SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
David P. Barash, an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington, writes in the NYT that every year he gives his students The Talk, not as you might expect, about sex, but about evolution and religion. According to Barash many students worry about reconciling their beliefs with evolutionary science and just as many Americans don’t grasp the fact that evolution is not merely a “theory,” but the underpinning of all biological science, a substantial minority of his students are troubled to discover that their beliefs conflict with the course material. "There are a couple of ways to talk about evolution and religion," says Barash. "The least controversial is to suggest that they are in fact compatible." Stephen Jay Gould called them "nonoverlapping magisteria," noma for short, with the former concerned with facts and the latter with values." But Barash says magisteria are not nearly as nonoverlapping as some of them might wish. "As evolutionary science has progressed, the available space for religious faith has narrowed: It has demolished two previously potent pillars of religious faith and undermined belief in an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God."
The twofold demolition begins by defeating what modern creationists call the argument from complexity - that just as the existence of a complex structure like a watch demands the existence of a watchmaker, the existence of complex organisms requires a supernatural creator. "Since Darwin, however, we have come to understand that an entirely natural and undirected process, namely random variation plus natural selection, contains all that is needed to generate extraordinary levels of non-randomness. Living things are indeed wonderfully complex, but altogether within the range of a statistically powerful, entirely mechanical phenomenon." Next to go is the illusion of centrality. "The most potent take-home message of evolution is the not-so-simple fact that, even though species are identifiable (just as individuals generally are), there is an underlying linkage among them — literally and phylogenetically, via traceable historical connectedness. Moreover, no literally supernatural trait has ever been found in Homo sapiens; we are perfectly good animals, natural as can be and indistinguishable from the rest of the living world at the level of structure as well as physiological mechanism." Finally there is a third consequence of evolutionary insights: a powerful critique of theodicy, the effort to reconcile belief in an omnipresent, omni-benevolent God with the fact of unmerited suffering. "But just a smidgen of biological insight makes it clear that, although the natural world can be marvelous, it is also filled with ethical horrors: predation, parasitism, fratricide, infanticide, disease, pain, old age and death — and that suffering (like joy) is built into the nature of things. The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator."
Barash concludes The Talk by saying that, although they don’t have to discard their religion in order to inform themselves about biology (or even to pass his course), if they insist on retaining and respecting both, they will have to undertake some challenging mental gymnastic routines. "And while I respect their beliefs, the entire point of The Talk is to make clear that, at least for this biologist, it is no longer acceptable for science to be the one doing those routines."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:44AM
Look, if somebody is taking a science course then they damn well better be prepared to be subjected to real science! Why the fuck should any professor cater to those who are unable to put religion in its proper place?
If these few students don't like science, well, screw them. They can study something else, or realize that they're studying science and then accept that science does put to shame religious beliefs in most cases. That's just how it is.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:54AM
By making his case in his way, rather than your way, more students are going to learn science. And that is his job, to teach science (not to convert students to atheists or agnostics). Presenting things in a way that prepares them for the conflicts that they are going to face not only helps educate the students but it also shows respect for the students beliefs.
I'm not a believer, but I believe in freedom of religion for everybody.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by kanweg on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:36AM
" but it also shows respect for the students beliefs."
As far as I'm concerned, showing respect to a person's belief is that I'm not the one to start a discussion on the topic (for example because someone wears a religious symbol). However, as soon as someone starts to spout unsupported assertions, I don't hold back (most of the time. Sometimes I don't respond).
It is highly disrespectful to enter a discussion without facts (and usually an unwillingness to change your position in view of arguments, because if you were capable of that, you probably wouldn't have that position). The professor had his share of that in previous classes and deals a pre-emptive strike (with a lecture showing facts of nature).
I think that it is very disrespectful to those people who are willing to discuss based on facts and are willing to change their view, if people who are not doing that get the same respect.
Belief should be a personal thing. You keep it to yourself. If it makes you happy, I'm all for it. You've got only one life.
As a professor, you don't want to get your class disrupted by people challenging you without a shred of evidence, just their beliefs instilled on them by their parents. Why did the parents sent the kid to the university if they know better how things are? You want the professor to show respect for those beliefs? No, the rules of science are different.
Bert
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:56AM
It is highly disrespectful to enter a discussion without facts (and usually an unwillingness to change your position in view of arguments, because if you were capable of that, you probably wouldn't have that position).
Just to let you know, you are not coming off as the kind of person who enters a discussion willing to change position.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:31PM
Yeah, sure. Make this about him, not the nutcases. Nice try.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday October 01 2014, @09:28AM
I wasn't speaking to his past issues, only his current policy of giving new student "the talk". Why is being respectful a wrong course of action? He's not going to do anything but alienate his students if he tells them "my way or the highway so STFU or GTFO".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Wednesday October 01 2014, @08:01PM
He actually *IS* telling them "my way or the highway so STFU or GTFO", but he's doing it in a very diplomatic way. And this feels right and correct to me. He's supposed to teach science, not religion or philosophy (except, perhaps, Empiricism or Pragmatism). He's giving the students fair warning in time that they can drop the class without penalties. This is a case where being blunt (in a diplomatic way) is best for all involved. (There are many such cases, but this is clearer than most.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:23PM
Just as I believe in freedom from religion for everybody.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:42PM
Nice soundbite. What's your point?
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:02PM
And where's my freedom to learn science without having to put up with their ignorance and stupidity?
Fortunately, this is mostly a problem in the USA and Muslim countries.