Science Literature

The essay stimulating this blog emerged from the Darwin Bicentennial year, when surveys of "educated lay people" in Switzerland revealed that only 20% had any clarity of thinking about Darwin's theory of evolution. About half explained it in a circular way, another 20% implied some form of Lamarckism and the remaining 10% talked about evolution being a flow towards complexity. These responses evidence "poor understanding" and two major reasons are suggested to explain the observations. The first is "The theory of evolution is counterintuitive" and the second is "The theory of evolution opposes most people's worldview". The worldview issues are of considerable importance to the issues considered here. It is worth asking: what is a Darwinian worldview? and why do most people have a different worldview? The first paragraph of the essay is significant for its candour:

"Early teaching of the basic principles of science by qualified teachers, together with the creative involvement of scientists, will help the general public to appreciate what the theory of evolution calls for, namely a worldview based on reality rather than on mysticism and dogma."

Worldviews affect the way we perceive and understand the world (source here)

OK, so Jacques Dubochet, the author of the essay, is linking Darwinism to a worldview based on reality and most of the general public, even those that are educated, have worldviews based on mysticism and dogma. At least this tells us where he's coming from. But Dubochet's reality is not self-evident. Indeed, many aspects of it are "shocking" because this reality conflicts with any worldviews that find a place for purpose and meaning transcending the individual level. As an example, Dubochet says that "the idea that our legs are not made for walking or our eyes for seeing is difficult to grasp". He recognises that most educated people do think our legs are made for walking and that our eyes are made for seeing - but considers these views to be delusional. These people need to be informed by Darwinism which shows us that "life evolves without a goal".

"The confrontation between intuitive understanding and reality is nothing new. The Copernican idea that the Earth revolves, not the Sun, also caused serious trouble in the past but nowadays everybody accepts it as obvious. Will this be the case with the theory of evolution? I have my doubts."

These doubts are interesting. Why is education not the answer? This brings us to the importance of worldview thinking. Dubochet does not dwell on the Copernican Revolution, but it is instructive. The intellectual world at that time was dominated by Aristotelianism. This had been integrated within Roman Catholicism by the influence of Thomas Aquinas - and the theologians happily went along with the views of their Aristotelian astronomers and interpreted the Bible accordingly. This became the Medieval worldview. The opposition to Copernicanism was led by the astronomers, who were sure that Aristotelian physics equated with reality. Outside the Catholic Church, it was possible for people to be more free-thinking and many of the early champions of Copernicanism were in the Reformation tradition. This led to a willingness to revisit biblical interpretation and they found that the relevant texts used the language of appearance and were not making scientific statements. For more on this, go here. At that time, if the education strategy had been followed, all that would have emerged would have been more and more complexities in the Ptolemaic system. What was really needed was an atmosphere where there was academic freedom and a willingness to critique alternative explanations of the data. This is what the Reformation facilitated and this is the culture that nurtured the rise of science.

Dubochet develops his worldview argument by saying that science answers "How?" questions and philosophy answers "Why?" questions. How-questions, he says, are concerned with causality and the quest to understand natural phenomena. Why-questions, however, imply goals, meaning and purpose. But Dubochet has already explained that Darwinism declares there is no goal and no "finality". To many of us, this seems as though Darwinism wants to claim the right to answer both "How?" and "Why?" questions!

"Why? What for? For which goal? For these questions, Darwin has an answer: in life, there is no finality, so the question "why" makes no sense, full stop! Here is where the shoe pinches. During discussions with non-specialists, signs of tensions are frequently observed the instant they understand that biological evolution does not lead anywhere."

It is at this point that Dubochet acknowledges that people have goals - but he only acknowledges that these goals are personal to individuals: "Humans have their future in their hands". Not only can we choose to inject meaning and purpose into our lives, we can clothe this desire for finality to include the adoption of religiosity.

"The human desire for finality extends further; it includes transcendance. Religiosity is, in fact, one more trait of our human nature as is made evident by ethnology, evolutionary biology, population genetics, or the science of religion. Where does this come from? It has been suggested that it offers a sufficient advantage to be selected by evolution. Others think it is a necessary corollary to the development of human intelligence when faced with the fear of death. Still others see religion as a by-product of some other naturally selected function. In all cases, the consequence for us is that "Some form of religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems.""

So, not only do Darwinists make claims about "Why?" questions, they also seek to understand religion and human psychology from Darwinian perspective. On these grounds, they will allow religious life to coexist with the Darwinian view of reality. As an example, the "blameless Darwinian" in the following quote is Francis Collins, a leading US theistic evolutionist Christian.

"Even if the theory of evolution describes life without involving divine action, it does not prove the absence of transcendence or the non-existence of God. The blameless Darwinians who declared their indisputable religiosity prove that a peaceful collaboration is possible. In my view, it should be valued."

If anyone is in any doubt, this form of religiosity is far removed from biblical Christianity. Instead of subjective goals, the Christian maintains a cosmic purpose that integrates all history. Instead of an existential choice to secure meaning, the Christian affirms God's plan to be the master plan for all. Eyes are made for seeing and ears are made for hearing (for more, go here). Divine action is everywhere, for "in him we live and move and have our being". This is a different worldview from that described by Dubochet.

The main take-home message from this blog is that there is such a thing as a Darwinian worldview, that those adhering to this view consider themselves to be living in the real world and all others have succumbed to mysticism and/or dogma. This post should be read in parallel with "Creationism and Intelligent Design in science lessons" which argues for treating Darwinism as a worldview at all levels of education. The following quote comes from the conclusion of that blog:

"Darwinism does not exist in isolation from a worldview and the attempt by many to portray it as objective 'pure' science is philosophically naive. Just as the objections of creationists and ID scholars cannot be properly understood without a worldview perspective, so also the commitments of evolutionary biologists to the blind watchmaker model of evolutionary transformation cannot be properly understood without reference to the worldview of these scientists."

As an example of what the Darwinian worldview entails, and why educationalists should be alert to the metaphysical implications of Darwin's theory, Dubochet's essay is necessary reading. Worldviews affect the way all of us perceive the world. The Darwinian view is no exception. It has to deny the truth claims of Christianity. If coexistence with religion is envisaged, it must be based on privatised religious commitments that are ultimately superstition and delusion - nothing to do with ultimate truth. It is not surprising (or shocking) when Darwinists say these things - knowing their worldview, such words are entirely predictable.

Our response should be that of the scientists in the Reformation tradition: let us question dogmas, test hypotheses, perform relevant experiments and follow the evidence wherever it leads. What we seem to be getting from many Darwinians is a hardening attitude that presumes that only they live in the real world. Consequently, humanist champions of evolution are seeking changes to education policy that will deny academic freedom to both students and teachers with a different worldview. Their stance is one that has to be resisted.

Why is it so difficult to accept Darwin's theory of evolution?
Jacques Dubochet
Bioessays, 33: 240-242, April 2011 | DOI 10.1002/bies.201000142

Most educated people do not understand Darwin's theory of evolution. This is because the idea that our legs are not made for walking or our eyes for seeing is difficult to grasp. Adepts of intelligent design have it easier. Furthermore, stating that life evolves without a goal and in the absence of finality is shocking for most people because it clashes with their idea of the meaning of life. In fact, the theory of evolution is intellectually satisfying and it can serve as a solid basis for a responsible worldview in the sense of the Enlightenment. It need not come into conflict with transcendental belief. Early teaching of the basic principles of science by qualified teachers, together with the creative involvement of scientists, will help the general public to appreciate what the theory of evolution calls for, namely a worldview based on reality rather than on mysticism and dogma.