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 Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh