The Scientist and Society: Coming to Grips with Science and Religion - Essay Example

? The Scientist and Society: Coming to Grips with Science and Religion The Scientist and Society: Coming to Grips with Science and Religion Introduction This paper aims to critique a monograph by Ayala et al, titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism (National Academy of Sciences, 2008). The book may be retrieved from the official website of National academy of Sciences at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876.html. The thesis statement of the book is as follows: evolutionary evidence is wholly compatible with religion postulates and religious faith1. Summary The authors’ purpose is to formulate arguments and present credible evidence that evolution is a scientific approach whereas creationism – not. Specifically, the authors aim to prove that evolution is the sole convincing scientific explanation of life diversity on our planet. Aimed at laymen rather than scientists, the book provides information to teachers and youngsters about the theory of evolution and arguments which are may be used as evidence of this theory’s credibility. Briefly, the book starts with discussion of the essence of science within the evolutionary context. It goes on with presentation of the evidence in favour of biological evolution. Then, the analysis of creationism is provided, which is followed by a short conclusion and additional materials. Review and Evaluation First, let us discuss the authors’ credentials and assess the relevance of their areas of expertise. The work on this monograph was coordinated among scientists and educators by Francisco Ayala from University of California, Irvine; a member of the National Academy of Sciences, American biologist well-known for his studies of evolutionary genetics and support of embryonic stem cell research. His field of scientific interest also includes criticism of the theories of intelligent design and creationism which he believes are neither real science nor theologically valid. Ayala’s main belief is that science aligns with belief in God (Lawton, 2010) Out of 15 authors listed as members of the committee on composing the book, 7 are members of the National Academy of Sciences. Hence, the scientific credentials of the head and other authors appear to be relevant. Now let us discuss the strong points of the book. One of the strong points of Science, Evolution, and Creationism is its reliance on recent research, which is used as a background for the authors’ claims. For instance, the picture of evolution is complemented by the account of Tiktaalik 2004 discovery in Canada2. That was a discovery of a 380-million-year-old creature, which is contemplated to be a sample of some intermediate form of a living being – between a fish and a land animal with four legs. Besides, the book contains the statements of the clergy who support the idea that evolution and religion are compatible3. Another point is the book’s logical flow and language that is easy to follow. This makes it accessible for non-scientific readers and keeps the overall discussion simple. However, critical review of the book exposes serious flaws that undermine its credibility. The most ambiguous thing is the use of the very term “evolution”. Judging by how Ayala et al apply the term evolution and by general explanations they provide, the meaning of “evolution” is that of a change in living organisms with time which leads to diversity4. Ayala et al do not provide a clear scientifically developed definition of evolution on the level which would definitely fit their discussion. Instead, it seems they prefer to leave it somewhat blurred. Indeed, if to perceive evolution as merely a change in living organisms with time, almost anyone would agree that evolution does take place since people today are almost all aware of pigmentation changes in certain races, as well as development of immunity to infections, etc. Therefore, instead of the term “evolution” so widely used by the book’s authors, it would be wiser to apply the term “Darwinism”. As for the term “evolution”, its officially accepted definition is: evolution is an unpredictable, impersonal, unsupervised, and natural process which involves temporal descent alongside genetic modification, which comes under the impact of natural selection, changing environments, chance, and historical contingencies, and leads to diversity of life (American National Association of Biology Teachers, 1995 in Moran, 2009). Secondly, one may spot the problem with the term “religious faith”. The term “faith” is often used alongside “science”, i.e. compatibility of faith and science or science does not compromise faith, however the implied meaning of this term is not explained. Evidently, the explanation that religious faith commonly involves supernatural entities or forces5 or that faith and belief are the same is insufficient. As a matter of fact, theologically, faith has its own definition. In Christianity, for example, faith would most likely mean subscription to the Creed left by the Apostles or the Apostles’ Creed, which