Читать книгу The Three Failures of Creationism - Walter Fitch - Страница 6

FOREWORD

The theory of biological evolution is the central organizing principle of modern biology. In 1973, the eminent evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously asserted, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Evolution provides a scientific explanation for why there are so many different kinds of organisms on Earth and gives an account of their similarities and differences (morphological, physiological, and genetic). It accounts for the appearance of humans on Earth and reveals our species's biological connections with other living things. It provides an understanding of the constantly evolving bacteria and viruses and other pathogenic organisms, and it enables the development of effective new ways to protect ourselves against the diseases they cause. Knowledge of evolution has made possible improvements in agriculture and medicine, and has been applied in many fields outside biology—for example, in software engineering, where genetic algorithms seek to mimic selective processes; and in chemistry, where the principles of natural selection are used for developing new molecules with specific functions.

Yet, in the United States, many people reject the scientific knowledge concerning evolution, mostly for religious reasons. According to a Gallup poll of 1,016 U.S. adults, taken in November 2004, 45 percent of those surveyed favored the statement “God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.” Thirty-eight percent favored “Man developed over millions of years, but God guided the process,” and 13 percent favored “Man developed over millions of years from less advanced life forms.” Teaching creationism rather than evolution in the schools is favored by a large number of American citizens. In a CNN/USA Today Gallup poll of 1,001 adults conducted in March 2005, 76 percent would not “be upset if public schools in [their] community taught creationism,” but only 63 percent would not “be upset if the schools taught evolution.” Only 22 percent would be upset if creationism was taught, while 34 percent would be upset if evolution was taught. Other polls yield similar statistics.

Are evolution and religion—or, more generally, science and religion—in contradiction.? No. In fact, if they are properly understood, science and religion cannot be in contradiction, because science and religion concern different aspects of the human experience. Science and religion are like two different windows for looking at the world. Both look at the same world, but they show different aspects of that world. Science encompasses the processes that account for the natural world: how planets move, the composition of matter and the atmosphere, the origin and adaptations of organisms, and so on. Religion concerns the meaning and purpose of the world and of human life, the proper relation of people to the creator and to each other, the moral vales that inspire and govern people's lives, and more. Apparent contradictions emerge only when either the science or the beliefs, or often both, encroach into one another's subject matter.

Scientific explanations are based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world, and they rely exclusively on natural processes to account for natural phenomena. Scientific explanations are subject to empirical tests by means of observation and experimentation and are subject to the possibility of modification and rejection. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical tests and is not subject to the possibility of rejection based on empirical evidence. The significance and purpose of the world and human life, as well as issues concerning moral and religious values, are of great importance to many people, perhaps a majority of humans, but these are matters that transcend science.

To some people of faith, geology, astronomy, and the theory of evolution are incompatible with their religious beliefs because scientific knowledge is inconsistent with the creation narrative in the book of Genesis and other biblical texts. A literal interpretation of Genesis is indeed incompatible with the gradual evolution of humans and other organisms by natural processes. But that incompatibility emerges only when religious tenets transgress their proper domain. Most biblical scholars and theologians do not consider the Bible to be an elementary textbook of geology, astronomy, or biology; rather, they seek in the Bible religious truths about the meaning and purpose of life and about moral and other spiritual values.

Charles Darwin (1809-1832) is deservedly credited for the theory of evolution. In The Origin of Species, his most famous book, Darwin laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. Darwin, however, accomplished much more, and something much more important, than demonstrating evolution. Namely, Darwin provided a scientific account of the design of organisms, which he accomplished with the discovery of natural selection. The diversity and complexity of organisms, as well as their marvelous contrivances (eyes for seeing, wings for flying, gills for breathing in water) could now be explained as the result of natural processes.

Traditional Christianity had explained the design of organisms as the intentional result of the Creator. Theologians and religious authors argued, for example, that the human eye is as complex a contrivance as a watch or a telescope, with several parts all required to fit together precisely in order to achieve vision. There was, however, a seemingly insurmountable difficulty. If God is the designer of life, whence the lion's cruelty, the snake's poison, and the parasites that secure their existence only by destroying their hosts.

