ory_id=9036706 < m?story_id=9036706>
Evolution and religion
In the beginning
Apr 19th 2007 | ISTANBUL, MOSCOW AND ROME
The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global
THE "Atlas of Creation" runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated
with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with
quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the
falsehood of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection,
but the links between "Darwinism" and such diverse evils as communism,
fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the "Atlas de la Création"
has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and
universities across French-speaking Europe. It is the latest sign of
a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole
of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts
of the world.
The mass distribution of a French version of the "Atlas" (already
published in English and Turkish) typifies the style of an Istanbul
publishing house whose sole business is the dissemination, in many
languages, of scores of works by a single author, a charismatic
but controversial Turkish preacher who writes as Harun Yahya but
is really called Adnan Oktar. According to a Turkish scientist who
now lives in America, the movement founded by Mr Oktar is "powerful,
global and very well financed". Translations of Mr Oktar’s work into
tongues like Arabic, Urdu and Bahasa Indonesia have ensured a large
following in Muslim countries.
In his native Turkey there are many people, including devout Muslims,
who feel uncomfortable about the 51-year-old Mr Oktar’s strong appeal
to young women and his political sympathies for the nationalist
right. But across the Muslim world he seems to be riding high. Many
of the most popular Islamic websites refer readers to his vast canon.
In the more prosperous parts of the historically Christian world,
Mr Oktar’s flamboyant style would be unappealing, even to religious
believers. Among mainstream Catholics and liberal Protestants,
clerical pronouncements on creation and evolution are often couched
in careful-and for many people, almost impenetrable-theological
language. For example, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury
and leader of the world’s 80m Anglicans, has dismissed literal readings
of the Creation story in Genesis as a "category mistake". But no such
highbrow reticence holds back the more zealous Christian movements
in the developing world, where the strongest religious medicine seems
to go down best.
In Kenya, for example, there is a bitter controversy over plans to put
on display the most complete skeleton of a prehistoric human being
ever found, a figure known as Turkana Boy-along with a collection
of fossils, some of which may be as much as 200m years old. Bishop
Boniface Adoyo, an evangelical leader who claims to speak for 35
denominations and 10m believers, has denounced the proposed exhibit,
asserting that: "I did not evolve from Turkana Boy or anything
like it."
Richard Leakey, the palaeontologist who unearthed both the skeleton
and the fossils in northern Kenya, is adamant that the show must go
on. "Whether the bishop likes it or not, Turkana Boy is a distant
relation of his," Mr Leakey has insisted. Local Catholics have
backed him.
Rows over religion and reason are also raging in Russia. In recent
weeks the Russian Orthodox Church has backed a family in St Petersburg
who (unsuccessfully) sued the education authorities for teaching only
about evolution to explain the origins of life. Plunging into deep
scientific waters, a spokesman for the Moscow Patriarchate, Father
Vsevolod Chaplin, said Darwin’s theory of evolution was "based on
pretty strained argumentation"-and that physical evidence cited in
its support "can never prove that one biological species can evolve
into another."
A much more nuanced critique, not of Darwin himself but of secular
world-views based on Darwin’s ideas, has been advanced by Pope Benedict
XVI, the conservative Bavarian who assumed the most powerful office
in the Christian world two years ago. The pope marked his 80th
birthday this week by publishing a book on Jesus Christ. But for
Vatican-watchers, an equally important event was the issue in German,
a few days earlier, of a book in which the pontiff and several key
advisers expound their views on the emergence of the universe and
life. While avoiding the cruder arguments that have been used to
challenge Darwin’s theories, the pope asserts that evolution cannot
be conclusively proved; and that the manner in which life developed
was indicative of a "divine reason" which could not be discerned by
scientific methods alone.
Both in his previous role as the chief enforcer of Catholic doctrine
and since his enthronement, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has
made clear his profound belief that man has a unique, God-given role
in the animal kingdom; and that a divine creator has an ongoing role
in sustaining the universe, something far more than just "lighting
the blue touch paper" for the Big Bang, the event that scientists
think set the universe in motion.
Yesterday America, today the world
As these examples from around the world show, the debate over creation,
evolution and religion is rapidly going global. Until recently, all
the hottest public arguments had taken place in the United States,
where school boards in many districts and states tried to restrict
the teaching of Darwin’s idea that life in its myriad forms evolved
through a natural process of adaptation to changing conditions.
Darwin-bashers in America suffered a body-blow in December 2005,
when a judge-striking down the policies of a district school board
in Pennsylvania-delivered a 139-page verdict that delved deeply into
questions about the origin of life and tore apart the case made by
the "intelligent design" camp: the idea that some features of the
natural world can be explained only by the direct intervention of a
ingenious creator.
