Transforming How the World Sees Science and Religion
January 22, 2010
Related topics: Charles Darwin | Science and the Church |
"Science and the Sacred" 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. For more on what BioLogos believes, click here.
Today's entry was written by
Michael Zimmerman.
Michael Zimmerman is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Professor of Biology at Butler University. As an ecologist, Zimmerman focuses on plant-animal interactions, particularly those associated with pollination. Zimmerman also has a professional interest in science literacy in general and the evolution-creation controversy in particular. Zimmerman's work has appeared regularly on the op-ed pages of many newspapers nationwide. He has been elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and founded The Clergy Letter Project .
This past March, historian of science Ronald Numbers had a wonderful book released. The book, edited by Numbers, is entitled Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. The introduction begins with the following provocative statement: “The greatest myth in the history of science and religion holds that they have been in a state of constant conflict.” He and other contributors explain how much of the perceived conflict between science and religion is not much more than a combination of manufactured hype and ignorance. I recommend the book highly.
As the founder and director of The Clergy Letter Project (www.theclergyletterproject.org), an organization devoted to demonstrating that religion and science can comfortably and productively coexist, I’m well aware of the power of both of the points made in Numbers’s book.
Many vocal, fundamentalist ministers and atheistic scientists proclaim that people must choose between religion and evolution. In perhaps its most extreme version, Pat Robertson went so far as to proclaim that disaster may well visit Dover, Pennsylvania. The Fox report of the incident reads, “Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson warned residents of a rural Pennsylvania town Thursday that disaster may strike there because they ‘voted God out of your city’ by ousting school board members who favored teaching intelligent design.” On the other hand, Richard Dawkins says that if you do not accept evolution you are “ignorant, stupid, or insane.”
Cynical anti-evolutionary leaders know that if forced to choose between religion and science, the majority of people will likely opt for religion, so they do everything they can to perpetuate the belief that such a choice must be made. I’m delighted to say that thousands of far less cynical religious leaders and scientists have banded together to demonstrate that no such choice need be made; that it’s perfectly possible to be deeply religious and to understand and appreciate all that modern science has to offer.
Indeed, more than 12,000 Christian clergy members in the US have signed The Christian Clergy Letter, demonstrating the importance of both religion and evolution. The thousands of ministers endorsing this statement come from every state in the Union and they represent some of our smallest congregations as well as some of our largest cathedrals. Some were ordained decades ago while others just this year. Some are conservative and some are liberal. Men and women of virtually every race are represented. The single thing that ties them together is their abiding commitment to Christianity – and yet this incredibly broad group of religious leaders has stepped forward to encourage the teaching of evolution.
These Clergy Letters should set aside any doubt that deeply religious people can accept evolution.
In its continued attempt to stress this point and in the hopes of raising the quality of the dialogue on this important topic, The Clergy Letter Project sponsors an annual Evolution Weekend event. On the weekend closest to the anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin (12 February), congregations all over the world take steps to achieve these goals. Many congregations hear sermons on the topic while others participate in a discussion group. Others structure Bible classes, for adults and/or students, on the topic while still others invite speakers to address the issue. Each participating congregation does what it feels will be most productive for its congregants while, collectively, around the world, an incredibly powerful message is being sent. The events began in 2006 and in each succeeding year participation has increased by more than 30 percent. In February 2009, 1,049 congregations from 15 countries participated. Evolution Weekend 2010 is scheduled for 12-14 February 2010.
Additionally, The Clergy Letter Project has created a list of scientific consultants who are eager to advise clergy members on scientific issues. This list includes more than 850 scientists representing every state and 29 countries. Some of the scientists on the list are deeply religious, and represent a variety of religious traditions. The point is that the mere existence of the list demonstrates conclusively that scientists and religious leaders are perfectly capable of working together.
If you would like to join this exploding movement, please contact me at mz@butler.edu. If you’re an ordained clergy member, I would be delighted to add your name to one of our Clergy Letters. If you’re a scientist, I would be proud to add you to our list of consultants. If you would like for your congregation to participate in Evolution Weekend 2010, it would be a pleasure to add you to that rapidly expanding list. Or if you’re neither a scientist nor a clergy member but simply have a deep interest in the relationship between religion and science and would like to be on our mailing list, let me know.
Scientists and religious leaders, together, are transforming the way the world perceives the relationship between religion and science and both fields are being enriched by their actions.
Michael Zimmerman, a Ph.D. biologist, is founder and director of The Clergy Letter Project. He can be reached at mz@butler.edu.
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.
January 23rd 2010
why not a gravity weekend or a relativity weekend? - Gregory Arago
Because there is very little ideologically based opposition to the theories of gravity or relatively. Rather obvious really.
Once people see that evolution is simply a biological theory, or an ecological or zoological theory, or that it belongs *only* in natural-physical sciences and thus has *NO* consequences for their religious, philosophical, ethical views - Gregory Arago
But this is not true: there is no such impermeable wall between natural science and religious, philosophical and ethical views. The interrelationships are complex, but it’s not use pretending they do not exist.
