Category Archives: Religion

Nicholas Wade on Evolution: Strike Two

Posted on by

A few weeks ago, the New York Times ran a review of Richard Dawkin’s latest book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth. The review, written by Nicholas Wade, had a very troubling slant. In what I view as its most grievous error, Wade contended that Dawkins “doesn’t know what a theory is,” In saying this, Wade gave support to the discredited view that “evolution is only a theory” and thus easily dismissed. Frankly, I expected better from the New York Times.

This isn’t just my opinion. The Times initially posted two Letters to the Editor from eminent scientists, both critical of the review. Adding that they received an “unusually large number” of letters “from readers who identified themselves as scientists or philosophers,” the Times posted a further collection of letters — all critical.

Apparently, this was not enough to convince the Times to itself be a bit more critical in evaluating Mr. Wade’s writing. He was back again with a Week-in-Review column titled “The Evolution of the God Gene.” Here he makes at least three very questionable assertions.

First is the claim that the ubiquity of religion in human culture suggests that there may be a gene for religion, favored by natural selection. Hence the title of the column. A gene that directly codes for a belief in God is almost certainly a gross over-simplification of how genetics and evolution works — even if there were some overall truth to Wade’s assertion.

But it gets worse. Wade next asserts that the presumed presence of a God gene implies that religion has a “constructive role” in society and should thus be viewed “favorably.” This logic runs counter to a wealth of literature that correctly points out that just because something may be favored by natural selection does not mean that we should view it as “good.”

For example, there is research that suggests a genetic evolutionary basis for human infidelity and even rape. There is certainly not a consensus of agreement on this matter. But even among those who support the viewpoint, no one would argue that this means human societies should promote infidelity or rape. Nor does it mean that humans should not consciously work to override what, in our present society, is a negative evolutionary inheritance. More generally for any trait, even if it was useful in our evolutionary past, this does not mean it remains so today. This extends to any supposed “God gene” as well.

Finally, Wade’s assertions move from the distorted and incorrect to the truly absurd. He correctly notes that a supposed evolutionary basis for religion would “neither prove nor disprove the existence of gods.” The problem is that the rest of the article implies that this point is largely irrelevant. That is, he argues that, if religion has the “benefits” he proposes, we should support religion even if its most fundamental assertion is false.

I’m sorry. To travel from what is at best a questionable premise to a conclusion that we should all close our eyes and support a belief even if it has no more veracity than a fairy tale — borders on the ridiculous.

Once again, I am a bit mystified that the New York Times saw fit to publish this article, which now amounts to “strike two” for Wade. Maybe, one more and he’s out.

As for Wade himself, he has just published a book titled “The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures.” I’m guessing that the God Gene column amounts to a summary of and promotion for his book.

NPR flunks evolution

Posted on by

The following is a slightly edited copy of feedback I sent to NPR earlier this week. It’s probably a bit more harsh than they deserved. But I felt I needed to do some shaking here.

“I was truly disappointed in your coverage of the Florida evolution bill issue today. Even the title of your piece, ‘Bill in Fla. Lets Schools Teach Evolution Alternatives,’ is a distortion.

The truth is that no bill is needed to allow teaching of alternatives to evolution. Schools are already allowed to teach scientific alternatives to evolution, just as they are allowed to do so for any other theory in science.

What they are not allowed to do is teach religion in the guise of science. That is what this law is really all about. It is the latest attempt by the proponents of creationism to shoehorn the teaching of creationism in science classes. The more neutral sounding language is simply designed to circumvent the latest legal rulings against such teaching. Your report never really makes this clear.

Instead, your report makes the issue sound more like a “he said, she said” debate between Republicans and Democrats, with the Republicans on the side of academic freedom.

To describe this bill as advocating academic freedom, is like describing a bill that weakens anti-pollution regulations as a “Clean Skies Act.” It’s just double-speak. This is an anti-evolution bill, plain and simple.

Similarly, your report mentions the Discovery Institute as a source of support for the Florida legislation, but fails to mention that this same Institute was on the losing side of the Dover, PA trial that strongly ruled against teaching Intelligent Design in the classroom. Indeed, the Discovery Institute spokesman quoted in your report acknowledges that the wording of the Florida legislation was in part based on model language provided by the Institute.

Your report mentions Ben Stein’s new movie (Expelled), but fails to mention that it has received near unanimous condemnation for its promotion of knowingly false and inaccurate information. The New York Times, for example, called it “one of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time, a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” There is an entire Web site, Expelled Exposed, that exposes the many falsehoods in this movie.

While citing Ben Stein and his film, and quoting a person from the Discovery Institute, your report offered no statements from scientists or experts of any sort on the other side of this controversy.

In the end, your report comes off as a shameful example of ignoring the facts, and promoting the legitimacy of discredited views, apparently in a sheepish attempt to give yourself an appearance of neutrality.”

Gallup poll and evolution folly

Posted on by

Scientific truth is not determined by a popular opinion. it wouldn’t matter if 99% of the American public believed that the sun revolved around the earth—instead of the other way around. Such poll results would have absolutely no effect on the behavior of the sun and the earth.

When it comes to the subject of evolution, despite the distortions you may have read elsewhere, evolution is an established scientific fact. It is as much of a fact as gravity, or black holes, or atoms and molecules.

Have you actually seen gravity? How do you know it really exists? Couldn’t the reason we feel the apparent pull of gravity be due instead to some supernatural force that we don’t understand? How do you know that atoms truly exist and, more importantly, that atoms behave the way scientists say they do? On what basis do you accept the idea that black holes, whatever they may be exactly, exist in outer space?

