Why Evolution Is True, by Jerry Coyne (Viking, 2009).
Coyne, a University of Chicago biologist, presents the evidence for evolution in the fossil record, in the dispersion of species around the world, and in the laboratory where natural selection can be studied in organisms with brief life spans. It all makes for fascinating reading. He surveys human evolution too, looking at the fossil remains of our hominid ancestors who lived in Africa millions of years ago.
He sets up his argument as a contest between science and fundamentalist religion, with regular jibes against creationists. This was a tedious aspect of the book. Of course fundamentalism loses. But what was striking to me was how evolution fits well with the Christian philosophy of Diogenes Allen — particularly themes of the indifference of the universe, the absence of God, and the book of nature as a source of truth. Which is to say I do not find natural selection a threat to my religion.
My concerns, though, lie with the philosophy joined to natural selection. Coyne says evolution is not a “grand philosophical scheme,” but he locates it within naturalistic materialism, which is. He laments that science has not displaced religion in popular affection and allegiance. And he begins his book with this striking quote from Michael Shermer:
Evolution matters because science matters. Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.
This is a flatly religious statement, for it is religion that speaks of stories and sagas to tell us who we are, where we came from, and where we are going. For those who speak of science in this way, it’s hard to see how science functionally isn’t their religion. Still, I commend this book to anyone who wants to learn about the science of evolution itself. The writing is clear, persuasive and full of examples.
Re: “the indifference of the universe, the absence of God, and the book of nature as a source of truth”
The idea of an indifferent universe conflicts with the evidence from ecology that the earth functions as a self-regulating organism.
The idea that nature is a “source of truth” conflicts with evidence from linguistics (and perhaps from quantum physics.)
Does this author deal with such conflicts, or is he too mired in his battle with creationists? I wonder if he knows anything beyond bench level science? I wonder, for example, if he has read Thomas Kuhn.
Personally, I find Darwin’s explanation of the origins of life compelling. At the same time, I think those, like this author, who are obsessed with battling creationists are petty in the most spiteful way.
Not trying to spam you. Just that evolution and the veracity of the Bible are favorite topics of mine. Clearly, people can make a religion out of science or science out of religion. But the two are coming closet together than is generally imagined. Have a look at this article about the ‘veil of reality’ from a Physicist.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16769-concept-of-hypercosmic-god-wins-templeton-prize.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Ken, the indifference of the universe is a teaching from Diogenes Allen and Simone Weil, and it refers in their writings to the suffering the universe causes us. I am taking ‘indifference’ in a more generic sense. Whatever else natural selection is, it is indifferent to me, and its process goes on regardless of who I am. The book of nature as a source of truth, alongside the book of scripture, is classic Christian theology. Evolutionists have looked deeply at the book of nature and told us what they see there. Coyne even uses the phrase ‘written in the rocks’ which fits well if nature is a book we may read. I agree with you in that Coyne seems too much preoccupied with creationists.
Marcy, thanks for the link.
Pingback: John Haught’s Vision « As the Deer