Science Standards

Some recent events in the news concerning discussion of South Carolina’s science standards have led me to reflect on the issues that still seem to surround our understanding of biological evolution and whether it, and biblical accounts of the organization of life, can coexist in an open and free academic environment.

In approaching this discussion, I am going to organize my thoughts around three themes: 1) the nature of debate; 2) the domains of Science and Faith; 3) the science of Intelligent Design.  I will approach the first two themes from a faith-based point of view and approach the third scientifically.

First, when engaged in a debate; as you seek to let students “debate the alternatives”, one of the critical things to establish is the framework within which the debate will occur.  In order for a debate to proceed, both parties must accept the validity of this framework.  In the case of individuals who are opposed to an evolutionary viewpoint, the world of science and faith are tightly linked and inseparable.  Thus, at the apex of this framework there is often a postulate concerning two mutually exclusive contentions: 1) God exists; 2) Biological Evolution occurs.  That is, the logical framework proposed by many creationists is, simply put, that either one believes in God, or one accepts Biological evolution, but not both – the two are mutually exclusive.  However, if one does not accept this framework, a debate cannot occur.

To investigate these two potentially mutually exclusive contentions further, consider this short passage:

“According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.  While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of Homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.”

Now you may say that you would expect me, as a Biologist, to feel comfortable with a seemingly secular framework such as this.  However, that passage is from a 2004 report by The International Theological Commission of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church.  At the time that it was written, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger headed the Commission and Congregation.  He was, as you all probably know, Pope Benedict XVI.

So the problem with the framework proposed by creationists is that it presumes that an acceptance of Biological evolution cannot coexist with a belief in God.  However, the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no contradiction, and the statement above, accepting a scientific explanation of biological diversity and biological evolution, is completely consistent with a belief in God; a deep catholic faith; a faith shared by 1.1 billion people world-wide; a faith once led by Pope Benedict XVI – the author of the document quoted above.

In terms of the second theme, the domains of Science and Faith, I will present how these two ways of knowing: science and religion, relate to one another and engage in discussion.  In framing this discussion, when one contemplates the overarching issue of “life” there are generally three questions that can be addressed: First, WHAT (“what is life”, “what is meant by living”, and related to humans: “what does it mean to be Human”).  Second, HOW (how did life arise? how did humans arise?).  Third WHY (is there meaning in life? is there a purpose to all of this?). 

Each of these three questions has been asked by a range of individuals: theologians, scientists, etc.  In spite of each question being addressed by various groups, the different skill set of each make addressing these questions better approached by a different group.  For example the scientist is very good on the “how” but not so good on the “why”.   Conversely, theologians are good on the “why” but not so good on the “how”. 

Unfortunately, problems can arise when each group attempts to answer a question outside of its own framework.  While evolution is a very good model and explanation for the “how”, it is bad at answering the “why”.  Conversely, scriptural and biblical writings are quite good at exploring the “why” (and exploring man’s relationship with God), but are exceedingly bad at the “how”.

Now this idea on the separate realms within which science and theology view the world is not just my own view.  The late (and great) evolutionary Biologist, Stephen Jay Gould, was once asked: “can a person believe both in God and evolution?" His response was to reassure the questioner that evolution was both true and entirely compatible with Christian belief – in his words each is a “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”.  Again, as I mentioned earlier, you might expect an evolutionary biologist, like Stephen Jay Gould, to say such secular things.  However we can also go back to the faith statements of the Roman Catholic Church.

In 1950, Pope Puis XII wrote about the issue of evolution and Christian Faith.  His writings are mentioned by Pope John Paul II in his own writings:

“In his encyclical Humani Generis, my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation.”

John Paul II then goes further than this and writes:

“With man, then, we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation.”

Thus, Theology and Science are different ways of knowing, that use different frameworks to study the nature of man.  As Pope John Paul II stated, we cannot use the tools of science to examine our faith.  Equally true, we cannot use the tools of faith to examine science.  Further, I would stress that each way of knowing is valid in its own right, but each uses different tools and illuminates different aspects of the human condition.

The take-home message from these first two, faith-based, themes is that even with a strong religious outlook it is possible and reasonable, to study, understand and accept the reality of biological evolution.

For the third and final theme I want to touch on the concept of Intelligent Design.  At its heart the Intelligent Design argument is based upon missing knowledge and the importance of missing knowledge in creating evidence for or against a particular hypothesis.  That is, our understanding of a system is lacking to such an extent that we are forced to say: “the system is too complex; therefore it must have been designed by a creator.”  However, in examining this contention it is important to remember the old phrase: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.  That is, just because there is no evidence that supports a particular prediction of the evolutionary framework, does not mean the framework is wrong… ie: you cannot argue against a theory by using the LACK of evidence – you need explicit evidence that refutes the theory.  As an example (and this is not original to me) the presence of a fossil rabbit in Pre-Cambrian strata would refute evolution.  But the LACK of a particular fossil (the whole “transitional forms” argument used by creationists) does not say anything for or against a particular viewpoint.

This issue, of the lack of evidence not being particularly useful, comes up explicitly in the “irreducible complexity” argument of those who argue for Intelligent Design.  For some time, examples were provided about how some cellular structure was composed of too many interdependent parts to have evolved – one example that was used was the bacterial flagellum.  However, as the structure was studied it became clear that the structure was not a single unitary complex structure – “designed’ for one purpose.  Instead, it was built, “re-engineered” as it were, from a range of component parts that were doing other things in cells.  Again, initially we did not know this – and there was an absence of evidence of the potential evolutionary path – and this absence was used by the adherents of intelligent design to argue for the actual absence of an evolutionary pathway.  Again, what was being argued was not that an explicit prediction of evolutionary theory was not true – it was simply that we did not have the data – and as we obtained the data the evolutionary framework was supported. 

The intelligent design argument also falls away when you consider the work of Dr. Stuart Kaufman on the properties of complex systems.  His modeling studies have suggested that in highly interconnected random networks, novel properties may emerge not predicted from an understanding of the individual elements.  Furthermore, and important in this discussion, the network can be trained to a task, then parsed – and upon this parsing what remains is an apparently “irreducibly complex” linear pathway that mediates the specific task.  Critically, the process to get to this “irreducibly complex” path is explainable by the training and parsing of the former, larger random network.  This process of training random networks has potential real-world evolutionary applications.  One example might be seen in the biochemical pathways that synthesize catecholamine neurotransmitters in nerve cells.  Specifically, the pathways that distinguish many vertebrates and invertebrate neurotransmitter systems (octopamine vs. noradrenaline, etc) can be viewed under Kauffman’s modeling as the result of broader biochemical network where different “nodes” were lost during the evolution of the pathway.  Again, until Kauffman’s explanatory modeling we would see these neurotransmitter synthetic pathways as “non-evolvable” and “irreducibly complex”.

In conclusion, in presenting these three themes, it is my hope that you are left with two conclusions.  First there is no conflict between science and faith when considering the reality of biological evolution.  Second, intelligent design fails as an alternative to evolution, is fundamentally unscientific, and the overall increase in knowledge that derives from a scientific approach toward understanding the world results in the support of biological evolution as the single best explanation of life’s diversity.