is extensively used by a lot of Christian denominations. Its initial line says “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.” (Book of Common Prayer, n.d.) Comparing this statement with what is stated by the evolutionary theory exposes serious discrepancies, especially with relation to impersonal, unsupervised, and unpredictable characteristics of evolution. God is personal, He supervises the all processes on the Earth, and the outcomes of His creations are predicted by Him. Whereas the authors have tried to keep their discussion quite uncomplicated, it appears that their summaries of the complicated topics are simplified and written from the authors’ perspective. Often, assertions are poorly supported by factual data, so that the reader cannot actually see how evidence speaks to claims. For example, Ayala et al write, “polls show that many people continue to have questions about our knowledge of biological evolution”, yet they do not state accurately which polls and the percentage of doubting participants (Ayala et al, 2008, p.xi). In another place, Ayala et al state, “there is no controversy in the scientific community about whether evolution has occurred”, yet they do not provide any factual proof again; instead, they use general words such as “scientists” (Ayala et al, 2008, p.xiii). One more serious flaw is that the whole book is clearly one-sided. By scientific canons, Ayala et al were supposed to make an attempt to disprove the theory and then admit to those things and difficulties that are obviously hard to interpret with the extant knowledge base. This would help Ayala et al avoid being too one-sided and categorical. Indeed, the book is penetrated by a vast number of categorical claims that unanimously affirm evolution. These claims are often emotionally colored, which is illustrated by the use of such words as “very favorable”, “very large”, “very similar”, “very different”, “very early”, etc (Ayala et al, 2008). Thus, it lacks objectivity. If the approach were broader, the audience would have a chance to form their view of the subject based on the given evidence and get some knowledge about the way science works. Another reservation about this book is evidence inaccuracy. While most research examples appear correct, there are pieces of evidence that have been inaccurate. Specifically, the authors claim that the sun is located in the centre of our solar system.6 Yet, scientifically, the sun is known to be considerably displaced from the solar system’s centre (Faure & Mensing, 2007, p.87). This is important to note, since this position of the sun impacts the orbital dynamics of the earth and, consequently, its climate. In addition, errors in evidence include a mistake in account of sedimentary rock origin7. In particular, contrary to the author’s statement not all sedimentary rocks get formed in place and evolve of particles that are deposited from certain fluids (Monroe, Wicander, & Hazlett, 2007, p.236). For example, salt rocks. This error undermines the scientific value of the evidence since it misrepresents the scope of these rocks’ origin. Conclusion In conclusion, the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism is seriously lacking a scientific approach to disproval of creationism and intelligent design and making claims that science and religion are complementary in the way the authors suggest. It lacks factual evidence and support which would have made it more convincing. Also, a serious flaw is the absence of clear scientific and theologically grounded definitions which would have constituted the basis of the discussion. Next, evidence is at times inaccurate and the overall discussion oversimplified and unacceptably emotional. This makes this book hardly acceptable for a well-informed, open-minded, and mature reader who wants to form his or her opinion on the subject with the help of scholarly support. Instead, the book appears to be forming a one-sided and obviously biased view of the unquestionable validity of the theory of evolution. Thus, this book can hardly be recommended to legal scholars, educators, and teachers, as stated in the preface, it could rather be recommended to parents who wish to make their children ardent supports of the evolutionary theory. References Ayala et al (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. The National Academies Press. Faure, G. & Mensing, M. (2007). Introduction to planetary science: The geological perspective. Springer. Lawton, G. (2010). Templeton prizewinner: We need science and morality. NewScientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627546.800-templeton-prizewinner-we-need-science-plus-morality.html. Monroe, J., Wicander, R., & Hazlett, R. (2007). Physical geology: Exploring the Earth. Cengage Learning. Moran, L. (Apr 30, 2009). “NCSE v National Association of Biology Teachers”. Sandwalk: Strolling with a sceptical biochemist. Retrieved from http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2009/04/ncse-v-national-association-of-biology.html. Book of Common Payer (1993). The 1928 Book of Common Prayer. Oxford University Press. Read More