I didn’t know, when I suggested last February that we have a summer service on the evolution controversy, that it would be the subject of a lot of recent articles in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and other newspapers across the country. I certainly didn’t expect that George W. Bush would make the headlines by endorsing the teaching of intelligent design, or that the resulting controversy would make the front page of Time magazine. I didn’t know there would be an argument among scientists about publication of an article in a Smithsonian journal that would produce another spate of letters to the editor this last week. How can this be? What’s going on?
Evolution – or more precisely, natural selection – is almost universally accepted among scientists as the most reasonable explanation for the many different forms of life on earth. When I say reasonable, I don’t mean obvious. Much of what we’ve learned through science about the material world – germs, genes, the big bang, the immensity of the universe and the nature of the sun and the stars – is literally so incredible that most of us find it hard to envision. Little wonder that some people, when a scientific finding appears to contradict their basic beliefs, reject the science rather than what seems more sensible or important to them.
And that’s how it is with teaching about evolution. At one time it seemed to most progressive observers that the issue had been pretty well resolved in the famous Scopes “monkey” trial in Tennessee in 1925. But now, 80 years later, we know that was certainly not the case. In recent months the topic has been debated in at least 20 states, including Kansas, where the state board of education attracted national ridicule several years ago by voting to exclude evolution from its state science standards. Some members of that board were defeated in a subsequent election, and the new board put evolution back in – but then last spring Kansas was back in the news with the current state board holding well-publicized hearings on the matter, hearings that were boycotted by most mainstream scientists and by some members of the board itself. In other words, this is a very political matter.
Reid Adler and I have several things we want to do this morning. I’ll say a little more about the political situation. Next Reid will tell us about a few of the fascinating things being learned from analysis of DNA about the nature of life and our relationship to other living things. Finally, I want to add my personal religious view of what I think is the truth about the human condition. We’ll also try to allow a little time for some of you to comment if you wish.
First, let me be clarify what we’re talking about. As everyone here surely knows, the theory of natural selection, articulated by Charles Darwin 150 years ago and since that time refined by numerous other scientists, is based on the occurrence of occasional spontaneous mutations. Darwin realized that when an unusual variation, such as a slightly different color or the shape of a limb, gives an individual a slight survival advantage, that individual has a better chance to reproduce, so over time, the variation is more likely to be inherited by future generations. This explains not only the differently shaped beaks of birds Darwin observed in the Galapagos islands, but also how over millions of years, living creatures developed such complex features as eyesight.
Biologists describe this process as “unguided.” That’s because it depends on variations that happen by accident. Darwin didn’t know the mechanism by which these mutations take place, but now we know it involves tiny errors in copying of DNA. As you know, the new forms of life that come about through natural selection are not necessarily “better” than their predecessors. From our point of view they may be desirable or undesirable, good or bad. An unpleasant example is the insect that lays its eggs on other creatures so that its offspring can get a start in life by devouring the living bodies of their hosts.
And species don’t develop new characteristics because they “need” them or “want” them. Giraffes didn’t grow longer necks because they needed long necks to reach tall trees. Instead, giraffes with longer necks were able to survive better than giraffes with shorter necks, so over time the species gradually developed longer and longer necks. Basic stuff.
In that sense, our opening hymn this morning seems not to have it quite right. We sang, “But for the rebel in our breast had we remained as brutes,” suggesting that human beings evolved because we were determined to improve ourselves. An interesting idea for discussion, but not exactly natural selection.
At any rate, a central element of the theory is that the process is necessarily unguided. It is not controlled by some outside force with some particular purpose in mind. Unlike artificial selection – the familiar process of intentionally breeding plants and animals like roses and race horses – natural selection happens by pure chance.
Even so, many scientists, and most mainstream Christian denominations including the Catholic church, say there is no contradiction between this scientific knowledge and their religious beliefs.
But a lot of Americans don’t see it that way. They believe that the Bible is literally the Word of God – the God who plays a role in their personal lives – and they are naturally offended by the claim that God was not directly involved in the development of various forms of life, especially in the creation of humans.
Their attacks on the concept of natural selection mainly take two forms. Some people don’t seem to understand how science works, so for example, the local school board in Cobb County, Georgia put labels in biology textbooks warning students that evolution is just “a theory.” These well-intentioned people either didn’t know, or chose not to care, that a scientific theory is not just what somebody thinks might be the case – that would a hypothesis, not a theory. As scientists and science educators have tried to explain, a theory is derived from observations and experimental evidence. You begin with the evidence, not the theory. And you need a great deal of evidence for scientists to accept the most logical explanation as a theory.
If scientific theories are no more than guesswork, maybe we should be warning students that the idea of gravity is “just a theory,” too.
