Stephen Pincock, "Monkey business" (2005)
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/82d115f8-2029-11da-b59e-00000e2511c8.html
Monkey business
By Stephen Pincock
Published: September 9 2005 11:09 | Last updated: September 9 2005 11:09
Like many people, I was told as a child that it was a good idea to avoid
talking about religion and politics in polite conversation. A wise piece
of advice, I suppose, but one that I've never really managed to follow.
Rather than tiptoe around those touchy subjects, my approach has
generally been to jump in with both feet - a tendency that I must admit
has, on more than one occasion, cost dearly in terms of
stony silence. Still, I don't really want to change my tack. In fact, I
think that some of the most valuable conversations I've had over the
years have arisen from stark disagreement on some political or
religious point.
In recent months, a discussion of sorts (some have called it a battle)
has been going on between scientists and a group of mostly conservative
Christians in the US, over the subject of evolution. In an era when
science, religion and politics intersect in several places - think stem
cells, for example - evolution is perhaps the most disputatious.
Evolution has always been rejected by some Christians as it contradicts
the literal teachings of the Bible; but the most recent development in
the anti-evolution debate revolves around an idea known as "intelligent
design" which argues that our world and the life on it are just too
complex to have evolved.
In one oft-mentioned argument, for example, the biochemist Michael J.
Behe - a well-known design theorist - points out that some complex
biological systems, such as the cascade of proteins that cause blood to
clot, would not function if just one element was missing. His argument,
outlined in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, is that such systems could
not develop incrementally, as evolution would suggest.
Proponents say that such complexity suggests that life is the work of an
intelligent creator. Generally no mention is made of God, as such, but
the religious leanings of groups that support the idea, such as the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute, give the game away.
In the past couple of years, supporters of this view - including some
scientists and engineers - have been putting pressure on the US
education system to have teachers tell children in science class that
evolution is
"a theory, not a fact" and to tell them that an alternative explanation
for the origin of life is intelligent design.
At the moment, they seem to be succeeding. Proposals seeking for a
critical analysis of the "controversies" or "gaps" surrounding Darwinian
ideas of evolution have been considered in more than 20 states, Time
magazine reported on August 15. And the week before, President Bush had
expressed his support for combining lessons in evolution and intelligent
design. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," he told reporters.
What's more, many Americans appear to agree. A Harris poll of 1,000
adults conducted in June showed that 54 per cent did not believe that
humans developed from an earlier species, and 55 per cent thought
children should be taught creationism and intelligent design alongside
evolution.
All of which strikes horror into the hearts of most mainstream
scientists. The arguments supporting intelligent design are often
couched in scientific language, but for the many researchers who have
written letters to
newspapers in the US and elsewhere over recent months, the two "sides"
are simply not comparable. For many, intelligent design looks like an
idea based more on faith than science.
"I'm concerned about implying that there is some sort of scientific
argument going on. There's not," the notably outspoken scientist Richard
Dawkins told Time. "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."
On the other hand, the Discovery Institute repeatedly describes the
debate as a scientific one. Its members also argue that evolution has
become a matter of faith for scientists. For example, last month,
Benjamin
Wiker, a senior fellow at both the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology
in Ohio and the Discovery Institute, wrote the following: "The number of
scientific dissenters from Darwinism is growing because, as scientists,
they realise that evolutionary theory is functioning like an ideology, a
theoretical dogma that is being held onto with a kind of blind
patriotism." The Discovery Institute reports on its website that it has
gathered more
than 400 signatures from scientists who say they are sceptical about
evolution.
You probably won't be surprised to find that I'm not convinced by the
arguments in favour of intelligent design, or by any of the reasoning
that anti-Darwinists use against evolution.
If I'm frank, the campaign to "teach the controversy" of evolution and
offer a designed alternative looks to me a lot like the latest attempt
to introduce religion into the science classroom, a place I don't think
it belongs.
But perhaps the debate which is currently raging in newspapers,
magazines and television programmes across the US - as well as on school
boards and in legislatures - is a good thing. It's rare that arguments
over
merits of a scientific theory stimulate sustained interest in the
general public. Discussions such as this one can be illuminating, even
if they aren't always polite.
