- Change for America on Science and Tech Policy: Part 1
- Taking a Short Break
- Transition Team Deploys Its First Public Web 2.0 Tools
- Victory for Stem Cells in Michigan
- White Open Spaces
- Historical Election Maps and Open Mapping Research
- Scary Regulatory Maneuvers in Bush’s Last Days
- FDA Did Not Finish Its Homework On BPA
- Digital Freedom of Expression and Human Rights
- Traumatic Brain Injury and Helmet Design
- Gates Foundation Funds Research, Venture Capital Style
- A Brief History of Lead Regulation
Evolution and God Not Mutually Exclusive
The Science Times section in the NYT today has a short profile on Francisco J. Ayala, author of Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion. Dr. Ayala is an evolutionary biologist and geneticist at the University of California, Irvine. He spends much of his time lecturing on evolution and its compatibility with belief in God. The Times reports:
Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”
…
[He] dismisses the argument that it is only fair to teach both sides of the evolution/creationism controversy. “We don’t teach alchemy along with chemistry,” he said. “We don’t teach witchcraft along with medicine. We don’t teach astrology with astronomy.”
He said he was saddened when he saw the embrace of evolution identified with, as he put it, “explicit atheism,” as in the books of the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins or other writers on science and faith.
Neither the existence nor nonexistence of God is susceptible to scientific proof, Dr. Ayala said, and equating science with the abandonment of religion “fits the prejudices” of advocates of intelligent design and other creationist ideas.
Sound bites proclaiming the opposition of science and religion tend to drown out more moderate voices calling attention to the compatibility of belief in evolution with belief in God. However, many religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, already support or explicitly endorse the latter view. With the brouhaha over recent creationist movie Expelled, and ongoing disputes about teaching “intelligent design” in the classroom, scientists and religious believers alike have a strong interest in making sure that voices like Dr. Ayala’s come through loud and clear. Failing to do so does a disservice to science and religion alike.
Sirine Shebaya, Ph.D. is a Greenwall Fellow in Bioethics and Health Policy at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.
Comments on this article
It seems to me that Dr Alyala has missed the point of Dawkins and many other atheist scientists have made, which is that whilst there can be no ultimate disproof of God (or in fact anything at all), there simply isn’t any evidence to support the hypothesis. Nor in fact any indicators to intelligently make the hypothesis in the first place. There is however, an abundance of evidence to show how the idea of a god could develop and how a religion grows around this. Just because humans feel bad, or uplifted or special doesn’t give any credence to the truth of the existence of anything. Evidence does. As such evolution does not require a belief in the supernatural and not a single supernatural account written in any religious doctrine can even remotely come up with a credible, verifiable or even plausible explanation for anything in the universe, let alone the abundance of varied lifeforms. So whilst evolution doesn’t necessarily have anything to say about deist beliefs it certainly does contradict all of the major religions in their takes on life. Genesis for instance, is demonstrably not true.
The theory of evolution was birthed in a time when it was accepted that God created everything. Since this time 150 years of evidence has supported it and a number of religious groups have done everything in their power to prevent it from being taught. If Dawkins and his predecessors are guilty of anything it is not setting this appalling state of affairs straight much sooner.
I’d also like to raise the question: what possible disservice could be done to religion? Religious bodies hold the balance of power on this planet by a staggering margin and have done for thousands of years. They sustain a huge number of untruths about reality. Yes they make a large number of people feel comfortable but this is no argument for continuing to shelter religion from the rigourous scrutiny that should be applied to anything of such inordinate power over so many people.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:45 am