Are Science and Religion Compatible? – II

    In our last blog post we noted that Dr. Jerry A. Coyne challenged the notion that science can accommodate religion. Science, he says, is grounded in a naturalistic worldview, and as such cannot be made compatible with religion.
    We would have to agree that, insofar as a naturalistic philosophy goes, "science," in the broader sense in which Dr. Coyne uses the term, most certainly is incompatible with Christianity. It is, in fact, an anti-Christian ideology. But is a naturalistic philosophy an essential component of science?
    Dr. Coyne certainly thinks so. He argues that a naturalistic philosophy is a logical corollary of a naturalistic methodology. The problem here is that he is expanding the scope and reach of the scientific method to include too much. According to him the scientific method does not just study nature, it seeks to understand and interpret the universe. It aims at nothing less than a comprehensive explanation of reality. But there is a problem here. Since the scientific method relies on the physical senses, it can discern only physical matter. And if it can discern only physical matter, any worldview built exclusively on the senses will inevitably be a materialistic one. But the problem here is not that the immaterial world does not exist, but rather that a naturalistic methodology cannot recognize it. It is a limitation inherent in the method. What we have here is philosophical overreach.
    There is something more to reality than just bare physical matter. Nature points to something beyond nature, to a first cause and an organizing principle, and divine revelation is necessary to elucidate the ultimate purpose and design of things.
    The scientific method works perfectly well within the framework of Christian Theism. Thousands of physicians, many of them devout Christians, use the scientific method every day to diagnose their patients. Their belief in God does not compel them to discard the germ theory of disease. Indeed, their faith has provided them with the motive to devote their talents and energy to science and the healing arts. Many hospitals were founded by religious organizations.
    Evolution, of course, remains a problem. However, if we set aside the naturalistic worldview, would evolution still be "proven"? Dr. Coyne would no doubt argue that the idea of a supernatural first cause is superstitious nonsense. But we reply that the idea that matter can bring itself into existence without the aid of an external force is even greater nonsense. Matter does not create itself.
    The stakes could hardly be higher. Dr. Coyne himself says "Evolution, of course, contravenes many common religious beliefs – not just those dealing with Biblical literalism, but those dealing with morality, meaning and human significance" (p. 2). But science and religion are completely compatible as long as science confines itself to the observable facts of nature. It is only when science tries to become the exclusive method of discerning truth and an all-encompassing worldview that it becomes "scientism," and comes into conflict with Christianity.

Are Science and Religion Compatible? – I

    We are indebted to a fellow blogger, Tildeb, whose blog is called "Questionable Motives" (questionablemotives.wordpress.com) for drawing our attention to a recent article in Evolution by Jerry A. Coyne entitled "Science, Religion, and Society: The Problem of Evolution in America." Dr. Coyne teaches in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago, and is a well known proponent of evolution. He is also the author of the best-selling book Why Evolution Is True.

    Dr. Coyne, it appears, is very much distressed by the state of evolution in America. Polls show, among other things, that only 16% of Americans subscribe to the completely naturalistic version of evolution favored by Dr. Coyne. And this bothers him, for to Dr. Coyne it shows an abysmal ignorance of science on the part of the public. This, in turn, he says, is the result of the widespread presence of religion in America.
    Does this mean that science and religion are somehow incompatible? Dr. Coyne thinks so. He discusses several attempts by scientists to accommodate religion, and pronounces them all failures, including the late Stephen J. Gould's concept of "non-overlapping magisteria." Dr. Coyne then suggests that the only way to gain greater acceptance for evolution is to weaken the hold of religion on America. Astonishingly, he specifically suggests persuading Roman Catholics and liberal Protestants to give up their faith! (Presumably we evangelical Protestants are beyond hope!)
    But the question remains, are religion and science really incompatible? Dr. Coyne discusses three different aspects of science, as he conceives of it, that come in conflict with religious belief: methodology, outcome, and philosophy. Dr. Coyne says that the scientific method "relies on reason, empirical investigation, criticism, doubt, predictive power, and repeatability of observations by different investigators" (p. 3). Religion, on the other hand, is based on "dogma, authority, and revelation."
    This, in turn, results in a difference of outcome. Here Dr. Coyne simply asserts that science has "disproven" the claims of religion, and that "not one scientific truth has been disproven by religion." (This latter statement is, of course, a tautology: if it is really a "truth" then by definition it has not been "disproven." Aside from that, however, most conservative Christian apologists would deny that science has "disproven" the claims of religion, and would insist that the subject of evolution is very much in debate.)
    Thirdly, there is, Dr. Coyne says, an incompatibility of philosophy. The scientific view, he says, is that "supernatural beings are not just unnecessary to explain the universe (methodological naturalism), but can be taken as nonexistent (philosophical naturalism)." This is an extraordinary claim on Dr. Coyne's part. Assuming that he includes God as a "supernatural being," what he is saying, in effect, is that science is necessarily atheistic. It will be recalled, however, that some of the most scientists in history, such as Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newton, believed in the existence of God. Indeed, they thought that what they were studying was God's handiwork. Nature makes rational sense precisely because it was created by an Intelligent Being.
    If Dr. Coyne is right about the implications of science, then he is right about the larger question as well: science and religion are indeed incompatible. But we think that he is wrong, and will attempt to show why in our next blog post.