[email protected]
By Stephen Pincock
Published: September 9 2005 11:09 | Last updated: September 9 2005 11:09
Like many people, I was told as a child that it was a good idea to avoid
talking about religion and politics in polite conversation. A wise piece
of advice, I suppose, but one that I've never really managed to follow.
Rather than tiptoe around those touchy subjects, my approach has
generally been to jump in with both feet - a tendency that I must admit
has, on more than one occasion, cost dearly in terms of
stony silence. Still, I don't really want to change my tack. In fact, I
think that some of the most valuable conversations I've had over the
years have arisen from stark disagreement on some political or
religious point.
In recent months, a discussion of sorts (some have called it a battle)
has been going on between scientists and a group of mostly conservative
Christians in the US, over the subject of evolution. In an era when
science, religion and politics intersect in several places - think stem
cells, for example - evolution is perhaps the most disputatious.
Evolution has always been rejected by some Christians as it contradicts
the literal teachings of the Bible; but the most recent development in
the anti-evolution debate revolves around an idea known as "intelligent
design" which argues that our world and the life on it are just too
complex to have evolved.
In one oft-mentioned argument, for example, the biochemist Michael J.
Behe - a well-known design theorist - points out that some complex
biological systems, such as the cascade of proteins that cause blood to
clot, would not function if just one element was missing. His argument,
outlined in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box, is that such systems could
not develop incrementally, as evolution would suggest.
Proponents say that such complexity suggests that life is the work of an
intelligent creator. Generally no mention is made of God, as such, but
the religious leanings of groups that support the idea, such as the
Seattle-based Discovery Institute, give the game away.
In the past couple of years, supporters of this view - including some
scientists and engineers - have been putting pressure on the US
education system to have teachers tell children in science class that
evolution is
"a theory, not a fact" and to tell them that an alternative explanation
for the origin of life is intelligent design.
At the moment, they seem to be succeeding. Proposals seeking for a
critical analysis of the "controversies" or "gaps" surrounding Darwinian
ideas of evolution have been considered in more than 20 states, Time
magazine reported on August 15. And the week before, President Bush had
expressed his support for combining lessons in evolution and intelligent
design. "Both sides ought to be properly taught," he told reporters.
What's more, many Americans appear to agree. A Harris poll of 1,000
adults conducted in June showed that 54 per cent did not believe that
humans developed from an earlier species, and 55 per cent thought
children should be taught creationism and intelligent design alongside
evolution.
All of which strikes horror into the hearts of most mainstream
scientists. The arguments supporting intelligent design are often
couched in scientific language, but for the many researchers who have
written letters to
newspapers in the US and elsewhere over recent months, the two "sides"
are simply not comparable. For many, intelligent design looks like an
idea based more on faith than science.
"I'm concerned about implying that there is some sort of scientific
argument going on. There's not," the notably outspoken scientist Richard
Dawkins told Time. "You can't prove intelligent design by experiment."
On the other hand, the Discovery Institute repeatedly describes the
debate as a scientific one. Its members also argue that evolution has
become a matter of faith for scientists. For example, last month,
Benjamin
Wiker, a senior fellow at both the St Paul Center for Biblical Theology
in Ohio and the Discovery Institute, wrote the following: "The number of
scientific dissenters from Darwinism is growing because, as scientists,
they realise that evolutionary theory is functioning like an ideology, a
theoretical dogma that is being held onto with a kind of blind
patriotism." The Discovery Institute reports on its website that it has
gathered more
than 400 signatures from scientists who say they are sceptical about
evolution.
You probably won't be surprised to find that I'm not convinced by the
arguments in favour of intelligent design, or by any of the reasoning
that anti-Darwinists use against evolution.
If I'm frank, the campaign to "teach the controversy" of evolution and
offer a designed alternative looks to me a lot like the latest attempt
to introduce religion into the science classroom, a place I don't think
it belongs.
But perhaps the debate which is currently raging in newspapers,
magazines and television programmes across the US - as well as on school
boards and in legislatures - is a good thing. It's rare that arguments
over
merits of a scientific theory stimulate sustained interest in the
general public. Discussions such as this one can be illuminating, even
if they aren't always polite.
[email protected]