Science versus (Some People’s) Religion
Lee Abel, MD
Science versus religion is truly an “old, old story” (to quote a well known hymn). Though this conflict has a long history, it is still very much a present issue. The most recent area of conflict seen in the news centers around the opposition of some Christians to the teaching of evolutionary biology in the public schools. These Christians want an anti-evolutionary concept called “intelligent design” taught as an alternative to Darwin. Their effort to force this is the subject of an articleby Dr. Robert S. Schwartz in the October 6, 2005 issue of theNew England Journal of Medicine. Dr. Schwartz writes that “acquiescing to this anti-science movement would have far-reaching consequences for the development of future generations of physicians, for the likelihood of discovering new therapies, and for understanding health and disease.” (1)
The fact that “Darwin versus the Bible” is back in the newspapers and courtroom seems to prove the adage that history repeats itself. It also seems to repeat the patternseen in the past ofChristians disagreeing among themselves on whether a scientific finding conflict with their faith.When Galileo used his telescope to prove that Copernicus’s theory was correct, he was attacked as being anti-Christian because the Bible seems to posit earth at the center of the universe with the sun and “heavenly lights” moving around a stationary earth. Thus, Galileo’s discovery was seen as an attack on the truthfulness of the Bible.But not all Christians saw this new scientific knowledge as a threat to their faith, and many Christians supported Galileo. This new knowledge could not, of course, threaten God.It also did not threaten a belief in God, and it did not threaten Christian faith. What was threatened was a particular (literal) way of reading the Bible. (2)
When Charles Darwin published ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859, it provoked immediate opposition from some Christians and such opposition has continued to the present. Some Christians believe Darwinism is anti-Christian because it contradicts the Biblical accounts of creation found in Genesis.Of course, the whole idea of an unchanging universe being created in the past is problematic from a scientific standpoint, because the universe is still being created. The universe is expanding rapidly and new stars and other “heavenly bodies” are constantly being created. A close reading of Genesis reveals that it contradicts much more science than just Darwin. For example,the earth and all its vegetation are created on day three, before the sun, moon and stars(which are created on dayfour).There are actually two creation stories in Genesis and biblical scholars note that they were most likely written centuries apart, and so differ in their description of creation.(3) For example, in chapter one, man and woman are created at the same time but after everything else in the universe. Humanity is the last act of creation. In the second creation story (beginning in Genesis 2:4), man is created first(from “dust”) and then plants are created. Animals are created next as a “help meet” (to use the King James words) for Adam. Later, God discovered that animals were not an adequate help meetand so he placed Adam in a deep sleep and took one of his ribs and formed a woman.(As a child in Sunday school I was taught men had one less rib than women because of this Bible story).
Some Christians sincerely profess to see no discrepancies in these creation stories. And it is true that any text is composed of words that can have multiple meanings and canyield multiple interpretations. Galileo’s opponents quoted certain bible verses to prove him wrong, yet most Christians today don’t still believe the earth is stationary or that it islocated at the center of the universe. The Bible’s text has not changed since Galileo’s time, but what has changed is how we view those verses that seemed so important then. Now we either ignore the verses, or we just interpret them differently than Christians commonly did foralmost amillennium and a half.
Since some Christians believe thebiblical creation stories are giving scientifically accurate information and must be read asliterally true historical accounts, there is inevitable conflict with Darwin. These Christians have embraced what has come to be called “creationism”or “creation science.” Creationists don’t completely agree among themselves on all details but they generallybelieve that the earth is not very old. Some believe it is 6,000 or so years old, while others date the earth’s age at 10,000 years based on how certain chronologies given in the Bible are interpreted. Most believe God created the heavens and the earth in six days. They believe that humans (and all other life) were created by God in their present form and did not evolve.(4)Creationism is taught in science classes in some Christian private schools and by some Christians who home school their children. However,its supporters have failed in their attempts to force it to be taught in public schools, because they have never been able to prove that creationism is science and not religion. (5) It is from this failure that the concept of “intelligent design” has arisen.