My guess is that the overall answer to such questions is that, when it comes to such matters, you accept the consensus reached by the scientists that work in these fields. You may not understand the physics of gravity or atoms or black holes. But that does not lead you to dispute their existence. In fact, it is largely because of your lack of understanding, because you have not made the effort to study the facts yourself, that you defer to the experts who have done so.

The truth of a scientific theory also doesn’t depend upon whether or not you are pleased with its conclusions. You may not be happy to discover that you can get HIV from having unprotected sex. You may be irritated to learn that you cannot cure severe depression simply by telling a person to “Cheer up;” medication may be required to help the person. But your unhappiness and irritation does not change anything.

All of this applies in the same way to evolution. You may be offended by the idea that humans are descended from apes. You may find it difficult to understand how the process of natural selection could account for the range of species on the planet today. But such offense and incomprehension has no bearing on the overwhelming evidence in support of evolution.

Unfortunately, although the above logic is indisputable, people somehow are willing to make an exception for evolution. The same person that would never think of denying the scientific evidence that links HIV to AIDS or that supports the existence of black holes in outer space—has no problem making such an assertion about evolution.

The data in this regard are staggering. According to recent Gallup polls, close to 50% of all people surveyed say that they “do not believe in evolution.” This is consistent with similar surveys taken over the past several years. I am sure that much of the reason for this, aside from what I have already said, is that people view evolution as in conflict with their religious beliefs. Forced to make a choice, they go with religion.

For the scientific community, such poll results are equivalent to finding out that 50% of the American public does not believe in gravity. On the one hand, the poll results are a depressing statement about the state of scientific education in our country. On the other hand, it has no bearing as to whether or not gravity really exists.

Scientific assertions based on ignorance of the relevant science (how many people that say that they don’t believe in evolution have actually studied the evidence?) or on religious prejudices is not a particularly effective way to get to the truth. It doesn’t work for deciding on the veracity of gravity, black holes, atoms, or AIDS. And it doesn’t work for evolution.

A comment on The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything

Posted on by

Last Friday, I went to hear Gordy Slack talk about his new book: The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything (Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA.). He has a charming, friendly speaking style that happily carries over to the book. I have just finished the book and I highly recommend it—both for its inside (if not in depth) look at this important trial as well as for its personal touches (especially Gordy’s struggles with his father, an “Ivy League liberal intellectual” experimental psychologist who “converted” to a “neo-creationist” born-again Christian when Gordy was nineteen).

As readers of my previous blog entries on evolution and on atheism no doubt know, I have few if any kind words for proponents of Intelligent Design (or religion itself, for that matter). At its harshest level, my view is that such individuals are either ignorant, hypocritical, or in denial. That is, their absolute rejection of the evidence for evolution is either due to ignorance (they have never really fairly considered the evidence for the theory), hypocrisy (they knowingly choose to ignore the evidence because it is in conflict with their religious beliefs or because promoting ID is beneficial to some political goal) or denial (they unknowingly close the gates of their brains to any information that is contrary to their religious beliefs).

One of the values of Gordy’s book, for me personally, is the respect he shows to both sides of the debate. More specifically, it provides insights into the thinking of some of the more intellectually honest ID proponents (such as Phillip Johnson). I still believe they are completely wrong, but I can at least see that they are not ignorant and are sincere in their views (even if they continue to view ID as a means to ultimately wedge a religious God into science). Gordy’s patience with ID arguments, I might add, appears to grow less and less as the book progresses, as he details both his own objections and the flaws in the arguments exposed during the trial—as well as the deceit and lies given in defense of teaching ID in schools.

Yet, I also find a sadness in the positions of even the most sincere and honest of ID proponents. Because, from the descriptions in the book, it is clear that there is nothing I (or anyone else) could say to these individuals that would persuade them to change their views. It goes without saying that the same holds true, in spades, for the less intellectual and more dishonest of ID proponents. Given this realization, it seems almost pointless to even try. But I don’t wish to give up. I still hope that there are enough people who are not so far over to the creationist side of the fence that, over time, we can effect a shift in public opinion toward much greater support of evolution. I no longer believe, however, I will see this shift in my lifetime. It is a continuing irony that, as we move into the 21st century, there appears to be a resurgence in ideas whose origins emerged from our collective ignorance thousands of years ago.

Of course, I would be the first to admit that there is little, if anything, that ID proponents could say to me that would get me to change my views. So perhaps, one might argue, we are on different sides of the fence but otherwise no different. Perhaps. I remain convinced, however, that I would be willing to change my views in an instant if the evidence presented itself. What I resist is to make faith the basis for a shift in my views.

This point was made crystal clear to me in one passage from Gordy’s book. It relates to a point I made in a previous blog entry: It is not viable or rational to argue in favor of Intelligent Design (or more generally, a belief in God) based on the idea that a universe without God would imply a meaningless existence. Yet, that is exactly what Richard Thompson (chief counsel for the defense in the Dover trial) argues, when asked why this particular battle matters so much to him: “If you are nothing but an accident of nature, then nothing you do is dependent on objective truth. There is no life after death. There are no set moral codes…You’re just another piece of matter bouncing around…Even if a hundred million scientists say…we’re just purposeless beings,…the general public won’t buy it. And neither will I.” Thompson states all this as if it is self-evident and irrefutable evidence for why evolution cannot be true.

Of course, as I (and many many others) have argued, just because you may be dismayed at some truth, does not make it untrue. I may be sad at the prospect that I am going to die one day. But that sadness does not mean that I will, in fact, not die. Similarly, it may well be that life has no ultimate moral or spiritual meaning. However depressing such a thought might be, it has no bearing on whether or not it is true. A failure to make this distinction is one of the continuing fallacies promoted by defenders of ID, and more generally of religion.