Science and the Question of God, Part I
"The BioLogos Forum" is pleased to feature essays from various guest voices in the science-and-religion dialogue. Please note the views expressed here are those of the author, not necessarily of The BioLogos Foundation. You can read more about what we believe here.
Today's entry was written by Randy Isaac. Randy Isaac is a solid-state physics research scientist and executive director of the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), where he has been a member since 1976 and a fellow since 1996. Isaac received his bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College in Illinois and his doctorate in physics from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He joined IBM to work at the Thomas J. Watson Research Center in 1977 and most recently served as the vice-president of systems technology and science for the company.
Today’s blog is the first entry in a series adapted from a new Scholarly Article found here. All references have been removed for the blog series but can be found in the full paper.
Introduction
Can science provide substantive insight into the question of God’s existence? This series of blogs will examine three schools of thought regarding the possibility of detecting God’s existence through science: Evolutionism, Creationism, and Intelligent Design. I will then assert, though without formal proof, that science may not be able to lead us to a clear conclusion regarding the existence of God. In harmony with the revelation of God’s Word, however, science brings us to a deeper and more profound understanding of God and his works.
Evolutionism
The rise of modern science in the western world brought a mixed relationship to science and Christian faith. On one hand, the basic monotheistic Judeo-Christian concept of one divine Creator of all things was a significant contribution that helped enable and foster scientific ideas and methodology. On the other hand, new scientific knowledge sometimes raised troubling questions. Though Galileo’s differences of opinion with the Pope were more complex than a science-faith conflict, the affair did raise fundamental questions of biblical interpretation in light of scientific discoveries as well as of the influence of biblical interpretation on scientific understanding. Less than a century later, Isaac Newton, Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and others developed a mathematical framework that was remarkably accurate in describing classical motion of bodies in the heavens as well as those on earth. The invention of the calculus and Newton’s basic laws of motion were a seminal breakthrough in scientific understanding but they also led to theological difficulties. How could God’s providence and human free will be understood in the light of a deterministic universe?
In the nineteenth century, the debate on God’s providence in a deterministic world continued but there was one major discipline that was exempt. Living organisms did not seem to be subject to the simple laws of motion of classical mechanics. Into this environment, Darwin’s Origin of Species made a powerful impact. The idea of evolution wasn’t new but previously it had been on the fringes of science. Darwin’s ideas were not all correct. His notion of heredity through pangenesis was one incorrect idea. Some of his ideas that did turn out to be correct, like natural selection, were not immediately accepted. Instead, the shockwave that Darwin sent through the scientific community was that living organisms could be studied systematically and could follow natural laws analogous to those that the rest of the world followed, for example, Newton’s laws of motion. Until Darwin, living organisms represented a possible escape from the philosophical constraints of a mechanistic world. Darwin gave rise to the expectation that life itself was orderly and subject to study. It was not, however, deterministic. The randomness inherent in evolutionary processes prevented determinism and even, in Darwin’s opinion, divine control.
Pitting Darwin against God
Some secularists of the day did not wait for philosophical clarity and accuracy. They seized the chance and proclaimed Darwin’s theory of evolution as a triumph of science over classical religious ideas. It seemed to them that the final frontier of science could now, at least in principle, pre-empt theological explanations. For secularists who aspired to the status and authority of the clergy but without the cloak of religion, this opportunity was not to be missed. John Tyndall, John Draper, Herbert Spencer, and Andrew Dixon White, among others, led the charge to declare the victory of science over traditional theology, a fate sealed by Darwin’s theory of evolution. For most, like Thomas Huxley, the emphasis was more on agnosticism than on atheism, which became more prominent in the twentieth century.
John William Draper and Andrew Dixon White authored two books that had enormous influence in the coming decades. Draper’s 1874 work, History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, was a seminal book on the conflict theory of science and traditional religion (the view that science and religion are and always have been at war). White’s A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896) reflected many of the ideas that Draper had discussed and continued the theme of science’s triumph over theology in every confrontation. These works were tremendously influential until the early to mid twentieth century when historians came to realize that the supposed research reported in these books was not sound. Many of their versions of historical conflicts were not supported by independent research and the accounts were slanted to advocate the conflict theory. Recently, Ron Numbers edited Galileo Goes to Jail, and Other Myths about Science and Religion (2009) which is a collection of chapters by historians that systematically debunk the myths in works of Draper, White, and others. Nevertheless, the damage was done. A very vocal and influential group of secularists had succeeded in positioning evolution as the ultimate victory of science over religion, extending the mechanistic universe to all of life.
