Tuesday 12 November 2019

Christianity and Evolution: Ponderings of a Part-time Biologist



Religion and evolution have never been happy bedfellows. While certain Christian denominations and Christian apologetics would have you believe that evolution is just an unproven theory and unlikely to be representative of how nature works in reality, scientists have universally embraced evolution as the best explanation for how organisms change through geological time. There is little doubt that selective environmental forces, together with genetic variation, are responsible for the vast array of life forms we see today. The evidence is overwhelming, has been for a long time, and has been garnered from many quarters of the natural sciences. When Darwin’s, ‘Origin of the Species’ was published in 1859, it was rapidly absorbed and accepted by the Victorian scientific community and equally reviled by the religious hierarchy. Religious leaders were right to be alarmed: the indisputable reality of the evolutionary process challenges firmly held and cherished Christian beliefs and tenets. Over the past 170 years, the way the church has reacted or evolved to evolutionary theory has been interesting. At one extreme we see fundamental bible literalists denying evolution outright, while at the other extreme we see liberal Christians embracing evolution wholeheartedly. The latter tread a dangerous path. On the one hand, they are concerned about losing their intellectual integrity if they deny evolution, on the other, they are in peril of losing their faith as the two belief systems are fundamentally incompatible. This hasn’t stopped savvy Christian thinkers from forcing some form of reconciliation.

Christians should be afraid of evolution. Christian dogma and theology are primitive, pre-scientific beliefs. While it is true that Catholicism, and by extension some forms of Protestantism, has accrued a patina of Greek philosophy, lavishly applied, over the past two thousand years- a philosophy totally alien to its Judaic roots, by the way. It is also true, that the Neo-Platonism and Aristotelean foundation on which it rests has been thoroughly debunked. If you scratch the surface of Christianity you will reveal its atavistic and primal true self.

Here is a question for thoughtful Christians who seek to embrace evolution in all its manifestations and with all of its implications: how do they square a god of sublime mercy and love (have you read the Old Testament?) with a system that is based on wasteful misery? Evolution gets the job done, but at what cost? It is certainly not merciful. For every successful organism, there is a heap of dead compatriots extending out into the distant Eons. Evolution was not designed by a caring and loving deity, or a deity concerned with garnering resources. Perhaps god devolved this bit of reality to his adversary, Satan? According to Christianity, ‘Man’ is the pinnacle of ‘God’s Work’. Everything was put forth for us to thrive- humankind is at the centre of All. But to accept evolution is for the Christian, an abrogation/negation of our specialness in this world. Evolution demands/commands that we are but one in a teeming mound of organisms, a little smarter, perhaps, but not particularly special. Our dominance is a product of accidental not providential events. There is also the uncomfortable truth that in the past three billion, or so, years that life has existed on this planet, humankind only made its appearance 100,000 years ago. God took a while to get round to forming his favourite child. And if we are just another animal, what are the implications for the soul? Do amoebas have souls? And if not, why not?

To accept evolutionary theory as true, the Christian must be prepared to ditch the underpinning tenets of Christianity to such an extent that the term ‘Christian’ is an insubstantial vessel; hollow and devoid of content. To remain a ‘Good Christian’ there is a need to deny evolution as true. But here is the rub: evolution is true. The evidence supporting, the so-called theory, is implacable and scientifically impeccable. To deny evolution is akin to denying gravitational force.

Thus, what are we to make of this abomination? Can we make the supernatural edicts of Christianity mesh in harmonious accord with the intellectual rigour and the inevitability of evolution? You can try. There have been quite a few attempts by folk who are of the opinion that there is no problem in trying to form some accord between these two realms. And while they freely admit that religion and science exist as separate ‘Majestria’, they contend that they sometimes come into contact, and interact, on occasion. Imagine a Venn diagram, if you will, consisting of two circles with a portion of overlap. On reading Christian apologists who dare to tread/dread, into this territory, it is apparent that there is a woeful misunderstanding of the scientific method. The scientific method is a self-correcting process based on empirical data gathering and induction. It has no truck with the supernatural. By definition, science can only concern itself with the natural world. The supernatural, if it deigns to exist, is, by definition, beyond our ken and we can only speak of it in metaphor. In terms of reality, the concept does not resonate or can be considered compatible, with our reality.      

