Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the mental-gymnatiscs-championship dept.

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."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:51PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:51PM (#100465)

    What matters is that the application of evolution to biology is scientific: it makes useful predictions. Here useful means we have prior statistical evidence that said predictions are better than chance. Thus evolution is useful, regardless of its correctness. Correctness does not matter: what matters is the predictions are useful. That is what science is. Even if creationism is true, it does not meet that criteria and is not science: it would be history. The fact that even if creationism is known to be true, and evolution is known to be false, evolution should still be used in biology (its a science) and creationism should not. I don't see how there is even an issue here.

    Are you saying it's only "science" if it makes useful predictions? A large part of biology is taxonomy: identifying and figuring out the relationships among species. Sometimes known as "butterfly collecting." In fact, there's an awful lot of stuff that people describe as observational science that really has no connection at all to predictions or models. In the case of chemistry, cataloging the known elements allowed the prediction of new elements based on gaps in the periodic table, but there's no theory in biology to predict the existence of duck-billed platypus.

    All science is either physics or stamp collecting

    --Ernest Rutherford

  • (Score: 2) by fadrian on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:47PM

    by fadrian (3194) on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:47PM (#100503) Homepage

    I don't like your example. Taxonomies are very much judged by their usefulness, just as are theories - it's just that a taxonomies' usefulness are judged at the meta level based on their ability to act as epistemic generators. This is why we tolerate (nay, demand) many taxonomies, understanding that different views, each focused by the epistemological lens of its own organization and enriched by clues derived from analogous structures, can sometimes elucidate the world more quickly than hewing to a single viewpoint. But don't ever say that taxonomies are not judged by their usefulness.

    --
    That is all.