Evolution and Religion – a view from both sides.
By Anthony Toole.
I have been a religious person all my life. I decided to become a scientist in my mid-teens, though the seeds that grew into that decision were sowed probably by the age of eleven. At no point have I felt any conflict, whatsoever, between my science and my religion. I do not sit on the fence, but have planted my feet firmly on both sides of it. I find that the arguments of those who stick rigidly to a single viewpoint are becoming rather tiresome. I introduced my children to science at a very early age, and am delighted that two of them are now working as research scientists. (I am equally delighted that the third is an accomplished artist). I now have two grandsons who, even at Infant School age were conversant with the concept of evolution. In the debate as to what we should teach our children about evolution and creationism, I stand solidly alongside the Darwinists. Sincerely religious people have nothing to fear from science. On the other hand, we all have a great deal to fear from religious fundamentalism, of whatever colour.
Creationism and its younger sibling, Intelligent Design are not scientific concepts, and should never be taught as such in schools. The most important characteristic of a scientific hypothesis is that it is capable of being tested by experiment in order either to verify or disprove it. Creationism and Intelligent Design are not capable of experimental testing and consequently are not scientific. The idea of intelligent design could perhaps be argued about, but only as philosophy, and certainly not science. A starting point here, for example, might lie in the question as to whether our existence as intelligent beings, and products of evolution, suggests that intelligence itself might be intrinsic to the universe at large. And if intelligence continues to evolve, how far might it go?
“Science suggests a cosmology, and whatever suggests a cosmology also suggests a religion.” Alfred North Whitehead – Mathematician and philosopher.
The creation myths that are found in all religions are just that, myths, written in an unscientific age for a scientifically unsophisticated people. The biblical myths grew out of stories told by the Jewish people around their campfires. Many were incorporated from other cultures and other religions. They and other myths are beautiful stories that tell us many truths about the human condition, our place in the natural world and our relationships with each other, but in a poetic manner. Without them and the vast legacy of art they have inspired, human culture would be virtually bankrupt. It could be argued that, taken in its entirety from its prehistoric origins, something not far short of 100% of the Art of Humanity has a religious element. In Science and the Modern World, A. N. Whitehead argues that Science suffers from what he called (dreadful phrase) ‘the fallacy of misplaced concreteness’. By this he means that science deals with abstract ideas, and though these ideas have led to an unprecedented understanding of the workings of the universe, they do not necessarily exist as real entities. In Whitehead’s opinion, the view of the universe described by the Romantic poets, was a reaction to this scientific view, but is just as valid, and in many ways more real.
“Through conscious beings, the universe has generated self-awareness. This can be no trivial detail, no minor by-product of mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here.” Paul Davies – Theoretical Physicist.
Some years ago, in a television interview, the astronomer, cosmologist and lifelong atheist, Fred Hoyle said that the structures he had observed in the universe were, to him, unmistakeable evidence of intelligence, though he would not be drawn into using the G word. He lived in the Lake District at the time, and used the walls and buildings to be seen on the distant fells as an analogy for these structures. Hoyle’s greatest contribution to Science was in his working out of the mechanism of the nuclear reactions that not only provided the energy emitted by a star, but created the heavier elements out of the universe’s primordial hydrogen. In the course of developing his theory, he predicted a remarkable coincidence, later verified by experiment, that related the stabilities of atoms of beryllium, carbon and oxygen. Had any one of these stabilities been a few percent greater or smaller, then we and all other carbon-based life forms would never have existed anywhere in the universe. This fact more than any other, said Hoyle, had made him seriously question his atheism.
I have spent many years communicating my enthusiasm for science and its wonders, both to students and to the non-scientific public. In doing so, I take things much farther than my fellow Darwinists. I tell my readers and students that evolution is not an exclusively biological phenomenon, but a process that has been going on, throughout the universe, since the Big Bang, some 13.7 billion years ago (at the latest estimate). Biological evolution developed out of chemical evolution, which itself was preceded by physical evolution. Even the rocks and the earth itself are undergoing a geological evolution. I would subscribe to the view of the palaeontologist, Darwinist and Catholic priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who stated that evolution is no longer just a theory, but a condition with which all other theories must agree.
“As we look out into the universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the universe must have known that we were coming.” Freeman Dyson – Physicist and mathematician.
Many prominent scientists make no secret of the fact that they are religious. Examples that spring to mind include John Polkinghorn, Russell Stannard and Robert Winston. When I look at my very many friends and acquaintances who are scientists, it appears to me that the proportion who are religious seems to reflect the proportion in the population as a whole. This suggests that being a scientist does not predispose one either for or against religion. In fact I would conclude that anyone who attempts to use science either to prove or disprove the existence of God is onto a loser from the start. However, it is in the detail that things become interesting. Most of my acquaintances are on the physical side of science, either chemists, like me, or physicists or mathematicians. Of these, a significant majority are quite unapologetically religious. Of the fewer scientists I know who are biologists, I get the impression that the majority are non-religious. Of course I am talking only of a tiny subset of scientists, so one cannot come to any conclusion. But my observations lead me to a question. By concentrating on just one small aspect of evolution, are some biologists missing something? The bigger picture perhaps.