Intelligent design, the judge found, was a religious theory, not a
scientific one-and its teaching in schools violated the constitution,
which bars the establishment of any religion. One point advanced in
favour of intelligent design-the "irreducible complexity" of some
living things-was purportedly scientific, but it was not well-founded,
the judge ruled. Proponents of intelligent design were also dishonest
in saying that where there were gaps in evolutionary theory, their
own view was the only alternative, according to the judge.
The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which has spearheaded the
American campaign to counter-balance the teaching of evolution,
artfully distanced itself from the Pennsylvania case, saying the
local school board had gone too far in mixing intelligent design with
a more overtly religious doctrine of "creationism". But the verdict
made it much harder for school boards in other parts of America to
mandate curbs on the teaching of evolution, as many have tried to
do-to the horror of most professional scientists.
Whatever the defeats they have suffered on home ground, American foes
of Darwin seem to be gaining influence elsewhere. In February several
luminaries of the anti-evolution movement in the United States went
to Istanbul for a grand conference where Darwin’s ideas were roundly
denounced. The organiser of the gathering was a Turkish Muslim author
and columnist, Mustafa Akyol, who forged strong American connections
during a fellowship at the Discovery Institute.
To the dismay of some Americans and the delight of others, Mr Akyol
was invited to give evidence (against Darwin’s ideas) at hearings
held by the Kansas school board in 2005 on how science should be
taught. Mr Akyol, an advocate of reconciliation between Muslims and
the West who is much in demand at conferences on the future of Islam,
is careful to distinguish his position from that of the extravagant
publishing venture in his home city. "They make some valid criticisms
of Darwinism, but I disagree with most of their other views," insists
the young author, whose other favourite cause is the compatibility
between Islam and Western liberal ideals, including human rights and
capitalism. But a multi-layered anti-Darwin movement has certainly
brought about a climate in Turkey and other Muslim countries that makes
sure challenges to evolution theory, be they sophisticated or crude,
are often well received.
America’s arguments over evolution are also being followed closely
in Brazil, where-as the pope will find when he visits the country
next month-various forms of evangelicalism and Pentecostalism are
advancing rapidly at the expense of the majority Catholic faith. Samuel
Rodovalho, an activist in Brazil’s Pentecostal church, puts it simply:
"We are convinced that the story of Genesis is right, and we take
heart from the fact that in North America the teaching of evolution
in schools has been challenged."
Even in the United States, defenders of evolution teaching do not
see their battle as won. There was widespread dismay in their ranks
in February when John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate,
accepted an invitation (albeit to talk about geopolitics, not science)
from the Discovery Institute. And some opponents of intelligent design
are still recovering from their shock at reading in the New York
Times a commentary written, partly at the prompting of the Discovery
Institute, by the pope’s close friend, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn,
the Archbishop of Vienna.
In his July 2005 article the cardinal seemed to challenge what most
scientists would see as axiomatic-the idea that natural selection
is an adequate explanation for the diversity and complexity of life
in all its forms. Within days, the pope and his advisers found they
had new interlocutors. Lawrence Krauss, an American physicist in the
front-line of courtroom battles over education, fired off a letter
to the Vatican urging a clarification. An agnostic Jew who insists
that evolution neither disproves nor affirms any particular faith, Mr
Krauss recruited as co-signatories two American biologists who were
also devout Catholics. Around the same time, another Catholic voice
was raised in support of evolution, that of Father George Coyne,
a Jesuit astronomer who until last year was head of the Vatican
observatory in Rome. Mr Krauss reckons his missive helped to nudge
the Catholic authorities into clarifying their view and insisting
that they did still accept natural selection as a scientific theory.
But that was not the end of the story. Catholic physicists, biologists
and astronomers (like Father Coyne) insisted that there was no reason
to revise their view that intelligent design is bad science. And they
expressed concern (as the Christian philosopher Augustine did in the
4th century) that if the Christian church teaches things about the
physical world which are manifestly false, then everything else the
church teaches might be discredited too. But there is also a feeling
among Pope Benedict’s senior advisers that in rejecting intelligent
design as it is understood in America they must not go too far in
endorsing the idea that Darwinian evolution says all that needs to be,
or can be, said about how the world came to be.
The net result has been the emergence of two distinct camps among the
Catholic pundits who aspire to influence the pope. In one there are
people such as Father Coyne, who believe (like the agnostic Mr Krauss)
that physics and metaphysics can and should be separated. From his new
base at a parish in North Carolina, Father Coyne insists strongly on
the integrity of science-"natural phenomena have natural causes"-and
he is as firm as any secular biologist in asserting that every year
the theory of evolution is consolidated with fresh evidence.
