“Misplaced sympathies” on evolution
Kevin Shapiro, a researcher in neuroscience at Harvard, weighs in on the “controversy” over evolution. (Free access for the next few days.)
It was a preoccupation with defeating materialism that inspired many of Darwin’s contemporary detractors. Richard Owen, a 19th-century English anatomist, privately conceded that “The Origin of Species” was the best explanation “ever published of the manner of formation of species” — but because he thought that natural selection denied the possibility of human uniqueness, he savaged the book in public.
At a time when the life sciences are advancing at an astonishing pace, it is simply too late to be taking up Owen’s mantle. There is no longer any serious dispute about the evidence for natural selection; it seems that every gap in our current explanatory model has a Tiktaalik waiting to fill it, whether it comes from the Canadian tundra or a DNA microarray. The logic of Darwin’s theory has also undeniably shed light on some of the puzzles of human psychology. Of course this doesn’t mean that natural selection explains everything about the human condition, or that we shouldn’t be wary of attempts to use it as a cudgel against religion.
And….
The late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed that science and religion be considered “non-overlapping magisteria,” each profiting from dialogue with the other. Many scientists have rejected this notion, arguing that science has nothing to gain from accommodating religion. Likewise, religious fundamentalists insist that divine truth supersedes empirical discovery.
Within the confines of the laboratory and the sanctuary, both attitudes might be reasonable. For society as a whole, though, they’re not constructive. If Gould’s idea were to be taken more seriously, the fear of Darwin and natural selection might go the way of Tiktaalik, without harming society thereby.
And that’s just it. Evolution happened, and the only serious argument among those who study biology is exactly how it happened. At least half of scientists are Believers in one religion or another, and the Christians have no problem with the notion that God designed evolution in order to implement his designs. Others abandon logic and assert that absence of evidence is evidence of absence — because a naturalistic mechanism has been found, there’s no need for an unseen hand to guide the system, and therefore no unseen hand exists.
This last belief unsettles many Christians, and the scientifically illiterate can be misled by appeals to religion. It’s one thing to offer, as a philosophical point, that the entire universe was designed. It’s quite another to deny the existence of rules discovered by science, because they challenge someone’s notion of how the Designer had to do his job.
| More from Karl Lembke
Stumble It!
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:07 am
[...] “Misplaced sympathies” on evolution [...]
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:46 pm
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence! To assert otherwise about this statement in the general is absurd. If you care to qualify the statement and make it in particular applicable to your beliefs, maybe it works. But as a stand alone proposition it holds true.
And let’s be honest, you have “A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion” which is a definition of religion. All the scientists have therefore a religion, not half of them.
Two Questions:
1. Are there ANY assumptions, any at all, regardless how “big or small” that must be made to close gaps in evolution theory?
2. Is the “accepted” theory of evolution what you WANT to believe? In other words is there an emotional investment in the acceptance of it?
Honestly you must answer yes to both questions. Many will try to say they have no axe to grind, but I’ve never seen so much proactive convincing from a scientist on other theories. I don’t see researchers running about the press insisting they have the answer and really desiring public buy in.
Welcome to the ranks of the religious!
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:54 pm
>>>>it seems that every gap in our current explanatory model has a Tiktaalik waiting to fill it, whether it comes from the Canadian tundra or a DNA microarray.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Thwe system cut off my comment about the above sentence. The words “it seems” can be said differently, like “I believe” which is really what the author is saying. But since the rest of his facts and alleged facts seems very learned, this thing that he “believes” becomes fact in a readers mind who is not careful. I’ve even seen it claimed that “x number of scholars and y numbers of pages written…therefore it must be true”
Glad the author has his beliefs, he joins others who hold studied BELIEFS in the quest for truth.
May 3rd, 2006 at 2:58 am
I’m not entirely certain that follows. I’ll accept the first part, but the second part seems to be just hanging out there without any visible means of support.
May 3rd, 2006 at 4:52 am
What do you get when you send an idiot to college? An educated idiot. Therefore no unseen hand exists.
May 3rd, 2006 at 8:15 am
DrDamage,
The Kevin Shapiro article was indicating that some people are believing illogically that if there is no need for something, then it doesn’t exist.
conservativation,
If someone breaks your car window, and there is no evidence of who did it, then does that constitute evidence that no one did it?
May 5th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
[...] In my most recent post on evolution, it’s interesting to look at the logic used in the comments: [...]