Steere's babbler (Liocichla steerii). A forest songbird endemic to the mountains of Taiwan. 

Unless the post above is followed by '-END' then CLICK HERE to read more!

Keep Religion Out of Science, as Long as it is Western Religion

Science is neutral on matters of religious faith simply as a matter of its methodological limitations. Scientific inquiry can not address the supernatural nor is it a tool to decide matters of ultimate spiritual or moral purpose. Of course scientific inquiry can test the bare claims of a religious tradition, claims stripped of any divine causation, claims such as a global Noachian deluge or a young earth. But add the intervention of a divine agent and we simply can not take these claims seriously as testable ideas.

Unfortunately many scientists have forgotten these limitations and have attempted to use science to deny a particular religious viewpoint. But, are scientists always so hostile towards religion? Oddly enough the answer is no. Typically criticism of religious beliefs from within science has been directed towards Judeo-Christian beliefs for the simple reason that these are the prominent religious beliefs in western societies and Judeo-Christian beliefs underlie pseudoscientific challenges to evolutionary biology such as scientific creationism and intelligent design theory. However, many within the scientific community adopt an entirely different opinion towards non-western religious traditions.

For example, Tibetan Buddhism’s spiritual leader in exile Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dali Lama, has been asked to speak at the annual meeting of Society for Neuroscience (Cyranoski, D. 2005. Neuroscientists see red over the Dali Lama. Nature 436: 452). Despite the protests of more than 500 members of the society the Dali Lama will speak on Buddhist meditation at the November 2005 meeting of the society (Cyranoski, D. 2005. Dali Lama gets go-ahead for meditation lecture. Nature 436: 1071). The Dali Lama’s participation in the meeting has even prompted support from outside the neuroscience community (Dickinson, J. 2005. Buddhism is no bar to an open mind. Is science? Nature 436: 912). By having one of the world’s major religious figures speak at a national scientific meeting the life sciences are sending one message that religious ideas have no place in the science classroom and another by having a particular religious viewpoint presented in the context of a scientific meeting. I wonder the reaction if Pope Benedict XVI were asked to speak at the society’s meeting on the subject of prayer?

I agree that dialogue between scientists, philosophers, theologians and religious leaders is incredibly valuable and scientists should consider the influence of their work in a broad societal context. However, I see little the value of such a dialogue in the context of a scientific meeting. A more appropriate forum would be one that included scientists and religious and spiritual leaders of traditions beyond just Tibetan Buddhism. Unfortunately scientists operate in a culture that on the one hand sees little problem in inserting Darwin’s name in a symbol of Christian solidarity since Roman times, the Ichthys, but would likely frown upon any desecration of a Buddhist prayer wheel or the Tibetan flag (a popular bumper sticker among the faculty and graduate students on college campuses usually along side a ‘Darwin fish’). Hopefully there are some scientists, like myself, that would see any desecration of either religious symbol as irresponsible and reject the presentation of one religious view either in the science classroom or at a scientific meeting in lieu of others.

Unless the post above is followed by '-END' then CLICK HERE to read more!

Intelligent Design as a Reactionary Movement

The intelligent design (ID) campaign is in full swing. With the help of local ID proponents the Kansas state school board is revising science standards and President Bush’s appeals to teach all sides of the evolution “debate” ID’s public relations campaign seems to be bearing fruit. ID is widely regarded as unworkable as a scientific theory and ID has made virtually no inroads into the peer-reviewed scientific literature. What’s more despite claims to the contrary evolution shows no sign of waning in importance among professional scientists. To the contrary, modern biology continues to reaffirm the importance of evolution and common descent as central unifying principles in the life sciences. The president’s own science advisor, Dr. John H. Marburger, said it best during a February 14, 2005 visit to the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado saying, “Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. Period. What else can you say?” (For a complete transcript of Dr. Marburger’s comments see here)

So, where is the controversy? Why do proponents of ID theory claim evolution is in such dire straits among scientists? Why do they pose ID as a competing hypothesis? The truth is this is a controversy over faith not science. Conflict between science and religious faith is nothing new and with the dramatic growth of science in the past century people of faith feel their views have become increasingly marginalized. It is easy to view the current debate in terms of ID as a threat to good science and good science education, an attempt to inject religious beliefs into the public schools. In this view ID poses the threat and evolutionary biologists are reacting in defense. However, I think to fully understand this issue we also have to look at the flip side. The threat, either real or perceived, of evolutionary biology to the religious faith upon which ID is ultimately based is at the heart of the problem.

Science is neutral on matters of faith as scientific methodology has no means of dealing with divine supernatural agents and ultimate spiritual and moral purpose. This is not to say that such agents do not exist only that such phenomena are not a topic science may address. But, listening to many of the most vocal evolutionary biologists science’s neutrality in regards to religious faith is easy to miss. Richard Dawkins is famously quoted for his comment that Darwin has made it possible to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist” (Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton & Company, New York) and science philosopher and historian William Provine has written that those scientists of faith need “check their brains at the church house door” (Provine, W. 1988. Evolution and the foundation of ethics. Marine Biological Laboratory Science 3: 25-29.). More recently in response to an editorial in the journal Nature (Dealing with design. Nature 434: 1053) prominent evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne described the science classroom as a place where religious worldviews “crumble” (Coyne, J. 2005. When science meets religion in the classroom. Nature 435: 275). So, it is hardly surprising that people of faith feel their beliefs are under attack by scientists.

What are intelligent people of faith to do? Well, my view is that both sides should take the time to listen to the other and understand the role that both science and faith play in society and understand the limits of each. However, most have not chosen this route. The reaction of the faithful to the notion that the only ideas that carry any worth are those based around science, a notion fueled by the writings of Dawkins, Provine and Coyne, is to force one’s religious beliefs to be scientific.Voila! There you have it. Creationism! ID is the modern version of creationism and it has taken this approach as far as possible, attempting to lend scientific legitimacy to Judeo-Christian beliefs. I think it is high time for us scientists to start thinking about the evolution/creation controversy for what it is, a reactionary movement, and recognize our own role in the success of ID in the public arena. All too often we give them just the enemy they expect. Refusing to recognize our own role in promoting an atmosphere within science that is not neutral but hostile towards religion will only mean we can hope to deal with ID more in the future not less.

Unless the post above is followed by '-END' then CLICK HERE to read more!