One of the reasons for their success was the concept of “univocal metaphysics” as Mark Noll describes it in his essay Evangelicals, Creation, and Scripture: An Overview. Stemming from a historical perspective of univocity, where there is a single essence of being, and the simplicity of a single explanation in Ockham’s razor, the perspective of univocal metaphysics led to the notion that there could be only one explanation for natural phenomena. Theological explanations and scientific explanations were considered to be mutually exclusive. In this way, science could answer the question of God in the negative by finding a naturalistic explanation to replace any theological explanation. Darwin’s theory of evolution, while far from complete in its details, provided the expectation that life itself could be explained scientifically without appeal to theistic causes.
Charles Darwin was an astute and observant naturalist. His theory of evolution represented years of careful observations and thoughtful analysis. Yet it may have been inevitable that the scientific idea of evolution quickly moved to the philosophical ideas of evolutionism. The scientific observations of how species competed for survival and adapted to environmental conditions quickly moved from descriptive to prescriptive notions. The ideal of progress as inherent in the human destiny was eagerly accepted in society with scientific evolution as “evidence.” Alas, those ideals were shattered with two major world wars in the twentieth century. Other philosophical aspects of evolutionism waxed and waned but one of the most enduring was that evolution somehow replaced God in the grand scheme of the origin and development of life. To this day, the mutual exclusivity of evolution or divine creation dominates the public’s perception of the conflict between science and faith.
Conclusion
Is this aspect of evolutionism warranted? Has the question of God been answered in the negative? The logic of those proposing this answer does not hold up to scrutiny. God’s creative action and sustenance of all things includes not only the mechanistic characteristics of Newton’s laws and the probabilistic ones of quantum mechanics, but also of evolutionary processes. God can choose his creative path as he wishes and he may do so either in ways we cannot comprehend or in ways that are systematic and subject to our comprehension. As we can see from the rise of modern science, the view of God as the creator with the consequent consistency and order in the natural world is a highly successful perspective. Scientific explanations are not mutually exclusive to God’s creative and constant control. Not even the inherent randomness that we see in nature belies his providence. Despite the strident claims of some late nineteenth century secularists and their modern descendants, science has not disproved the existence of God.
Note:The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and not of the American Scientific Affiliation.
For the latest comments, subscribe to our Comment RSS feed. See a comment that violates our Commenting Guidelines? Use the "Report Inappropriate Comment" tool in the upper-right corner.
October 1st 2010
Barry, I don’t find your expressions helpful. In the realm in which you are now speaking, the phrase ‘flat out wrong’ is rarely used. You speak as if you’re in mathematics or some ‘natural-physical science’ (NPS), when in fact you are in an area which is perhaps less familiar to you and where absolute claims are considered dogmatic or axiomatic. Speaking quietly and asking more questions would be preferred.
If one *only* read Darwin, one would have little understanding of ‘ecology’ as a field of knowledge 150/200+ years *after* Darwin. we are agreed on this, right? you are surely not trying to go backwards to go forwards in biology too?
the field of ecology is undoubtedly more ‘cutting-edge’ and relevant in contemporary conversations, academic or everyday life, than what is left to squeeze out of Darwin. These people like Hodgson and Knudsen, who want to go backwards to go forwards are running out of ideas. They need a little ‘reverse perspective’ - green/red thinking helps.
There are many people as ‘scientific figures’ more interesting to look at today than Darwin + one needs a ‘person as figure’ to study if one is speaking of Darwinism or Marxism, Weberianism, McLuhanism, Luther(an)ism, or whomever.
Reply to this commentOctober 1st 2010
“there is no consensus concerning what is meant by Darwinism and evolution.” - Roger
I agree & disagree. If you ask D. Falk or D. Venema, they claim there *is* a consensus in evolutionary biology. I don´t mind that, but it stunts scientific exploration if one doesn´t seek to go beyond the reigning paradigm. Natural-physical scientists in USA tend to think @ this in the way of ´normal science´ & ´scientific revolutions´ by Kuhn; he is the main American PoS -> SoS.
Darwinism isn´t an ideology I speak about unless terms are defined.