In the second camp are those, including some high up in the Vatican
bureaucracy, who feel that Catholic scientists like Father Coyne
have gone too far in accepting the world-view of their secular
colleagues. This camp stresses that Darwinian science should not
seduce people into believing that man evolved purely as the result
of a process of random selection. While rejecting American-style
intelligent design, some authoritative Catholic thinkers claim to see
God’s hand in "convergence": the apparent fact that, as they put it,
similar processes and structures are present in organisms that have
evolved separately.
As an example of Catholic thinking that is relatively critical of
science-based views of the world, take Father Joseph Fessio, the
provost of Ave Maria University in Florida and a participant in a
seminar on creation and evolution which led to the new book with papal
input. As Father Fessio observes, Catholics accept three different ways
of learning about reality: empirical observation, direct revelations
from God and, between those two categories, "natural philosophy"-the
ability of human reason to discern divine reason in the created
universe. That is not quite intelligent design, but it does sound
similar. The mainly Protestant heritage of the United States may be
one reason why the idea of "natural philosophy" is poorly understood
by American thinkers, Father Fessio playfully suggests. (Another
problem the Vatican may face is that Orthodox Christian theologians,
as well as Catholic mystics, are wary of "natural philosophy": they
insist that mystical communion with God is radically different from
observation or speculation by the human brain.)
The evolution of the anti-evolutionists
Whatever they think about science, there is one crucial problem
that all Christian thinkers about creation must wrestle with: the
status of the human being in relation to other creatures, and the
whole universe. There is no reading of Christianity which does not
assert the belief that mankind, while part of the animal kingdom,
has a unique vocation and potential to enhance the rest of creation,
or else to destroy it. This point has been especially emphasised by
Pope Benedict’s interlocutors in the Orthodox church, such as its
senior prelate Patriarch Bartholomew I, who has been nudging the
Vatican to take a stronger line on man’s effect on the environment
and climate change.
For Father Coyne, belief in man’s unique status is entirely consistent
with an evolutionary view of life. "The fact we are at the end of
this marvellous process is something that glorifies us," he says.
But Benedict XVI apparently wants to lay down an even stronger line
on the status of man as a species produced by divine ordinance,
not just random selection. "Man is the only creature on earth that
God willed for his own sake," says a document issued under Pope John
Paul II and approved by the then Cardinal Ratzinger.
What is not quite clear is whether the current pope accepts the
"Chinese wall" that his old scientific adviser, Father Coyne, has
struggled to preserve between physics and metaphysics. It is in
the name of this Chinese wall that Father Coyne and other Catholic
scientists have been able to make common cause with agnostics, like Mr
Krauss, in defence of the scientific method. What the Jesuit astronomer
and his secular friends all share is the belief that people who agree
about physics can differ about metaphysics or religion.
Critics like Father Fessio would retort that their problem was not with
the Chinese wall-but with an attempt to tear it down by scientists
whose position is both Darwinist and anti-religious: in other words,
with those who believe that scientific observation of the universe
leaves no room at all for religious belief. (Some scientists and
philosophers go further, dismissing religion itself as a phenomenon
brought about by man’s evolutionary needs.)
The new book quoting Pope Benedict’s contributions to last year’s
seminar shows him doing his best to pick his way through these
arguments: accepting that scientific descriptions of the universe are
valid as far as they go, while insisting that they are ultimately
incomplete as a way of explaining how things came to be. On those
points, he seems to share the "anti-Darwinist" position of Father
Fessio; but he also agrees with Father Coyne that a "God of the
gaps" theory-which uses a deity to fill in the real or imagined
holes in evolutionary science-is too small-minded. Only a handful of
the world’s 2 billion Christians will be able to make sense of his
intricate intellectual arguments, and there is a risk that simplistic
reporting and faulty interpretation of his ideas could create the
impression that the pope has deserted to the ranks of the outright
anti-evolutionists; he has done no such thing, his advisers insist.
Not that the advocates of intelligent design or outright creationists
are in need of anyone’s endorsement. Their ideas are flourishing
and their numbers growing. As Mr Krauss has caustically argued, the
anti-evolution movement is itself a prime example of evolution and
adaptability-defeated in one arena, it will resurface elsewhere. His
ally Father Coyne, the devoted star-gazer, is one of the relatively
few boffins who have managed to expound with equal passion both their
scientific views and their religious beliefs. He writes with breathless
excitement about "the dance of the fertile universe, a ballet with
three ballerinas: chance, necessity and fertility." Whether they are
atheists or theists, other supporters of Darwin’s ideas on natural
selection will have to inspire as well as inform if they are to
compete with their growing army of foes.
Copyright © 2007 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All
rights reserved.
–Boundary_(ID_u5HdQRZRLKw40cUVzGF/Iw)- –