Let us be clear: religion, regardless of stripe, is predicated on the supernatural. In this way, theologians can appeal to the hiddenness of God and the lack of solid evidence for ‘His’ existence. But the serious theologian craves serious intellectual recognition. This paves the way for the introduction of faith. O wondrous faith! We are expected to take on board religious beliefs on the supposed epistemological process of faith. Beware, this is but a beguiling charade. On the basis of faith, you can believe in anything. Here is a worthwhile exercise: whenever a theologian argues for a belief in god, on the basis of faith, simply substitute the word ‘god’ with ‘fairy’. At the end of the argument are you convinced in the existence of fairies- of course not? That would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it? Nuff said, for now…….    


                       

13 comments:

  1. Not Christian doctrine, but Church doctrine. You know that the Bible is actually a collection of uncoonnected texts left over after the destruction of Jerusalem, and of different types ranging from history to myth to love song to witness accounts.

    Even had he known about them, I think Jesus would not have been much interested in dinosaurs or subatomic particles.

    And on the other side we have people who think they know what religion is about and try to disprove it like Yuri Gargarin, who said he didn't see God when he was in orbit.

    Both sides wish to turn it all into something they can argue about, make rules about, get jobs from (yes even Dawkins, who got his pet billionaiore to buy him a professorship). All completely off the mark.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that the bible is a disparate collection of texts written over 700 years (or so). What became Canon and what was left out is a very interesting area of study in itself. You can't disprove the existence of supernatural deities. An atheist doesn't even have to try- the onus is on the believers to come up with proofs. Atheism is a negation of a belief. In the same way believers in unicorns have to come up with proofs of unicorn's existence. I, as a non-believer, do not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As doubtless you know, Betrand Russell said that as a philosophical liberal, he could not claim to be an atheist, but merely thought the probability of the existence of God was very small.

      Delete
    2. Indeed. His agnosticism is predicated on the limitations of the inductive process. I contend that gods are supernatural entities and therefore by definition lie outside nature. All that we know about the world/universe is contained within nature. We can never interact with the supernatural, thus if gods did exist we would have no knowledge of those entities- effectively this is tantamount to non-existence, as far as we are concerned: This is why I'm an Atheist and not an Agnostic.

      Delete
    3. You provide an interesting definition of existence,i.e. being part of the observable universe, so that atheism means not believing in a deity that is within it.

      That still leaves Leibnitz' question, why is there something rather than nothing? To which I say that there is not even in theory a possible scientific explanation, since eveything we use to make such explanations is time/space/matter/energy and is part of the "something."

      And for those who want to believe neverehtelss that there is such a thing as divine intervention, perhaps we are like the Pooliverse in the cartoon strp The Perishers, where outsiders can poke a finger (or nose) in from time to time. https://britishcomics.fandom.com/wiki/The_Eyeballs_in_the_Sky

      Delete
    4. It is true that I don’t conceive of a deity as part of ‘our’ universe. Traditionally, in the West at least, theologians envisage God as lying outside the material universe and outside time. And therein is the problem that believers in a god have. God is not a material form- not in any conventional sense. Perhaps the entity is made up of some form of exotic mass/energy. This is a problem for us mortals. How can we perceive and conceive of an entity which lies outside the universe and time-an entity not subject to universal causality? The answer is: we can’t? And neither can we ascribe any qualities or attributes to such a ‘creature’. All our knowledge is within the frame of our universe and all we observe in that universe is subject to natural law and causality. Therefore, there can be no evidence for the existence of such an entity- and what can be postulated without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

      Delete
    5. Unless, of course, as some believe, that the deity can sometimes intervene; or, as gnostics think, communicate directly. The questions have meaning, even if unproven.