The reference to D.S. Wilson & ´everything´ is that he is the popular public advocate/(atheist) preacher of ´everything evolves´. Ask Wilson for examples of ´things that don´t evolve´ & the *everything* story ends. When he preaches evolutionism - e.g. ´everything´ should be said to be ´evolving´ - he contaminates science with ideology (cf. Malthus). This is a typical atheist strategy, useful when speaking of ´science & the question of God.´
http://evolution.binghamton.edu/religion/
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/news.2010.260.html
& related stories: “Morals Don´t Come from God”. They too can be explained within an eVo paradigm!?
I´d like to read your book!
Reply to this commentOctober 1st 2010
Barry,
Thank you for your comments.
I really do not know what website you are refering to that claimed that atheists do not have a sophisticated theology. In some ways they do, even though they do not understand the meaning of the Christian faith.
In any case I do not know if you are familiar with Frank Ryan’s Darwin’s Blind Spot. The argument he made then against the conventional NeoDarwinism still stands. Dawkins’ new book, the Greatest Show on Earth still parrots Darwin concerning evolution as Nature’s War. That is what Darwin wrote.
If Darwin and Dawkins are right about the nature of evolution, then ecology is wrong and climate change is not a problem. If Darwin and Dawkins are wrong about the nature of evolution, then ecology is right and climate change is a serious problem. Dawkins has made no secret that he opposes the Gaia hypothesis of James Lovelock. Many if not most people look to him as the spokesperson for evolutionism. What criticism I hear of his views on ecology and evolution are very muted.
Reply to this commentOctober 1st 2010
Part 2
Sahney’s paper concluded that the number of species expanded when new living space or new ecological niches appeared. I hope that you have read it. Now the question might be which came first, the new species or the niches. Let us say that grass eaters developed before there was grass, then I would say you are right, niches followed gene changes. However it seems to me much more likely that grass eaters developed after or at the same time grasses began to develope, which seems to me to indicate that the environment governs the development of new species rather than the other way around.
Most people think that the extinction of the dinosaurs happened because of climate change, the climate got colder and the swamps disappeared. I would submit that this extinction was not caused by competition between mammals and the dinosaurs, but because of the loss of the ecological niche of the dinosaurs. If this most momentous event in the history of evolution, which of course was unknown to Darwin, cannot be explained in terms of his theory, then how can anyone not say that it has some serious problems, and ecology does a better job describing this process?
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
To Barry and other whom might question the validity of ecological evolution.
While there are many reasons to back up the idea of ecological evolution, as opposed to neoDarwinism, that I document in my book. However I have come across a series of articles under the heading Cosmic Accidents: 10 Lucky Breaks for Humanity, from the New Scientist magaizine, found on line through Big Questions Daily Links, Oct 1, 2010.
The first 5 lucky breaks took place before the creation of life on earth, but of course are important because they helped make life possible.
Break 6, 2 billion years ago: One Giant Leap for a Single Cell
The article points out that originally there were only singled life forms. Then a “freak” accident occured and two types of single cells merged making possible multicelled life forms. This is called “endosymbiosis,” which is not genetic mutation, which is the basis of neoDarwinism, but symbiosis which is the basis of ecology. Furthermore “endosymbioses are now common in complex cells.” This information is also found in Frank Ryan’s Darwin’s Blind Spot.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Part 2
Break 7, 635 million years ago, The Age of Heroic Lichen.
Lichen of course is the symbiotic organism. This article was shortened to encourage people to subscribe to the magazine. It appears from the context that lichens were instumental in reiaing the level of oxygen in the atmosphere to the level that animals can live. Again this is an ecological symbiotically generated change, not a genetic evolutionary change.
Break 8, 65 million years ago. Killer Astroid with a Silver Lining.
The Extinction of the dinosaurs discussed above.
Break 9, 6 million years ago. Brains or Brawn - Which Is Best?
This of course is about humans, comparing homo habilis with a more robust human strain.
It contains this sentence. “This environmental variability was a source of tremendous evolutionary pressure.” One group went one way and another went another. One survived and progresed while the other did not. The importance of the above statement is that it makes the environment the engine of evolutionary change.
Reply to this commentOctober 3rd 2010
Part 3
Break 10, 70,000 years ago: Inventing Language the Easy Way
This article claims that language developed with another change in enviroment. This one an easier, less stressful one.
No particular time: The Certainty of Chance.
Claims that history of nature is indeterminate (in a determinate universe?!)
In my opinion this confirms the ecological view also.
This article does not plead the case for ecological evolution, it just points out the facts as scientists understand them. It is up to us to connect the dots and point out the emptiness of neoDarwinism in explaining the key events of the history of life on earth. Karl is right. People do not determine what is true about science. Nature determines what is true about science.
