thinkevolution.net

NOTE: This post was originally published on December 13, 2006, on an old version of this site.

Today the Franklin Institute held a panel discussion on “Science, Faith and Darwin.” A recording of the discussion can be found here. Participants included:

1. Dr. Arthur Caplan, Director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, moderator
2. Dr. Michael Weisberg, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, panelist
3. Dr. Michael Shermer, author and founder of the Skeptics Society, panelist
4. Eric Rothschild, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, panelist
5. Stephen Harvey, Esq., Pepper Hamilton LLP, panelist
6. Judge John Jones III, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania, panelist

Michael Weisberg opened the panel with a powerful point about our history of accepting scientific explanations in the context of religion. By the middle of the 19th century, Newtonian physics had provided a spectacularly successful unifying explanation for the movement of the heavens and the motions of objects on earth. Both scientists and the public agreed on these explanations, and God’s role was somewhat displaced—though not necessarily removed, as the religious perspective remained that God initiated, for example, the movement of the solar system. However, these powerful physical theories simply could not explain the intricate complexities of biology, and a sort of pseudo-scientific set of explanations, invoking God as a creator, were established. Thus when Darwin proposed the first fully satisfactory scientific explanation for biological diversity, in which God was no longer required to explain certain mystifying gaps in our understanding, some people felt that the actual concept of God was being challenged. Weisberg concludes by saying that it is perfectly reasonable to accept the position that the Anglican Church held at Darwin’s death, and still holds: that biological science can illuminate truths about the world, without threatening a conventional religious belief in God.

Stephen Harvey tidily summarized the achievement of the prosecution in the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District case, for which he and Eric Rothschild were the lead attorneys:

1. The prosecution proved that the Dover area school district acted with the purpose of promoting religion.
2. The prosecution proved that intelligent design is religious.
3. The prosecution proved that intelligent design is not science.

Harvey mentioned that when he and Rothschild first took the case, their colleagues joked that the case was “Harvey and Rothschild vs. God.” But he emphasizes that actually, following the facts of the case itself, Kitzmiller vs. Dover was not a case of faith versus science, and that their position was not anti-religion or anti-God. “Religion thrives in this country, not despite the separation of church and state, but because of it.” Really, the case was about making sure that a public school science classroom was not used as a pulpit to promote anyone’s specific religious perspective. Judge John Jones, who presided over the case, made the startling point that Kitzmiller vs. Dover made it apparent to him just how deficient the American public is in their civics education, not just their science education.

Of particular note, I think, is that each of the panelists emphasized frustration at the anti-evolution argument that science and theism are mutually exclusive, not just frustration at attacks on evolution. These authorities are clearly devoted to respecting both science the possibility of God. Michael Shermer openly declared himself an agnostic (like Darwin), and in fact a militant one: “I don’t know and you don’t either!” Stephen Harvey described himself as a Roman Catholic, and deconstructed the fallacy of one of the major arguments in intelligent design. Irreducible complexity is a fundamental concept in ID, and Harvey explained that, like other religiously motivated attacks on evolution, it is not proof of an intelligent designer, but instead an illogical, contrived dualism that posits that there are only two mutually exclusive possibilities: science or creationism, and that evidence against one is proof for the other.

One of the best questions of the evening inquired where, exactly, can religion be raised in a public school? The complexity of the answers by the panel reflects the overwhelming tension over religion in our culture. Michael Shermer was enthusiastic about the idea of discussing religion in history or philosophy class, he maintained only that it may not be incorporated into a science curriculum. John Jones pointed out that trouble begins when any teachings in this area become mandatory. Eric Rothschild was also enthusiastic about the idea of a comparative religions class at the high school level, much as they exist in higher education, but conceded that they must be non-biased and non-proselytizing and the potential for abuse is high given that school boards are governed at the local level. Stephen Harvey also pointed out that the potential for divisiveness in a school district would be tremendous.

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 19th, 2007 at 12:15 am and is filed under News and reports. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.