History and Evolutionary Theory

According to orthodox mythology, Galileo was something of a martyr for the cause of science and human enlightenment. After the publication, in 1632, of his Dialogo (its full title in English, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Copernican and Ptolemaic), he was condemned at Rome the following year. The way the story if often told, his only offense was to challenge the dominant scientific orthodoxy of his day, which claimed that the earth was motionless. The Church, it is often claimed, held this to be a theological truth not open to challenge by mere laymen, and his trial was, accordingly, one for heresy. He was forced to abjure his belief that the earth moved, and to spend the rest of his life under house arrest. As if to make the story even more dramatic--and to add a nice kick on behalf of the "good guys" who might be reading this story nowadays--it is also reported that he muttered "And yet it moves" under his breath after his public proclamation that the earth is motionless.

High drama--drama that would be rather spoiled if the whole story were told sine ira et studio. The story provides some comfort to those who would defend a kind of secular humanism, in which the saints are such figures as Galileo, Giordano Bruno, and their ilk. Comfort because, in our own enlightened times, we see the scientific community as the victors, the Catholic Church as the loser, in this earliest of modern-era culture wars. Indeed, when John Paul the Great offered up an apology for the condemnation of Galileo there was much rejoicing on the part of those who think that the Church has much to answer for in terms of her opposition to scientific enlightenment. The apology was actually seen, in some quarters, as some sort of a victory for the humanist side, if you can believe it, though that sort of thinking is of a pace with those who so often fail so utterly to understand anything about the Faith.

A similar culture war rages in our own day, this time not between The Church and The Astronomers but between The Church and The Biologists. In the present conflict, a few humanist biologists are pitting (in their own imaginations) the theory of evolution by natural selection against the truth of the Faith, in the rather vain hope that any rational person accepting the truth of the former will, by some strange (bio)logical necessity, have to reject the truth of the latter. There are a few humanist biologists who think this way who are not otherwise insane, so it is at least worth thinking about what on earth could possibly give rise to such a risible belief in a putatively rational person. My own hunch is that it is largely an accident of history.

The accident that I have in mind is the fact that Darwin did his work in the 19th century, while progress in molecular biology did not really occur until the 20th century. I think that if these two historically contingent facts were reversed, we would not see the present conflict. Darwin's idea was a big one: a grand explanatory theory that was sent forth fully formed into a public that was just beginning to grapple with the social and political pressures of materialism, industrialization, and internationalism. The perceived threat to religious belief was, it seems to me, already incubating on a number of fronts. When The Origin came along it was not a particularly revolutionary work from a theological point of view, but the popular culture was prepared to receive it as such principally because it came along at a time when religious folks were already beginning to feel besieged. If you add to this the rise, forty years later, of Protestant fundamentalism and the rather bizarre belief in the literal truth of the mythological cosmology at the start of the book of Genesis, along with the fact that the majority of Americans at the time (indeed, to this day) were Protestants who were also Americans committed to the view that every opinion is sacred, it is not all that surprising that things have evolved (so to speak) the way they have.

Contrast this with the rise of modern cosmology. The theory of the Big Bang seems to me to present no less a challenge to the cosmology of Genesis, but although I have heard a few religious skeptics discount it I don't think it has nearly the same hold on the popular imagination as the debate between defenders of evolutionary theory and the proponents of intelligent design. One reason for this is the fact that modern cosmology has taken shape during a completely different historical epoch, in which that sort of science was already widely accepted among a more materialist public. If Darwin had published The Origin in 1959 instead of 1859--after the growth of molecular biology and modern genetics--I think the public attitude towards evolution would be no different than it is towards the Big Bang. There would still be a fundamentalist reaction to it, but it would be much more marginalized.

To see where the present debate will be fifty years hence I think we need only turn back to the 17th century. None of the revolutionary scientific proposals from that era, including not only Galileo's contributions to astronomy, but the theories of universal gravitation, combustion, circulation of the blood, and many others, are not exactly on the table as matters up for continued debate between working scientists and armchair theologians. No one is going before the local school board demanding that Aristotelian gravitation be taught alongside the universal theory, or that the theory of the four humors be taught alongside other medical theories. One of the principal reasons, of course, is that the theories of universal gravitation and modern medicine have far more wide-ranging practical applications than does the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. Evolutionary theory is, principally, a historical discipline; but molecular genetics and other branches of modern biology have more important applications, and so far they are robustly consistent with everything predicted by evolutionary theory. So as these science continue to impact our lives, the rabble that continues to push intelligent design will become ever more marginalized until, like the flat-earthers, they are seen for what they are.

Of course, they are already seen that way by the folks who know better, but one does wonder when the media will catch on to this fact. Part of the problem, I think, lies in the fact that too many working biologists are playing into the hands of the crazies. I teach philosophy of biology at both the undergraduate and the graduate level, and most of the textbooks that cross my desk looking for inclusion in my classroom have sections on the "debate" between evolution and intelligent design. For the life of me I can't imagine why. No philosophy of science textbook contains articles by flat-earthers who challenge the Copernican system. There aren't many such articles to begin with, I suppose, but even if there were hundreds available that would not warrant anthologizing them along with real science. The sooner we begin to treat these folks as the outliers that they are the sooner the hubbub will die down. Since publishers have to sell books, I take it that the inclusion of this stuff is still in demand. This is a good reason never to use a textbook that has such a section in it.