Reply to this commentOctober 4th 2010
Hi Roger,
Not sure if my comments above missed you or perhaps you didn´t like me using the word ´green´ wrt your ecological insights?
Two questions:
1) Why do you put neo-Darwinian evolution against/in opposition to ecological evolution, i.e. when one is a theory in multiple fields based on a single historical figure (person) while the other is an academic field?
2) Iow, why not compare & contrast ecological evolution with biological evolution?
As for me, I´m not a Darwin-hater. His ideas, whether intended or not, have *undeniably* caused much damage & even horror when applied in human-social sciences. I am a non-Darwinian or post-Darwinian in this sense. There are other post-Darwinians too, even in the biological scienceS, which it seems you are tapping into.
I´m not sure it helps much to speak about post-neo-Darwinism to scientists in the field of biology, botany or chemistry. They will not listen much to ´outsiders´. Do you have formal training in ecology, Rev. Roger?
The aftermath of the Darwin year celebrations may help us to put this Victorian ´naturalist´ into context. His writings have been studied; we can move to a better future w/out trying to squeeze more out of him.
Reply to this commentOctober 5th 2010
Gregory,
Thank you for your comments. I apologize if I overlooked questions and comments.
First of all, why am I so hard on Darwin? That can be explained by looking at Richard Dawkins’ newest book, The Greatest Show on Earth. Even if you say that the science of Darwin is passe in the world of biology, Dawkins is making it his calling to make it seem to the public that NeoDarwinism is alive and well. In other words he is misinforming the public and I see few, if any. who are contradicting him.
Darwinism is a problem on several levels. First is the scientific level. A problem here is for too long people inside and outside the sciences have identified Darwin with evolution. This is the first problem I am addressing, Darwin’s Theory is an idea, evolution is a process. The proces exists, but the idea does not describe it properly. Ecology does a much better job.
No, I do not consider myself a scientist and discuss that in my book, but science is important to everyone so everyone needs to understand it, just as we all need to understand philosophy and theology. They say evolution is important for everyone, which is the reason why everyone should understand how evolution really works.
Reply to this commentOctober 5th 2010
Part 2
Speaking as an insider, which I understand and respect, you contrast evolutionary biology and ecology, with ecology being “an academic field.” The strength of ecology as I understand it is that it is cross disciplinary in approach. It is not simply academic because humankind is faced with the challenge of global climate change. It to a large extent is based on the Gaia Theory of James Lovelock.
I am not putting down genetics. This is a very important field and genes certainly play an important role in evolutionary change, but the role is different for ecological evolution. NeoDarwinism makes genes absolute, the engine of change. Ecological evolution makes genetics interdependent with other factors.
Reply to this commentOctober 5th 2010
Part 3
The big issue however is the model for understanding the world in which we live. Do we live is a world of order or disorder? A world whose meaning is life, or whose meaning is death? Darwinism points to a world which is based on random chance or disorder, while ecology points to a world which is based on interdependent order. Darwinism points to a world whose meaning is death, while ecology points to a world whose meaning is life.
Hawking and Dawkins are using science to attack theology. That is their right, but it is better to work to reconcile science, philosophy, and theology, which means we all need to give alittle to gain a lot.
I appreciate the internet and BioLogos for giving us this forum to discuss these issues, but it does have its limitations. The fact is we need to work together across disciplinary lines to develope a new world view for science, philosophy, and theology for the new millenium.
Reply to this commentOctober 26th 2010
Gregory - 32787
“Barry, I don’t find your expressions helpful….Speaking quietly and asking more questions would be preferred.”
Let me rephrase this Gregory so as not to offend your sensitivity. Roger, I politely inform you that you are completely wrong.
Now, rather than deflect from the issue please explain why you think Roger is right…if you do? And I am not the one raising Darwin…Roger is.
Reply to this commentOctober 26th 2010
Roger
You seem to be repeating the same nonsense on every thread where you post. You build up a limited strawman about darwin and then attempt to point out that the answer to all of evolution is actually ecology. You have never definied “ecology” nor explained how it is different from the environmental factors that are already well attested to in evolutionary theory. Niche adaptation is not new, the mechanism is well understood and it is known to be a factor amongst many others that explains how mutations can take root.
I’ve not seen any of your evidence. I don’t think you have any…but by all means please publish it or link to it if you claim you have. I only see baseless assertions showing an extremely poor understanding of evolutionary theory.
Reply to this comment