WHY EVOLUTION IS FALSE

Review:

    Why Evolution Is True

    Jerry A. Coyne, Viking, 233 pages

 

    It is perhaps fitting that the 200^th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin and the 150^th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species should see the appearance of Why Evolution Is True by Professor Jerry A. Coyne of the University of Chicago. The work is a fine exposition of the theory of evolution, both clear and readable, and certain to make its mark in the ongoing debate. Prof. Coyne shows a familiarity with Creationist arguments (which he generally treats with contempt), and interacts with them throughout his own work.

    The book, however, does not really change the nature of the debate. Prof. Coyne mainly rehashes the familiar arguments for evolution, most of them drawn from Darwin himself, whom Prof. Coyne quotes frequently and appreciatively.

    Prof. Coyne insists that evolution is a "scientific fact." What is a bit confusing to us laymen is that scientists have their own criteria for establishing a "scientific fact." According to Prof. Coyne, a scientific theory is not necessarily something debatable. A theory is a set of propositions that explain a phenomenon. If the theory seems to explain adequately the evidence, and it is confirmed by subsequent discoveries, then it is considered a "fact." A scientist like Prof. Coyne knows this as the inductive method, unbiased, objective, and incontrovertible. A lawyer like Phillip E. Johnson recognizes it as an attempt to build a case on circumstantial evidence, an argument marked by circular reasoning and logical non sequiturs. There are two major weaknesses in this kind of argument. First of all, what if the evidence does not fit perfectly, if there is something that the theory cannot explain? And secondly, What if we cannot establish a direct causal link, the proverbial "smoking gun"? In this case the question is whether or not it is even possible for evolution to take place at all.

    On the first question, let us take for example the fossil record. Prof. Coyne recites the familiar argument we have all heard before. But does the evidence really support the theory? Prof. Coyne posits a very slow process of gradual change. But that would seem to call for a vast continuum of transitional forms. What we actually see in the fossil record on the other hand is what we see today: distinct species or "discontinuities of nature," as Prof. Coyne call them. He is honest enough to make this intriguing statement: "When you look at animals and plants, each individual almost always falls into one of many discrete groups" (p. 169). That is the indisputable fact. But which theory does it support, evolution or creation? We think the latter.

    On the second question, the question of causality, it is ironic that Prof. Coyne's most original contribution to the debate, his background in genetics, serves to undermine his own argument. In the second half of the book he discusses at great length how mutations enable species to adapt to their environments, sometimes even developing new features. But all of the examples he cites involve taking existing genetic material and modifying it or recombining it in some way to generate new characteristics in the species. Once it is apparent how this "microevolution" takes place, it becomes obvious why "macroevolution" cannot take place. Macroevolution, as Prof. Coyne conceives of it, would require passing over the genetic barriers that separate one species from another. Moreover, it would involve progressing from simple forms of life to more complex. As Prof. Coyne puts it, evolution is "the amazing derivation of life's staggering diversity from a single naked replicating molecule" (p. 233). Amazing indeed it is! It is impossible! This would seemingly require adding new genetic material where it did not previously exist. A mutation modifies an existing gene; it does not create a new one. Since each species has a set number of chromosomes, and the chromosomes come in pairs, in most cases the evolution from one species to another would require adding whole pairs of chromosomes. What Prof. Coyne has not explained is where the extra chromosomes would come from. Thus, while microevolution is quite explicable, macroevolution seems genetically impossible. The "murder weapon" in the case remains to be found.     

Thus, in spite of Prof. Coyne's fine effort to produce a very readable and informative book, we are pretty much where we began: Darwinism is still vulnerable to most of the same criticisms that were leveled against it in Darwin's own day. In fact, in some ways, Prof. Coyne's explanation of the genetics involved makes the Theory of Evolution even less convincing. But the book is a useful primer for anyone interested in the controversy.

                        Robert W. Wheeler