Jerry Coyne on faith and science
In the most recent New Republic, biologist Jerry Coyne has a lengthy review of two recent books by Christians who argue that science and Christianity are compatible, and finds them both unpersuasive:
True, there are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers. ) It is also true that some of the tensions disappear when the literal reading of the Bible is renounced, as it is by all but the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities. But tension remains. The real question is whether there is a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith? Are the gaps between them so great that the two institutions must be considered essentially antagonistic? The incessant stream of books dealing with this question suggests that the answer is not straightforward.. . .
And so we have Karl Giberson and Kenneth Miller, theistic scientists and engaging writers, both demolishing what they see as a false reconciliation--the theory of intelligent design--and offering their own solutions. Giberson is a professor of physics at Eastern Nazarene College, a Christian school, and has written three books on the tension between science and religion. He is the former editor of Science and Spirit, a magazine published by the Templeton Foundation. (Saving Darwin was also financed by Templeton.) Kenneth Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, is one of the most ardent and articulate defenders of evolution against creationism. He is also an observant Catholic. Miller's new book, Only a Theory, is an update of Finding Darwin's God. Both books offer not only a withering critique of intelligent design, but also a search for God in the evolutionary process.
Together, Saving Darwin and Only a Theory provide an edifying summary of the tenets and the flaws of modern creationism, the former dealing mainly with its history and the latter with its specious claims. If these books stopped there, they would raise a valuable alarm about the dangers facing American science and culture. But in the end their sincere but tortuous efforts to find the hand of God in evolution lead them to solutions that are barely distinguishable from the creationism that they deplore.
Read it all here. After you read the full review, let us know what you think.
This is the most comprehensive and compelling argument for the basic incompatibility of religious belief and science that I have read. Too bad that it is posted so late in the day and requires lengthy reading for a response. This article could be the basis for a weeks long serious discussion among people for whom these issues are important.
Phillip Cato
Posted by Phillip Cato![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 25, 2009 9:03 PM
Coyne relies upon popular opinion, measured through surveys, to define “God.” To attain that definition he relies upon a non-scientific method and thus utilizes a superficial and supercilious definition of “God.” In doing this, he joins a well-known group of contemporary writers who lampoon religion based on an antiquated and inadequate understanding of God. Unless a person casts aside all conflicting data and blindly steps into the circle of faith, the viewpoints advocated by evangelical monotheists make no sense and will become within this century, in spite of their current popularity, quaint anachronisms to which few subscribe. Popular opinion never defines truth, even when it comes to the concept of “God.”
Instead of engaging Miller and Giberson, Coyne would have found more substance had he turned to a theologian like the Rev. Dr. Keith Ward, Professor of Divinity Emeritus at Oxford University, for a dialogue partner. In his book, The Big Questions in Science and Faith, Ward charts the intersections of science and religion, drawing from the best modern insights in both disciplines, to suggest points of commonality and conflict. Ward, unlike Miller and Giberson, also presents a diversity of religious views; globalization underscores the growing irrelevance of narrow and exclusivist religious viewpoints that speak from only one faith tradition. Of course, Ward’s ideas do not allow simplistic conclusions about the distance between and irreconcilability of faith and science as do the ideas of Miller and Giberson.
Coyne’s article does emphasize that until believers are willing to take their faith seriously in the twenty-first century and do the hard intellectual work of updating anachronistic theological concepts framed and undergirded by long-abandoned worldviews, getting non-believers to take religion seriously represents a steeply uphill slog.
Posted by George Clifford![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/nav-commenters.gif)
|
January 26, 2009 11:25 AM