      Delete
    6. You raise an interesting point, Mr S. It seems that theologians want their cake and eat it. I think, sophistry aside (or included, depending on stance), a lot of supposed smart and eminently educated theologians avow that their God can partake of our natural world, when and how it likes. But how can mere mortals take part of this supernatural deity? Fundamentally, we can't. Now some aesthetics, and other assorted madmen, state that they have seen/experienced their deity. What are we, as rational folk, supposed to make of this mixture? We know that some men lie; we know that some men are deluded; and we know that some folk are frankly mad; what can we conclude? Is it likely, knowing how the world works, concerning causality, that the deluded/theologian/madman (there is scant distinction) are describing the world as it actually is? However, mayhap: this is not how the world works according to deductive reasoning and data. Men who have been (clinically) dead for three days do not come back to life and theologians do not grow from acorns: according to reason, dead bodies rot after three days (especially noisome in a Middle Eastern environment) and animated life, is no more; acorns, surprisingly to no one (a few nutters aside) grow into oak trees. Anyway, Mr S, I enjoy our exchanges and debates. Please contact my email address for future personal ruminations and stuff. We can debate bollocks, nefarious.

      Delete
    7. "...An atheist doesn't even have to try- the onus is on the believers to come up with proofs. Atheism is a negation of a belief. In the same way believers in unicorns have to come up with proofs of unicorn's existence. I, as a non-believer, do not..."

      One to be added to my armoury.

      Delete
  3. for your reading pleasure...
    http://www.unz.com/freed/darwins-vigilantes-reichard-sternberg-and-conventional-pseudoscience/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the link, as you may guess I do not concur with much the author has to say. First off, there are taboo areas for scientists. Sadly, scientists do not work in a political vacuum. They are dependent for funding, often public funding, and if the folks who control the purse strings don’t like what you are doing, then guess what? Race and IQ is a point in question. Scientifically it is a worthwhile endeavour but researchers are often hamstrung by influential pressure groups and politicians. As for there being no evidence for evolution- really. The evidence is overwhelming. And as for research in trying to disprove ‘Darwinism’- the author clearly has no idea of how the scientific method works. Science can only give us an approximation of how the world works. Good science is about trying to refute the current paradigm (see Karl Popper). In biology, the current paradigm is ‘Darwinism’. Perhaps something in the future will overturn this paradigm, but you can bet it will be based on science. The adherents of ID gleefully point out gaps or problems in Darwinism and then declare that ID explains everything. Let me be clear: ID explains nothing. It is a theological construct; it is not science. There is no methodology in ID. It simply states that an invisible being, by means unknown causes things to happen. This tantamount to wand-waving and magic. ID folk seem to think that their viewpoint IS the only alternative explanation. Even if Darwinism turns out to be completely wrong, scientists would not throw up their hands and shout, ‘God did everything, after all’. NO, they would go back to the lab and work on a new theory based on naturalistic causes. ID is never an alternative explanation because it is not an explanation at all. The rotifer flagellum is an interesting case. ID adherents used to use the eye as an example as evidence for their cause. They don’t anymore because scientists, doing real science, have showed how the eye could have evolved. So the ID crowd moves on to the next so-called impossibility. Today’s topic is flagellum evolution. I have read cogent, well-researched explanations of how this organelle could have evolved. Is the model perfect, no. Thus scientists will have to work on refining their model using the tools within nature. What they won't do is posit ideas which lie outside nature and therefore not amenable to the scientific method- because that is simply, absurd. Sorry about the rant, but this is, as a scientist, something I feel very strongly about. In fact, I am so moved I will have to write a post about ID in the very near future.

      Delete
  4. Thank you again for being a kindred spirit reiterating and reinforcing my views and beliefs far more succinctly and eloquently than I could ever manage. I am in your debt sir.
    To hear the pitiful arguments of those (who are obviously lucid, educated and otherwise rational ?) pitching their rationale and justifying it, is... well... in modern parlance, "SAD" comes to mind.
    DENIAL is often tagged with "Don't even (k)now I am lying. But, I suspect oh yes you do. Mom and Pop were wrong but it's just too hard to admit and accept the alternative isn't it.
    Keep up the good work sir.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for the kind words Mr G. Blogging is a strange old game and sometimes I wonder why I bother- but once in a while I realise that some folk actually read and appreciate my 'mixture'. I try my best, but my writing depends upon my 'Muse' which does not always abide in me- but when she visits, my heart soars.....

      Delete