John Farrell said…
Very good point! It's interesting that YECs and ID preoccupy writers like Dawkins a lot more than specialists in the various fields of evolutionary biology (Sean Carroll, Neil Shubin come to mind), who touch on ID, to be sure, but don't let the subject distract them. (I can't imagine what readers in Japan and China would think of Dawkins' constant side-discussions of creationists--unless of course YECers are on the rise over there as well...) This is why I think Coyne's book and Dawkins' latest are not as good as the others.
Convenor said…
It would be very kind if you could let your readers know about the December issue of our twice-yearly journal 'CHRISTVS REGNAT':


You are most welcome to link to/follow/blogroll our blog:


Please pray for me!

God bless you!

St. Conleth's Catholic Heritage Association (Ireland)
Convenor said…
While I'm commenting, if you would be interested in contributing an article with Irish and Catholic heritage interest (Duns Scotus, perhaps) I hope you'll get in touch:


God bless you!
djr said…
I'm a bit confused.

First, take your explanation of why evolutionary theory is taken to be theologically problematic but big bang cosmology is not. Ask the average educated person, and I suppose they'll tell you that evolution is a problem because it at least implies that we can account for apparent design in the world without appealing to God. Ask the same person, and they'll probably tell you that big bang cosmology offers some support to belief in God, since it shows that the world had a beginning but it can't explain what caused that beginning.

Your average educated person wouldn't be responding too differently from people who know a whole lot more about the sciences in question and about theology. After all, Popes have held both that evolution cannot account for the special creation of the human soul and that big bang cosmology offers positive proof that God exists. Some physicists initially resisted big bang cosmology in part because they thought it might leave room for theological conclusions; theological illiterates weren't the only people who resisted Darwin out of theological motives. No doubt your historical points help to explain the more particular shape that the issues have taken in culture, but it seems to me that the two theories themselves fit in very particular ways with most people's naive theology.

As far as I'm concerned, the naive theology is the problem, and a proper conception of God ought to dispel any sense either that evolutionary theory poses a special problem or that big bang cosmology provides special help. Conceiving of God as transcendent creator of the world rather than a particular causal agent within the world leaves no room for the thought that the role of natural selection in the development of biological species raises problems for the existence and causal action of God. It also leaves no room for attempts to show that the existence of God just follows as a matter of course from big bang cosmology. The fact that popular attitudes differ widely from mine is, I think, primarily a function of popular conceptions of God.

Could you perhaps point us to a source that can explain why the Galileo myths you disparage in your opening paragraph should be treated as mere myths rather than true ones?
Vitae Scrutator said…
Which myths do you have in mind?
djr said…
How about:

"The way the story if often told, (1) his only offense was to challenge the dominant scientific orthodoxy of his day, which claimed that the earth was motionless. (2) The Church, it is often claimed, held this to be a theological truth not open to challenge by mere laymen, and (3) his trial was, accordingly, one for heresy. (4) He was forced to abjure his belief that the earth moved, and to spend the rest of his life under house arrest."
Vitae Scrutator said…
I'm afraid I just don't understand your question. However, if you'd like to read more about the whole Galileo episode, I can recommend William R. Shea and Mariano Artigas, Galileo in Rome: The Rise and Fall of a Troublesome Genius (Oxford, 2003). It includes references to other works.
JohnH85194@aol.com said…
The account of creation in Genesis is currently seen as myth, but for a very long time it was seen as history. Indeed it was seen as very reliable history; its author was infallible. Doubts about the Genesis narrative developed gradually. The religious establishment defended the traditional position. Darwin believed that his book would pain his religious friends; he was correct. The Catholic reaction came from the German bishops, who declared that human evolution was “clearly opposed to … the Faith”. Evidence supporting evolution accumulated gradually. Pius XII suggests that “divine revelation … demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question”. Benedict XVI refers to evolution as “a reality that we must see”.

Benedict is correct. But the position of the German bishops in 1860 is very understandable. When “reality” is “clearly opposed to … the Faith” in the judgment of bishops, it is understandable that some might reject “Faith”. Christianity has not yet fully digested the “fact” of evolution.
Arimathean said…
I'm catching up a bit on my blogging while on Christmas break after my first semester at St. Vlad's. I wrote some reflections on evolution here about a year ago.

I agree with djr that naive theology is the major problem. This naive theology is shared by both sides in the "debate" on evolution and creationism/ID, and it is accepted uncritically by the media that report on the debate.
CFS said…
Sir, you should check out Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," if you have not already.
shadrach said…
I've just found this blog, through reading the excellent analysis you did of Anthony Grafton's criticisms of the Pope. Excellent work.

Popular Posts