We hear about such silliness when one or more authorities try to protect children’s religious innocence. But far more dangerous is the recent spate of attention to what is called “intelligent design.” The philosophy by that name is promoted zealously by a small number of people with scientific and mathematical credentials.
These mavericks are not stupid or naïve. They offer apparently sophisticated analyses. Most don’t question evolution as such; they recognize that various creatures have changed over time. But they do reject the possibility that natural selection can produce entirely new species. They point to various aspects of living things that truly are amazing, such as the structure of the cell, and they insist that the only way such complexity could come about is through the intervention of an external “intelligence.” They don’t say what kind of “intelligence” they are referring to, but it’s not hard to guess.
Lots of people find this idea appealing whether they understand the scientific arguments or not. In fact, recent surveys say most Americans think this way. They want to believe that we human beings were created by God “in his image,” that we are different from birds and bugs and bunny rabbits because we have souls that are immortal.
The advocates of intelligent design have made considerable progress by appealing to ordinary people’s sense of fairness. All they’re asking for, they say, is a “balanced” approach. When students are taught about evolution in science classes, they should also be told about intelligent design. That’s what President Bush said should happen. They ask, “Why not? What’s wrong with letting kids hear both sides?” Most scientists reply, “Because it’s not science, that’s why not.”
Nevertheless, even such perceptive people as Jay Matthews, hard-headed education writer for the Washington Post, have suggested that rather than resisting intelligent design, science teachers should go ahead and deal with both approaches, subjecting both to thorough critical analysis. Well, I can see that might be done by a highly qualified teacher in a selective private school, but I doubt that most teachers in ordinary public schools, especially in small communities, want to take that one on. It makes more sense for science teachers to stick with scientific findings and stay clear of what is obviously religious philosophy.
I want to say a little more about my own religious convictions, but first let’s hear from Reid concerning what DNA analysis is telling us about our relationships to other living things.
One reason I asked for an opportunity to talk about the evolution controversy here at our church is that it is not just an education issue but also a political and a religious issue. And it works both ways: some people reject evolution for religious reasons, but I see it as entirely consistent with my religion. I think that the trappings of most conventional religions keep people from approaching life rationally. A good example is belief in an afterlife, a basic tenet of many religions – one that daily leads young Muslims to blow themselves up, confident that as martyrs they are going to their heavenly reward. Even though our religion teaches tolerance for diverse views and prefers doubt over certainty, I think belief in eternal life is just plain wrong. It seems obvious to me that I am part of the natural world. I delight in life, but when I die, my life will be over, just as surely as if I were a spider, or a dolphin, or an elephant.
Because I believe this so deeply, I think young people ought to grow up with what I consider an accurate understanding of the human condition. I’d like them to know that we human beings have developed physically and mentally over millions of years, gradually acquiring capabilities such as being able to make tools and use language.
We’ve also gradually become conscious of who we are and what our situation is. Until recently we didn’t understand, for example, that as we reproduce, we are in danger of overpopulating the globe on which we live. We know that our efforts to improve our physical surroundings, and our growing ability to radically modify our environments, have put us on in danger of destroying ourselves unless we somehow find a solution. I am very sure that we cannot save ourselves by praying or by relying on God’s love. I think we human beings are in charge, and we somehow have to deal with this ourselves. We are hampered in achieving this by our inherited limitations. We are the product of millions of years of natural selection, and although that has given us remarkable abilities, it has also left us with a lot of unproductive characteristics, such as the inclination to go to war with those who disagree with us. We need to recognize this honestly and use our limited brains to moderate our animal instincts.
Now, I’d like to see all young people get this message, which I consider “the truth” about the human condition. Of course that’s not going to happen anytime soon, because mine is not the majority opinion. Newsweek magazine provided me with the timely information this past week that 80 percent of people think the world was created by God, and 67% say that when we die, our souls go to heaven or hell. And even in this small community of liberally minded people, some of you may think what I’ve said this morning is way too harsh and materialistic. So I recognize that I’m speaking only for myself.
And when I contend that the theory of natural selection helps us understand the “truth” about the human condition, I mean philosophical truth. My religious viewpoint seems to me entirely consistent with the available scientific knowledge, but of course it is not science. So even if I had the power to write it into public school curriculums, I obviously would not. Instead, I ask only that young people have the opportunity to learn what science can tell them, as accurately as possible, about the nature and origins of life. In our free society, it’s up to religious institutions to take it from there. If we have an informed populace, then I hope that at least some of our fellow citizens will decide to give up wishful thinking about the supernatural, face reality, and concentrate their energies on finding human solutions to our problems.
Well, I’ve had my turn. Now Reid and I invite your comments. Please identify yourself and try to be brief so that others have an opportunity to speak.