the real point here. The question is not whether it is nice to say that they are not mutually exclusive. The question is whether Darwinism and religion really are or are not mutually exclusive. If they are, then the comfort the biology professor who wrote the article gives to his religious students – by telling them that they can have their religious cake and eat up as Darwinists too – is just plain bogus.
If there really is a conflict in this case between science and religion, we as a civilization have to face the hard choice of which path we will take. Will we hold on to old religious ideas, or embrace reason and science? I think we simply can not do both, however nice it would be if we could.
So please let me know your thoughts. Again, let’s engage in a real philosophical dialectic here, not just the usual exchange of opinions. I think I’m right, but I could be wrong. If you disagree with my conclusion, you have to show me where I went wrong in my reasoning, or show me that one or more of my premises are incorrect. I look forward to your views.
