Science Literature

We have been told for years that evolutionary biology is pure science and has no religious implications. Theistic evolutionists emphasise the concept of complementarity, pointing out that evolutionary theory seeks to explain how? questions whereas theism is concerned with why? questions. There appear to be many non-theists, including most organisations representing scientists, who say something very similar. These people have adopted the NOMA approach popularised by Stephen Jay Gould. For more on this, go here. However, you do not have to read far in the intelligent design literature (or in the creationist literature) to realise that this approach is controversial. These sources claim that all science has metaphysical presuppositions that are of a religious nature. There is a consistent message coming through - whereas science was first nurtured by scholars with Christian presuppositions, the situation has significantly changed. Since the Enlightenment, science has come to be dominated by the philosophy of naturalism. Happily, some opinion-formers also recognise the validity of this analysis: John Gray has some penetrating comments on this and an excerpt is below.

"As we know it, the secular world-view is simply the Christian take on the world with God left out. Liberal humanism is the contemporary version of an eccentric 19th-century cult - less colourful than its positivist precursor, no doubt, but just as clearly modelled on Christianity. Religious thinkers grasp this and look forward to a post-secular age. Befogged missionaries for a dull Victorian heresy, secular thinkers remain stuck in the past."

Some evolutionists with the mantra "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" find "existential comfort" in rejecting intelligent design. (source here)

The debates about origins have been engineered to present advocates of design as religiously motivated and evolutionary biologists as the champions of facts and evidence. A recent paper authored by psychologists adopts this contrived delineation of the debate as self-evident. Here is the way they introduce the paper:

"Despite overwhelming evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution (ET) and scientific consensus that intelligent design theory (IDT) is inherently unscientific, IDT has received considerable support from the general public, educators, and elected officials. Many schools include IDT in science curricula; 25% of U.S. high-school biology teachers devote at least some class time to the topic, and nearly half of those view IDT as a "valid scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species" [for more on these stats, go here]. Although a Dover, PA, court ruled in 2005 that schools could not include IDT in Pennsylvania science curricula, the debate is far from over."

Since the researchers deduce that the arguments for design can have nothing to do with genuine science, they have sought psychological reasons for the widespread adoption of ID perspectives. This is how they present their hypothesis:

"In the present research, we examined whether implicit concerns stemming from individuals' awareness of their own mortality might be a cause of the widespread support for IDT and corresponding skepticism of ET seen among a wide range of individuals in North America. We tested the hypothesis that heightened mortality awareness would lead individuals to embrace IDT and reject ET; in other words, that shifting one's opinion on these theories is a "terror management" strategy - stimulated by the basic need to maintain psychological security."

So, they constructed a series of experiments that were designed to remind participants of their own mortality, inducing "mortality salience" (MS). Then, the subjects were presented with a passage authored by Richard Dawkins arguing for ET and/or a compilation of comments arguing for IDT linked to the name of Michael Behe. Consequently, an assessment was made of participant views toward the author of each passage and the corresponding theory.

"The researchers carried out five studies with 1,674 U.S. and Canadian participants of different ages and a broad range of educational, socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.
In each study, participants were asked to imagine their own death and write about their subsequent thoughts and feelings, or they were assigned to a control condition: imagining dental pain and writing about that.
The participants were then asked to read two similarly styled, 174-word excerpts from the writings of Behe and Dawkins, which make no mention of religion or belief, but describe the scientific and empirical support for their respective positions.
After going through these steps, participants who imagined their own death showed greater support for intelligent design and greater liking for Behe, or a rejection of evolution theory coupled with disliking for Dawkins, compared to participants in the control condition."

There is much more to the paper than can be captured with a few brief quotations. However, we need to note the conclusions:

From the paper: "In sum, although religious ideology plays a large role in public support for IDT and antagonism toward ET, these attitudes, held by both religious and non-religious individuals, can be partly explained by IDT's potential for assuaging existential anxiety, and ET's apparent lack of an existentially compelling solution to life's origins."
From Science Daily: "Our results suggest that when confronted with existential concerns, people respond by searching for a sense of meaning and purpose in life," says Tracy. "For many, it appears that evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions."

Given their acceptance of "overwhelming evidence" for evolutionary theory, the psychologists go on to consider ways of overcoming the psychological barriers to acceptance of ET. Since this will probably be the focus of wider discussion, this blog points to other implications of the research. Remember that ID scholars are developing scientific responses to the claims of naturalistic science that all phenomena can be explained by a combination of Law and Chance. These scholars are not convinced by the arguments for ET and, in many cases, claim that numerous aspects of ET have already been falsified. What, then, explains the intransigence of evolutionists and their failure to follow through the scientific method they claim to espouse? Why is it that there are so many vocal atheists championing ET? Is there a link between atheism and ET? Returning to John Gray for a moment, does this cast light on his opening comment?

"Religion is a natural human impulse, which our society tries to repress just as the Victorians did sex. That is why atheists are so rancorous and intolerant."

There is great potential for psychologists to turn their telescopes on vocal evolutionists. What made them become vocal? Where do they position themselves in the spectrum of religious views? (Research along these lines will regard atheism as a religious position). Do they use evolutionary science to support their worldview? The reported research confirms that these questions are worth asking, for the authors find that "rejecting IDT can be a source of existential comfort for a limited population of individuals". How might ET advocates react to these statements by Dawkins?

"[A]lthough atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6)

"Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end." (Religion's Misguided Missiles, September 15, 2001)

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." (River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, 1995)

If it is true that "evolutionary theory doesn't offer enough of a compelling answer to deal with these big questions", then what might be the reactions of ET's advocates? The answer appears to be that they will dress up their "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference" in rather more attractive attire. They will quote more frequently the concluding words of Charles Darwin's magnum opus (but not from the 6th edition!):

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

We have a growing number of atheistic ET's talking about wonder, mystery and awe at the amazing universe we inhabit. Richard Dawkins set the tone with Unweaving the Rainbow and in various attempts to influence the public understanding of science (see here). Many popularisers of science are following this lead. In the UK we have Professor Brian Cox presenting several series of programmes for the BBC, all characterised by talk of wonder and the thrill of understanding how the universe works. Answers to ultimate questions are hinted at, but take away the hype and we are left with scientism covered by a veneer of existentialism (i.e. we choose to find personal meaning in understanding the science). The psychologists should have plenty of material to work with - but will they apply their skills to deconstruct establishment figures?

Death and Science: The Existential Underpinnings of Belief in Intelligent Design and Discomfort with Evolution
Jessica L. Tracy, Joshua Hart, Jason P. Martens.
PLoS ONE, 2011, 6(3): e17349 | DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017349

Abstract: The present research examined the psychological motives underlying widespread support for intelligent design theory (IDT), a purportedly scientific theory that lacks any scientific evidence; and antagonism toward evolutionary theory (ET), a theory supported by a large body of scientific evidence. We tested whether these attitudes are influenced by IDT's provision of an explanation of life's origins that better addresses existential concerns than ET. In four studies, existential threat (induced via reminders of participants' own mortality) increased acceptance of IDT and/or rejection of ET, regardless of participants' religion, religiosity, educational background, or preexisting attitude toward evolution. Effects were reversed by teaching participants that naturalism can be a source of existential meaning (Study 4), and among natural-science students for whom ET may already provide existential meaning (Study 5). These reversals suggest that the effect of heightened mortality awareness on attitudes toward ET and IDT is due to a desire to find greater meaning and purpose in science when existential threats are activated.

See also:

Death Anxiety Prompts People to Believe in Intelligent Design, Reject Evolution, Study Suggests, ScienceDaily (March 30, 2011)