1 post tagged “evolution”
That was the question posed to Mike Huckabee, who is running for President. His answer, basically, is no, I don't believe in evolution, I believe in what is written in the Bible. Like almost everyone who discusses this issue, he was tripped up by the question, and his answer was irrelevant. I'm not saying his answer is wrong. I'm saying his answer isn't relevant to the question, and it's a trick question to begin with.
Do you believe in gravity? Do you believe in electricity? If you answer "yes" to either question, I've tripped you up and your answer is also irrelevant. Gravity and electricity exist and occur, whether or not we believe in them. In the same way, evolution occurs whether or not we believe in it.
I think the whole science versus religion debate has gotten completely out of whack and I'm surprised commentators on both sides haven't addressed the fundamental mismatch that is fueling the entire debate. There's science, and there's faith. The two are completely different from one another and completely unrelated. They're orthogonal. They can't contradict each other, and they can coexist without diminishing the other.
Religions focus on belief, disbelief, and faith. The benefits of religion and spiritual paths only accrue to those who have a solid foundation of faith in their path. All religions admonish their followers to be firm in their faith, or face negative consequences (ranging from the neutral to the very negative). Some religions assert that reliance on reason is not a substitute for faith. In other words, belief and faith are what matter, not evidence and reason.
Science, on the other hand, focuses on reason, observation, evidence, and revision. Science gives us tools with which we can predict how the world around us functions, and test those predictions in a disciplined manner, which leads to more and more knowledge about how things work. Belief and disbelief simply don't enter the picture. The universe doesn't function differently depending on whether or not a person believes or doesn't believe something.
So faith and science are orthogonal. You can have a strong faith in God and still use science to understand the world. The tools of science can't impact your faith, and your faith can't impact the laws of nature.
The waters get a little muddied where science begins to look at what happens in the human brain when it believes in something. Faith clearly has an impact on how an individual responds to the world. For example, it is well documented (i.e. there is a lot of scientific evidence) that placebos can have positive effects on health if the patient believes the placebo is real medicine. There is some evidence that prayer can have similar beneficial effects on health, and most intriguingly, there is some evidence that having other people pray for your good health can make you healthier.
None of this implies divine intervention, and this is where some scientists get tripped up. Faith "works" in these cases because it's a powerful force within our minds, not because God is answering a prayer. The placebo effect and other mechanisms provide clear explanations for this. But for many people, it only works if they strongly believe it is God answering their prayers. Science should help us understand the power of faith, not try to undermine its impact by denying the particular details of the faith.
Having said that, I would argue that true faith cannot be undermined by contrary evidence. I think faith and reason operate in different parts of the brain. The reasoning part of our brain causes trouble for us when we try to reason about our faith. Conversely, the faith part of our brain causes us to question the value of reason when we see contradictions caused by reason.
But if we carefully examine how science and faith operate, we can see that neither is diminished by the advancement of the other. Whether or not someone believes the world was created 6,000 years ago doesn't change the fossil record. And the existence of evidence of a planet that is millions of years old doesn't change someone's faith. We've seen plenty of evidence of that. Science and religion operate in different domains.
Why is this debate important? Mostly because this either/or mentality has created a very negative dynamic. Since people have been led to believe that science and faith cannot coexist peacefully, they believe it's a zero-sum game: in order for their faith to be effective, they have to undermine science, and vice versa. The most dangerous result of this, in my view, is the anti-science agenda of some in the religious community. They believe they are under attack by scientists trying to undermine their faith, and so they fight back by trying to undermine science. This is dangerous because it makes us less equipped to understand the world around us. (And from a purely economic point of view, scientific understanding leads to technological advancement, which leads to better global competitiveness.)
This is a lose-lose battle no matter which way you look at it. First, science cannot be undermined by belief. Gravity works wether or not you believe in it. On the other hand, if we deny the beneficial impact of faith, we miss out on a very beneficial part of what makes us human.
I say we should call a truce, at least until people can think with clear heads about this: acknowledge that faith and science are both beneficial in their own domains, and that they coexist. By definition, they are orthogonal and can't contradict each other. Neither is diminished by the advancement of the other, and neither is advanced by the diminishment of the other. They are separate conversations. They don't belong in the same classroom or the same debate.
Let's let the scientists talk about science, and let faith leaders talk about faith and belief. Hopefully each will learn from the other.
