Debate over origins of life depends on belief

Of My Worldview

As students, we are encouraged to consider alternative points of view and exercise critical thinking. It seems that to challenge traditional ideas is a highly valued practice in universities — that is, until the critique is focused on the theory of evolution.

Phillip Johnson, author of "Darwin on Trial," observed, "The view is widespread among science professors and administrators that, while freedom of expression and inquiry is a good thing, critical discussion of the philosophical roots of Darwinism is religion, which must be rigorously excluded from secular universities."

It is naïve to frame the evolution/creation controversy as pitting objective scientists on one side and religious zealots on the other. A more accurate view would recognize that deeply held beliefs influence both camps.

The science journal Nature published a survey of the National Academy of Sciences in July 1998 and found that 72 percent of respondents were atheistic, 21 percent agnostic and only 7 percent believe in a personal god. The article included a statement by the NAS president, in which he professed the religious neutrality of the organization. The surveyors then commented, "Our research suggests otherwise."

The modern scientific community has adopted a philosophy called "methodological naturalism," which restricts scientific investigation to empirical phenomenon. This is all well and good until the naturalistic approach to inquiry is so ingrained that scientists reject the possibility of any other-than-natural causes.

In the study of origins, natural causes often are insufficient to explain empirical phenomenon. Consider, for example, the origin of energy, matter, life and the formation of the original DNA code. Natural processes do not account for these events. Their existence suggests creative involvement, but this possibility is denied. Instead, an unverifiable belief purely in natural causes is preferred, and this in the face of astronomical improbabilities.

I contend that a prior commitment to naturalism is the reason the creation message is refused so fiercely. In 1929, D.M.S. Watson, a leading science writer, said in Nature, "Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative — special creation — is clearly incredible."

The refusal of creation as a possibility prevails today. Where it does, scientists are doing the very thing they accuse creationists of — namely, abandoning dispassionate inquiry in their preference for blinding dogma.

Harvard University professor Richard Lewontin, a leading proponent of evolutionary biology, expresses the prior commitment to naturalism when he wrote in the Jan. 9, 1997 issue of The New York Review, "It's not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

I elected to take the human evolution course at JMU to examine some of the latest evidence for evolution. On the first day of class, the professor stated three times that "evolution is scientific fact." The professor introduced no challenges to the theory, though opposing evidence and arguments abound. Lecture, video and textbooks did, however, frame the whole creation science movement as a farce.

A required textbook for the human evolution course included an article by the late Stephen J. Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory." He wrote, "The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue … of the resurgent evangelical right." He later added that "creation science is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase."

When making these claims, Gould did not bother to examine any evidence presented by creationists and point out the flaws. He merely labeled the whole creation science movement and their message unworthy of consideration.

The other required textbook correctly reported that the teaching of evolution was, at one time, illegal in this country, adding, "We laugh at early attempts to control subject matter in classrooms." The authors recognized no "control" issues with the fact that we currently prohibit the teaching of creation theory in our public schools.

Though heavy bias blocks anti-evolutionist articles in most science journals, creation scientists are producing compelling evidence, and their message is gaining ground. Recently, a school in England decided to teach evolution and creation side by side.

This outraged Richard Dawkins, an Oxford professor and rabid atheist. During a radio interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation in April 2003, Dawkins said, "To call evolution a faith position equated with creationism is educational debauchery. It is teaching something which is utter nonsense … These children are being deliberately and wantonly misled."

Actually, by hearing both sides of the issue, these children naturally will engage in critical thinking and debate, and ultimately will obtain a deeper understanding of the subject matter, regardless of which position they believe.

Charles Darwin agreed. In his book "The Origin of Species," Darwin wrote, "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Jon Anderson is a graduate student studying adult human resource development.