The world abounds in physical catastrophes, such as floods, droughts, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunamis that kill thousands and thousands of innocent people. If God had designed the world, it would seem that He would be accountable for these destructive phenomena. Modern science came to the rescue. The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries demonstrated that physical events are built into the structure of the universe. The processes by which galaxies and stars came into existence, the planets are formed, the continents move, the weather and the change of seasons happen, and floods and earthquakes occur are natural processes, not events specifically designed by God for punishing or rewarding humans. The extreme violence of supernova explosions and the chaotic frenzy at galactic centers are outcomes of the laws of physics, not the design of a fearsome deity. A person of faith could accept that the world was created by God without the need to attribute to God's direct action the awesome catastrophes that occur in the natural world.

The scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, often called the Copernican Revolution, had left living organisms out of explanation by natural processes. Seemingly, as pointed out by religious authors in the past, organisms give evidence of design, and wherever there is design, there is a designer. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection extends the explanation of natural phenomena by natural processes to the design of organisms. In The Origin of Species, published in i859, Darwin laid out the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. Much more important for intellectual history is that The Origin of Species is, first and foremost, a sustained effort to solve the problem of how to account scientifically for the adaptations or “design” of organisms. Darwin sought to explain the design of organisms, their complexity, diversity, and marvelous contrivances, as results of natural processes. Darwin brought about the evidence for evolution, because evolution was a necessary consequence of his theory of design. The Origin of Species is most important because it completed the Copernican Revolution, initiated three centuries earlier, and thereby radically changed our conception of the universe and the place of mankind in it.

The advances of physical science encompassed by the Copernican Revolution had driven mankind's conception of the universe to a sort of intellectual schizophrenia, which persisted well into the mid-nineteenth century. Scientific explanations, derived from natural laws, dominated the world of nonliving matter, on the earth as well as in the heavens. However, supernatural explanations, depending on the unfathomable deeds of the Creator, were accepted in order to account for the origin and configuration of living creatures—the most diversified, complex, and interesting realities of the world. It was Darwin's genius that resolved this intellectual inconsistency. Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by bringing the design of organisms into the realm of science, as an outcome of natural processes governed by natural laws.

The Three Failures of Creationism: Logic, Rhetoric, and Science is a pertinent introduction to the logical, philosophical, methodological, and empirical issues that arise in the study of evolution, particularly relevant to readers who may be concerned about the scientific standing of the theory of evolution and how it may relate to religious faith. There is much to learn in this short book, all explained in clear and incisive language.

The book speaks for itself. I will, however, add one further consideration addressed to people of faith. It is my view that attributing the properties and characteristics of organisms to specific design by God is not compatible with faith in the benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The God of revelation and faith is a God of love and mercy, and of wisdom. A major burden was removed from the shoulders of believers when convincing evidence was advanced that the design of organisms need not be attributed to the immediate agency of the Creator. If we claim that organisms and their parts have been specifically designed by God, we have to account for the cruelty of predators and parasites and for the incompetent design of the human jaw, the narrowness of the birth canal, and our poorly designed backbone, less than fittingly suited for walking upright. Most disturbing is the following consideration. About 20 percent of all recognized human pregnancies end in spontaneous miscarriage during the first two months of pregnancy. This misfortune amounts at present to more than 20 million spontaneous abortions worldwide every year. Do we want to blame God for the deficiencies in the pregnancy process? Most of us might rather attribute this monumental mishap to the clumsy ways of the evolutionary process than to the incompetence of an intelligent designer.

Creationists and proponents of “Intelligent Design” are surely well-meaning persons. But people of faith would do well to acknowledge Darwin's revolution and accept natural selection as the process that accounts for the design of organisms, as well as for the dysfunctions, oddities, cruelties, and sadism that pervade the world of life. As the distinguished theologian Aubrey Moore already stated in 1891: “Darwinism appeared, and under the guise of a foe, did the work of a friend. It has conferred upon philosophy and religion an inestimable benefit.” Darwin's theory of evolution is one of the great scientific developments of all times. People of faith may also see it as a great gift to religion.

Francisco J. AyalaUniversity of California, Irvine