I recently heard Michael Reiss talk on religion and science as part of a series of Darwin Lectures at Cardiff university.
Michael Reiss gave an interesting overview of the different models of science and religion and those that involved conflict and those that did not. Then he claimed that that most religious and scientists view science and religion as compatible and that this is a mainstream view. In contrast it was the minorities who tend to be religious fundamentalists such as Young Earth Creationists or Militant Atheists inspired by Richard Dawkins that share the belief that science and religion must be in conflict.
Theos [Mar2009] have recently produced a survey of religious belief in Britain and they found that many people held a belief in what they called 'theistic evolution'. Theistic evolution is the view that evolution is part of God's plan. On this view evolution is the means by which God has created the diverse life forms on the planet. Wales came out as the region that had the highest percentage of people surveyed who professing a belief in theistic evolution. Theos took this (as well as a reference to Darwin who also thought that science and religion need not conflict) as evidence that there is no conflict between science and religion.
My response to Michael Reiss and to Theos is that whether science and in particular evolution conflicts with religious belief is not a straightforward matter. It is certainly not settled by asking people whether they believe in evolution and religion unless they understand what the consequence of religious belief and evolution are. This is because people can be unaware of the consequences of what they believe such that underlying conflicts remain hidden to them until made explicit.
Given that large numbers of people that Theos surveyed thought that Charles Darwin wrote the 'Theory of Relativity' it seems unlikely that such people have a great deal of insight into the nature of evolution that would reveal whether there was any underlying conflict between their religious belief and evolution or not.
The Science advisor to the Vatican gave us some indication as to why there might be a conflict between evoluton and mainstream religion [Science Nov 2008] when he said that Catholocism accepted evolution so long as the evolutionary account of humans did not rely on random or chance events. This caused puzzlment to many scientists present as evolution standardly includes references to chance events in the environment such as changes in food distribution that impact on the form that the species takes e.g. the shape of birds beaks, and the element of random mutations in genetic transmissions.
It seems that the conflict between evolution and mainstream Christianity resides in accepting on faith something like 1-3 which brings out the consequence 4. This conflicts with the evidence about the way evolution operates 5.
1: If God intends to bring about something that is possible then he could not fail to bring about that thing since he is omnipotent.
2: God intended to bring about humans (so they could enter into a loving relationship with them)
3: The modern Christian also wants to believe that God used evolution as a means of bringing about humans in order to avoid looking like a scientific idiot and to distance themselves from Creationism and false beliefs about the world.
4: Since God intended humans to exist, and God could not fail to bring about what he intended then humans could not have failed to have come about.
5: The current understanding of evolution (the process God is meant to have used) makes reference to random mutations and chance events. The element of randomness and chance events in the evolution of the species entails that if you were able to re-run the initial conditions of life again you would not get the same set of species on the planet. Instead a different set of species would arise and this means that human life is not inevitable. This is directly in conflict with a consequence of Theistic Evolution that humans could not have failed to come about.
If you explain the existence of humans via evolution then you get the conclusion that humans could have failed to have come about. But this is in direct conflict with the notion that God intended humanst to come into existence and thereby guarentees their existence by using natural selection.
It is often thought that the problem can be side stepped by saying that although the origin of human beings looks like it is partly the result of chance events, it was not. It was not the result of chance events because God really guided the evolutionary process so that humans were inevitable.
What they both accept is that evolution appears to involve chance/random events. Since the evidence appears to involve chance events the scientific attitude is to take this as warranting belief that this is in fact how evolution operates. The religious attitude by contrast is to ignore what the evidence suggests and instead hold on the basis of faith that what appears to be chance events in evolution are not in fact so.
Michael Reiss gave an interesting overview of the different models of science and religion and those that involved conflict and those that did not. Then he claimed that that most religious and scientists view science and religion as compatible and that this is a mainstream view. In contrast it was the minorities who tend to be religious fundamentalists such as Young Earth Creationists or Militant Atheists inspired by Richard Dawkins that share the belief that science and religion must be in conflict.
Theos [Mar2009] have recently produced a survey of religious belief in Britain and they found that many people held a belief in what they called 'theistic evolution'. Theistic evolution is the view that evolution is part of God's plan. On this view evolution is the means by which God has created the diverse life forms on the planet. Wales came out as the region that had the highest percentage of people surveyed who professing a belief in theistic evolution. Theos took this (as well as a reference to Darwin who also thought that science and religion need not conflict) as evidence that there is no conflict between science and religion.
My response to Michael Reiss and to Theos is that whether science and in particular evolution conflicts with religious belief is not a straightforward matter. It is certainly not settled by asking people whether they believe in evolution and religion unless they understand what the consequence of religious belief and evolution are. This is because people can be unaware of the consequences of what they believe such that underlying conflicts remain hidden to them until made explicit.
Given that large numbers of people that Theos surveyed thought that Charles Darwin wrote the 'Theory of Relativity' it seems unlikely that such people have a great deal of insight into the nature of evolution that would reveal whether there was any underlying conflict between their religious belief and evolution or not.
The Science advisor to the Vatican gave us some indication as to why there might be a conflict between evoluton and mainstream religion [Science Nov 2008] when he said that Catholocism accepted evolution so long as the evolutionary account of humans did not rely on random or chance events. This caused puzzlment to many scientists present as evolution standardly includes references to chance events in the environment such as changes in food distribution that impact on the form that the species takes e.g. the shape of birds beaks, and the element of random mutations in genetic transmissions.
It seems that the conflict between evolution and mainstream Christianity resides in accepting on faith something like 1-3 which brings out the consequence 4. This conflicts with the evidence about the way evolution operates 5.
1: If God intends to bring about something that is possible then he could not fail to bring about that thing since he is omnipotent.
2: God intended to bring about humans (so they could enter into a loving relationship with them)
3: The modern Christian also wants to believe that God used evolution as a means of bringing about humans in order to avoid looking like a scientific idiot and to distance themselves from Creationism and false beliefs about the world.
4: Since God intended humans to exist, and God could not fail to bring about what he intended then humans could not have failed to have come about.
5: The current understanding of evolution (the process God is meant to have used) makes reference to random mutations and chance events. The element of randomness and chance events in the evolution of the species entails that if you were able to re-run the initial conditions of life again you would not get the same set of species on the planet. Instead a different set of species would arise and this means that human life is not inevitable. This is directly in conflict with a consequence of Theistic Evolution that humans could not have failed to come about.
If you explain the existence of humans via evolution then you get the conclusion that humans could have failed to have come about. But this is in direct conflict with the notion that God intended humanst to come into existence and thereby guarentees their existence by using natural selection.
It is often thought that the problem can be side stepped by saying that although the origin of human beings looks like it is partly the result of chance events, it was not. It was not the result of chance events because God really guided the evolutionary process so that humans were inevitable.
What they both accept is that evolution appears to involve chance/random events. Since the evidence appears to involve chance events the scientific attitude is to take this as warranting belief that this is in fact how evolution operates. The religious attitude by contrast is to ignore what the evidence suggests and instead hold on the basis of faith that what appears to be chance events in evolution are not in fact so.
It strikes me that the proper conclusion to draw from this is that Michael Reiss and Theos are mistaken in taking lay peoples ability to believe in evolution and religious beliefs as evidence that there is no conflict between the two.
If one bases their beliefs on the scientific evidence of how evolution works the result is that human life is not inevitable and this is in conflict with mainstream Christian religious belief as
the Vatican's science advisor was probably well aware.
Regards
Julian