Intelligent designis not the result of any scientific research or discovery. It is, however, a much more sophisticated concept than creationism. Intelligent design supporters generally accept the scientific dating of the earth’s age (4.6 billion years) and accept some evidence of evolution. They also have a certain advantage in their name because most religious people (and even some who are not religious) believe that God is the ultimate creator of life and that God isintelligent. This belief has no inherent conflict with Darwin. However, the Christians who are trying to force the teaching of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwin obviously do have a major conflict. They claim that Darwinism is flawed and cannot explain the complexity of life.They assert that this complexity could have only resulted from the “guiding hand” of a supernatural designer. The designer is not named as God in order to try and maintain the claim that intelligent design is science. Thus,intelligent designcould be consistent with the idea that very advanced space aliens are the originators and designers of life on this planet. (6)
Several problems exist with the complexity argument. Why would an all powerful deity with unlimited choicecreate a system that is (to use the intelligent design term) “irreducibly complex”? As Dr. Schwartz points out, if one argues that the hemostatic system is so complex that it demands a creator, then the “creator must also be responsible for deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, the natural consequences of a complex system of blood clotting.”In an editorial in the November 8, 2005 issue of Circulationtitled “Heart Failure Research Continues to Reveal the Flaws in Nature’s Unintelligent Design,” Dr. Douglas B. Sawyerpoints out the “marvelously complex but flawed” design of the cardiac neurohormonal regulatory system. (7)Complex systems evolved gradually over millions and millions of years by cumulative modifications of previously evolved features. While very functional they are not examples of a priori design perfection.(8)
In addition, the “so complex it must be God” argument is a throwback to an era when any inexplicable phenomena were attributed to supernatural intervention.Disease was a sign of God’s displeasure and not natural causation.Natural phenomena such as lightning, earthquakes, and hurricanes were seen as God’s direct action in the world. These were literal “acts of God”, but science has been able to provide explanations that do not require supernatural mechanisms. (9) God is not the explanation for everything we currently do not understand.Intelligent design is really an attempt in an indirect and not very straight forward way to try and prove the existence of God.Throughout history people have tried to prove the existence of God, but their efforts have succeeded only in proving their own need for proof in matters of faith. Does this need for proof indicate a lack of faith?
Even ignoring the enormous amount of published evidence in support of Darwinism and the lack of such to support intelligent design, there are still other problems with this concept. First and foremost, much of life isn’t designed in any rational way. The recurrent laryngeal nerve in the giraffe can be 20 feet long but only needs to travel one foot. (10) This presents no problem for Darwinism, but an engineer who designed such a structure could not long hope to hold a job and would not be considered intelligent. Such examples abound in nature because of the evolutionary process. The stages the human embryo passes through reveal signs of our evolutionary history. This is understandable with Darwinism, but would be a bizarre conscious design.It seems unintelligent for humans to have in our DNA the genetic code for structures (like a tail) and functions (the ability to make Vitamin C) and then have those genes inactivated. (11) If we have no common ancestry with other animals, why would God purposely design humans to be 98.4% genetically identical to chimpanzees given the infinite possibilities God had for our structure?(12)
Intelligent design raises many uncomfortable questions about the nature of God. Is God intelligent to have allowed over 99 % of the species he has created to have gone extinct? What was the point of repeatedly creating and destroying species for millions and millions of years? (Wouldn’t this get boring after a few hundred million years?) And curiously God kept using the same basic structure of life over and over again. (Wouldn’t a deity with infinite power and choice show some creative originality and change this basic structure now and again?). (13) One wonders why an intelligent designer would allow children to be born with genetic malformations. Why not just design a better system so no chromosomal aberrations occur and innocent children don’t suffer. Why not designa hip or knee joint that can last at least 90 years so the elderly will have less pain? Is God careless, inattentive or hostile to life on earth? Darwinism has no trouble with vestigial organs like the appendix, but what kind of designer would give humans a structure whose only function is to randomly kill him?
