Pleochroism

My position on Darwinian evolutionary theory has evolved. I learned Darwin’s theory in my high school and undergraduate education. I never thought of evolutionary theory in terms of “believing” evolution or not. It was a matter of evidence. I dutifully learned the evidence supporting Darwin’s theory and it seemed reasonable to me. I had no reason to doubt the evidence or the way the evidence was presented. However, my worldview would not allow me to accept naturalistic evolution, that is, all evolutionary changes were due to purposeless natural processes. The more I learned about the complexity of nature, the more I was convinced that there was purpose in the natural sciences. These two seemingly contrary positions lived in separate mental domains for several years of active scientific research. My research was not on the front lines of evolutionary theory, in fact, my research in lung disease did not depend on evolutionary theory in any way. In the mid-80’s a friend gave me Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. This book caused my understanding of Darwinian evolution and my worldview to intersect (“collide” might be a better word).  I found the evidence in his book convincing and the evidence supporting the gradualism proposed by neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory no longer reasonable. I wondered why I was not taught these criticisms. Thus I evolved into an informed skeptic and found that there were many more skeptical scientists than I had realized.

But where was my skepticism taking me? The history of life on the Earth clearly shows increasing complexity through time (evolution). In addition, I have never found Young Earth Creationism convincing because, in my opinion, there simply is no scientific evidence to support that position. I had always been taught that good scientists follow the evidence. For example, I have read part or all of Kenneth Miller’s books and writings as well as Michael Behe’s books and writings. Their positions are similar in some ways. Both believe in the existence of a Supreme Designer. Both are convinced of the evidence for common descent. The difference is that Behe contends that there is empirical evidence in the natural world for design, while Miller contends there is no such evidence. While some may think these two positions are separated by a great chasm, I think they are separated by an evidentiary divide. Despite arguments over the philosophical and theological differences of their positions this evidentiary divide is scientific. Scientists discuss and argue the evidence because that is what scientists do.

However, it is unfortunate that this conflict between scientists has produced a battlefield that includes the education of children. A majority of the scientific community, or at least a majority of the vocal members of the scientific community, advocates a central place for neo-Darwinism in K-12 education. I believe that most of our K-12 students are not equipped to understand the competing theories, complex arguments, and speculative extrapolations regarding the origins of the first cells, macroevolutionary changes and the emergence of biological novelties. These discussions should be minimized in K-12 education. However, we should include instruction in natural selection, adaptation and microevolution because these topics have important applications in microbiology, ecology, medicine and genetics.

While I believe teaching the speculative and controversial elements of evolutionary theory are inappropriate at the K-12 level, it is essential at the undergraduate and graduate levels. Discussing evidence on all sides of a controversy develops critical thinking skills that are essential in higher education. I don’t understand the position of some that students should not hear the evidences on all sides of this controversy. In addition, I often hear the argument that teleological discussions have no place in undergraduate science classrooms. I do not agree. We cannot ignore the intersection of science and theology, just as we cannot ignore the intersection of science and ethics, or science and politics, or science and economics.  Educational research has indicated that we need more interdisciplinary discussion in our classes, not less. When I teach about stem cells in biology class I do not hesitate to discuss the ethical, political and social issues as they relate to stem cells, even though these are nonscientific discussions. I include these discussions in my class because it is good undergraduate education to explore all sides of an issue from an interdisciplinary perspective, not because I want to express a particular political or religious point of view.

A 2008 poll indicated that a vast majority of Americans believe in some sort of Supreme Being. We simply cannot avoid meaningful discussion by claiming that science and theology occupy completely separate domains of knowledge (more on this in a future post).  It is also disingenuous to claim that there is no controversy. We need to discuss these issues openly and disagree respectfully. The religious community needs to change the way it views science and the scientific community needs to change the way it views theology. I believe change will come…. gradually.