Reply to this commentJanuary 23rd 2010
“You seem just as fixated with ‘evolution’ as your opponents do!”
Indeed, I am fixated on evolution because that’s the place where those who have opted to promote their narrow view of religion have centered their fight. Evolutionary theory is as robust a scientific theory as any (and is far more understood than gravitational theory). It is the cornerstone of modern biology, with huge implications for other fields as well. When it is undermined in an intellectually unsound manner, all of science is at risk. Perhaps even more importantly, as Gregory Arago says, understanding the philosophy of science is critical - and that means understanding the boundaries of science. When poor religion is permitted to be passed off as science, both religion and science suffer enormously. Science does have its limits - there are things that the scientific method can explain and there are things, things that are incredibly important to many humans, that fall outside the reach of the scientific method. This is something that more people need to understand.
Reply to this commentJanuary 23rd 2010
“Why don’t you celebrate on another day to reduce ideological undertones and avoid idolizing Darwin?”
In fact, changing the name of Evolution Weekend to Science Weekend would, no doubt draw in hundreds, if not thousands, more congregations. But it is time to reclaim"evolution” as a perfectly acceptable word to be used within polite company and within religious discussion. To cede the word to those who define it inappropriately means that ignorance has won. (And as Knockgoats has said, ignorance does not imply denigration, rather it is a fact, a fact that education can fix.) Finally, Evolution Weekend has nothing to do with idolizing Charles Darwin. Yes, he was a brilliant man, but the purpose of the event to to focus on the relationship between religion and science, particularly evolution. Using his birthday as a focus helps bring attention to the event and that attention helps raise the quality of the dialogue. That’s a very good thing in my opinion. Remember, evolutionary theory, as we understand it today, is very much more than what Darwin hypothesized in his lifetime. How could it not be given all we have learned since then. And that is the way with science.
Reply to this commentJanuary 23rd 2010
Thanks, Dr. Zimmerman. I agree with the thrust of what you say here.
Do you have any comment on ‘evolutionary philosophy’?
For example, what do you think about the fields of ‘evolutionary economics,’ ‘evolutionary psychology’ or ‘evolutionary ethics’?
Are there fields in which you believe that evolutionary theory doesn’t apply or shouldn’t apply? Or does it/should it in fact apply everywhere in the Academy?
You say evolutionary theory has “huge implications for other fields as well.” Which fields would you exclude from this?
Thanks in advance for your answer!
Reply to this commentJanuary 23rd 2010
there are things, things that are incredibly important to many humans, that fall outside the reach of the scientific method. This is something that more people need to understand. - Michael Zimmerman
What things would those be, and why do you consider they “fall outside the reach of the scientific method”?
For example, what do you think about the fields of ‘evolutionary economics,’ ‘evolutionary psychology’ or ‘evolutionary ethics’?
From what little I’ve read of it (a book by Geoffrey Hodgson), “evolutionary economics” is largely misnamed. For evolutionary psychology, it’s useful to distinguish “evolutionary psychology” - any psychological research that takes into account that we are evolved organisms, from “Evolutionary Psychology”, a school of thought that makes a number of specific claims, some of them known to be wrong. As for evolutionary ethics, evolutionary theory can illuminate why we have the capability for making ethical judgements, and some of the content of those judgements, but cannot justify any moral judgement, as you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is”.
Reply to this commentJanuary 23rd 2010
“For example, what do you think about the fields of ‘evolutionary economics,’ ‘evolutionary psychology’ or ‘evolutionary ethics’?”
I think that any discipline that can find a way to pose falsifiable hypotheses about the natural world could be seen as falling squarely within the realm of science. In that vein, I think that much of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary economics can be seen as being scientific. Plenty of people, though, from Stephen Jay Gould (along with Dick Lewontin) in his “Spandrels of San Marcos” article to Michael Barash, have warned about going too far and beginning to tell “just so stories” rather than doing “real” science.
I agree with Knockgoats that science cannot justify moral judgments. Science is but one human endeavor, one I think is powerful and great fun, but we should never assume that it is the only endeavor of importance and we should never believe that it takes away human free will!
Reply to this commentJanuary 25th 2010
Michael,
Yes, part of the definition of ‘science’ according to philosophers of science is falsifiable hypotheses, along with verifiable ones, making research programmes, multiple methods, etc.
To equate ‘economics’ or ‘psychology’ with ‘natural science’ is to commit ‘reductionism,’ though perhaps you did not mean to suggest this. Maybe you meant that social sciences are also ‘scientific’ & therefore should also apply ‘evolution’ in their respective realms?
What happens though when people say that smth like ‘rape is natural’ because it is part of our evolutionary past? Does the moral realm supervene on such a perspective?
I’ll rephrase my most important question to you because you’ve thus far avoided it. When could evolution become unscientific? That is, how do we know when science becomes ideology?
Dawkins is promoting a view of evolution that I’m sure you disagree with, as a religious person who is a scientist & who is not ignorant or insane. What are you doing to defend against evolution being used as an anti-theistic worldview? Again, what are examples of things that *don’t* evolve?
Reply to this comment