The claim that intelligent design is a scientific theoryis disputed by the National Acadamy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Associationand other such groups. A few scientists (often in fields other than biology) support intelligent design, but there really is no true debate within the scientific community on the validity of evolution. A notable characteristic of these critics of evolution seems to be their adherence to a particular form of Christianity that is literalistic and fundamentalist. These religious views may be more determinative of their position, than any “gaps” in the evolutionary record.That our current knowledge is incomplete is truefor evolution and forall other scientific theories.As the National Academy of Science states, “Evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.”(14) What is different about Darwinism is not the amount of data supporting it, but its apparent challenge to certain religious beliefs. (15)
For many Americans the actual science may not matter that much. Scientists probably have less influence on the average person than their religious leader. If their minister preaches against evolution, many people find that persuasive even if their minister’s last exposure to science was in the 10th grade. And it is not uncommon for people to have received very little, if any, exposure to evolution in high school. Many high school biology teachers simply avoid teaching evolution(or minimize it) because they do not want to be attacked by angry parents claiming they are subverting their children’s religion. (16) In addition, students who come from fundamentalist Christian backgrounds often don’t come into the classroom with open minds about evolution. They know it is wrong before they really know anything about it. Many have been taught that to be true to their faith, they must oppose evolution. Another difficulty is that evolution, like much of science, is complicated. But teaching complex science can be done well. The cover story of the November 2004 issue of National Geographic was on the correctness of Darwin and presented an overview of the evidence that was very accessible to the non-scientist
Many Christians find no threat to their faith from science. They do not mistake the Bible for a science textbook.They recognize that the language of religion is metaphorical and the language of science is quantitative. They believe that science and religion are not in competition because they seek to answer different questions. Indeed, well done scientific research often raises more questions than it answers (which is why it can be so intellectually exciting). Andauthentic faith doesn’t fear scientific knowledge; it opens the mind rather than closes it.
James D. Watson, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, is the editor of a new anthology of the writings of Darwin. In a recent interview, Watson stated that he believed that intelligent designwould fade away.(17) But this may not happen anytime soon. Intelligent design and creationism have huge financial backing, and all that money will insure clever spokesmen and much influence. Undoubtedly the proponents of intelligent design and creationism will have successes. For example, because of the opposition of certain Christians, someIMAX theaterswill not show science films that mention evolutionor refer to the true age of the earth. (18) Intelligent design and creationism have not had success in the courts, but that could change because the courts are not immune to political influence. At the time of this writing (November 2005) a Federal judge is to rule on a case from Dover, Pennsylvania involving the teaching of intelligent design in public school.
Dr.Schwartzis correct to warn that scientific education and the integrity of scientific research in this country is in danger. Creationism and intelligent design undermine intellectual curiosity and the teaching of the scientific method. However, those Christians who want to deny Darwinism are really over a century too late. The data base supporting Darwinism is too large and this information is too widely disseminated. It is the very foundation of modern biology. Darwinism is an enormously powerful theory that can explain the unity as well as the amazing diversity of life on this planet. And in other places outside the U.S. that do high level scientific research such as Europe, Japan, India, and China, Darwinism is not controversial. There is some evidence that the U.S. is already falling behind in the science knowledge of our youth compared to many other countries and this trend may continue. Science may be temporarily censored, suppressed, and attacked, but if one has enough faith, it is possible to believe that truth will eventually prevail.
*This article grew out of a series of Sunday school lessons that I taught at my (Methodist) church. Because of space limitations in this month’s Journal, the footnotes could not be printed. They are available on request. Multiple sources were used and all of the ideas in this article are likely directly or indirectly borrowed from someone else.
************************************************************************
The Journal of the Arkansas Medical Society
Letter’s to the Editor
The Journal has received several responses to the February editorial commentary, “Science Versus (Some People’s) Religion,” by Dr. Lee Abel. We regret that space limitations require us to only publish excerpts from each response and wish to state that the editors have made every effort to accurately represent each response. The full-text of these letters, and Dr. Abel’s response, can be found on our website, or by requesting copies from our office by phone (501-224-8967) or email ().
Note: Commentary articles are editorial in nature and are written by members of our Editorial Board. Their content reflects the ideas and opinions of the individual writer, not The Journal or AMS as a whole.
Dear Editor:
What was the “take home” Sunday school lesson revisited by Dr. Abel in his recent commentary? Was it that Darwinism rather than creationism is a better explanation of the formation of the universe, earth, and man? Was it the notion that creation theory is contra science? I am skeptical of his adoption of the “open mind” portion of the new Methodist mantra with which he is associated.
Darwin posited a biological theory based on hereditary transmission while ignorant of Mendel’s work in genetics. The scientist who adopts naturalism a priori as his scientific philosophy not only greatly restricts the possibilities of determining the origin of the universe and of earth in particular, but also leads him to specious conclusions.