Books denouncing religion as superstition have enjoyed lofty positions on bestseller lists recently. The authors, the so-called “new” atheists, would like us to believe that science and religion are mutually exclusive. This kind of aggressive atheism is itself a kind of fundamentalism, and fortunately some thoughtful scientists are objecting to it.
Mr. Ayala’s approach conflicts with that of Richard Dawkins, also an eminent evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion. Mr. Dawkins has no kind words for traditional religion. He believes that raising children in a religious tradition amounts to child abuse. He accuses the winners of The Templeton Prize, awarded annually to people who seek to bridge the gap between religious and scientific thought, of being intellectually dishonest. No fan of humility, he has even encouraged non-believers to refer to themselves as “brights.”In his new book Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, Francisco J. Ayala, an eminent evolutionary biologist, expresses his opinion that belief in evolution can coincide with belief in God. A former Dominican priest, Mr. Ayala claims that while science allows us to find “material explanations for material processes,” it cannot be used to prove or disprove God’s existence. Furthermore, the idea that only atheists can truly embrace evolution is bad for religion and science, he argues.
Read about it here.
[From me]
Child abuse? Sounds like Mr. Dawkins has some issues that therapy could help him with. No actually he needs a relationship with Jesus.
What do you think?
7 Comments, Comment or Ping
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
I understand Dawkins’ argument that religion is child abuse but I don’t think the argument is sustainable. For one thing, if we were to agree with Dawkins that all religion is delusion and teaching religion to our children amounts to teaching them a delusion and teaching them not to think critically, that still would not constitute abuse in any normal sense.
Some families are better than others at teaching their children habits for success, good ethics, etc. Other families are better than others at providing advantages and opportunities (college, business opportunities, etc.) for success. It doesn’t follow that any less-than-optimal upbringing is abusive. We normally think of abuse as much more extreme treatment.
For another thing, what constitutes “good” in the child’s upbringing is subjective. Some may feel that a hard-working middle class life is “better” in many important ways than a potentially more superficial life of excess. Those are decisions that families have the right to decide.
Do you mean because of his fundamentalist way of thinking?
I would venture that that is the last thing he needs
To turn now to the point of the article, I think science lives in harmony with religion today for the vast majority of believers. Only a small percentage of believers world-wide hold to inerrant, literal interpretations of their sacred texts. For most believers, if science is at odds with the sacred texts, then the authors of the texts were only human and didn’t have the understanding that we do today, or the story was meant as a metaphor to teach spiritual concepts, and was never meant as scientific or historical fact.
On the other hand, I think that inerrant, literal interpretations of sacred texts is at irreconcilable odds with science, it always will be, and the chasm will continue to expand. To accept the sacred texts literally, you have to ignore or distort scientific evidence, and to accept the scientific evidence, you have to doubt the texts or distort its meaning.
May 8th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the original manuscripts. I don’t see how that is incompatible with Science. I just don’t believe Darwin was correct.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Can darwinism and Christianity coincide?
May 8th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
And why do you believe Darwin was incorrect?
May 8th, 2008
Kevin Bussey
A3,
I see no evidence that we have evolved from apes.
Kevin Bussey’s last blog post..Can darwinism and Christianity coincide?
May 8th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
Kevin,
Here is some evidence you may not have seen before:
There is the fossil record. Fossils can be dated using various methods. By analyzing fossils, we can follow the gradual changes of species over time.
There is also DNA evidence. We might predict that, if the fossil record shows that 2 species are closely related (that is, they split off recently from a common ancestor), then they would share a larger percentage of DNA than species that are distantly related (that is, their split from their common ancestor occurred in the more distant past). In fact, that is the case.
Finally, we can see evolution in action. We see bacteria evolving and alarming speed as they become immune to various antibiotics.
When rabbits infested Australia in the early 1900’s, biologists introduced a mosquito-born virus called myxomatosis. It was thought to be 100% fatal to rabbits - it turned out to be only about 99.9% fatal. The reason was that the virus strains the killed the rabbits before the rabbits could reproduce had no mechanism for transferring to another rabbit host, so the virus died with the rabbit. The mutant strains that weren’t as lethal successfully reproduced by transferring to the rabbits offspring. Only stronger rabbits could survive the less lethal infection, so the rabbits became more resistant as well. Rabbits still infest Australia and the surviving myxomatosis strain is only 40% lethal.
Solid black moths (bisten betularia) didn’t exist before the industrial revolution introduced black soot into their environment. Before the introduction of the soot, peppered moths (black and white) were nearly invisible when perched on the unsullied lichen. After the introduction of soot, they were easily spotted and eaten by pray. The peppered moths with the most black in their peppered pattern had the best chance to hide from predators and survive long enough to reproduce. Eventually, solid black moths evolved from the peppered moths to adapt to industrial soot during the industrial revolution. The black moths were nearly invisible on the soot.
Do you see any of this as evidence for evolution?
May 8th, 2008
Harrold Smith
The holes in the fossil record, indicating in-between variations, do not exist. As many fossils as have been recovered show none. Like the fake peppered moth story on May 8th (someone needs to spend a little more time checking facts), ignorant people feed on beliefs rather than reality. The complexity of life; the physical facts about solar body placement; the percentages that are razor thin (allowing life to exist), all clearly point to something far beyond any calculated series of incalculable events (accidents). Something much more insightful is behind life. Not silly, and irrelevant, stories about rabbit fatalities. I would propose that you require readers to show proof that they understand social-science (hard science) research methodologies and statistics before you post these distorted and contextually wrong comments.
May 8th, 2008
AskAnAtheist.org
How does the fact that we haven’t found all fossils detract from the fact that the encyclopedic fossil record we do have provides more than sufficient evidence that evolution occurs?
Evolution of the peppered moth has been documented studied by many researchers in exhaustive detail. Why would you think it’s fake (or maybe I should ask - what part of the research do you consider to be fake)? If it’s fake, then who faked it?
What is the “reality” that leads you to conclude that research on the peppered moth is fake?
So if I may paraphrase, you’re suggesting that evolution can’t be true because something insightful is behind life. And are you suggesting that something insightful must be God. Couldn’t evolution be the tool that God used to create all life?
The story… oh now you’ve got me doing it… Frank Fenner’s research is relevant because, like many other countless examples, it documents evolution in action.
I would ask respectfully that you show me how my comments are wrong or distorted.
May 8th, 2008
Reply to “Can darwinism and Christianity coincide?”