For more than a decade, Rick Weiss covered science (and its politics) for the Washington Post. When he left the paper last year, the news organization lost one of the top two or three science journalists in the business and perhaps the very best at covering the intersections of biomedical research and policy.
Weiss now serves as a fellow at the Center for American Progress, contributing articles to the think tank's Science Progress site. In today's Washington Post, Weiss pens a guest op-ed weighing in on the continued culture war over evolution.
While Darwin himself never took his findings as definitive evidence against the existence of God, many people of faith have read that conclusion into his work. As a result, the man who first grasped biology's most unifying concept is today widely demonized as an enemy of the church, even as many scientists and others make a similar mistake and invoke Darwin in their rejection of everything theological......Darwin's humility in the face of insufficient evidence -- his willingness to say "I don't know" -- is as important a lesson as any to be found in biology texts today. This is not about "teaching the controversy" -- Darwin had a slam-dunk in his explanation of the evolution of species, including humans, and every modern test of evolutionary theory has only strengthened his conclusions. But he also knew there is plenty of room for God at the top, upstream of the business of biology.
Soldiers in today's culture wars, whether in black collars or white lab coats, could take a tip from Darwin on his birthday bicentennial. He loved the natural world, "most beautiful and most wonderful." And he knew enough to not pick fights over what he did not know.
Life Science
Politics
Comments
Unfortunately, and regardless Darwin's own opinion, understanding evolution invalidates the theologic argument of design. This is the theological risk you take when your beliefs are based on lack of evidence. Once evidence is found that disproves an aspect of your belief you find yourself more and more needing faith in vacuo.
The issue is not there is no evidence that disproves god. The issue is that there is just no evidence to suggest god exists.
Posted by: Somite | February 12, 2009 12:29 PM
Well, if Weiss was always an apologist for religion it's a good thing he's off the science section of the paper.
"But he also knew there is plenty of room for God at the top, upstream of the business of biology."
Biology and the rest of the scientific evidence collected since Darwin eliminates the need for a god, much less for one sitting at the top. A god of the gaps argument is not very rigorous.
You haven't put an opinion on this post but I'm assuming you approve of Weiss' argument? Plenty of room for some sort of deity at the top?
Posted by: David Lee | February 12, 2009 1:10 PM
I have to call BS on this. Evolution theory is evidence that the biblical creation story is false. I do know that.
Posted by: Loren | February 12, 2009 1:11 PM
I'm not sure exactly to whom Mr. Weiss is offering advice to. I believe that you'll find that most atheists, the vast majority, do not empirically state that there is no god. Our position is that the likelihood of a god existing (especially a god as depicted in most religious texts) is so vanishingly remote that for all practical purposes we feel quite confident that there probably is no god. Nothing in science can be proven to absolution but that is no reason to create a supernatural explanation to cover up the fact that we don't yet know the answer.
In addition to that, I think you'll find that most atheists would be quite willing to change their position if sufficient evidence were to be brought forth for the existence of a god. I seriously doubt that you'll here a similar claim from the other side.
Darwinian evolution is just one small piece in the vast collection of evidence disproving the existence of god. It is a tremendous piece of work, but taken against the whole, it factors very little in my decision to be an atheist. It seems to me that the ones making the most strident assertions that Darwin == atheism are the theists who feel threatened by the analysis of the natural world that Darwin did and his discovery of a natural explanation for a process that formerly had only been described by supernatural stories.
As far as picking fights over what he did not know, the only ones I see doing that are the theists.
Posted by: CyberLizard | February 12, 2009 3:53 PM
"Atheist literalists"?
What does that even mean?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | February 12, 2009 5:13 PM
"there is plenty of room for God at the top, upstream of the business of biology."
... and the business of chemistry, physics, mathematics, logic, morality, etc etc. The god who makes no difference.
Posted by: Reg Delmot | February 12, 2009 6:13 PM
Most biologists I know say more along the lines that evolutionary theory is not targeted for or against religion, but it does happen to conflict with some religious positions some people have chosen (e.g. creationism). Most working scientists I know (I'm one too) simply aren't interested in "anti-theological" discussions, largely because they are simply not interested in theology either. Nothing negative, just not something that interests them.
"But he also knew there is plenty of room for God at the top, upstream of the business of biology."
I think in writing this, he is going too far in the other direction. Personally, if you are asking for neutrality and fairness, I wouldn't be saying that. I'd stop at saying evolutionary theory is not directed at theological positions or debates and leave it at that.
If people choose to take up a religious position that happens to conflict with something else, whatever it might be, realistically they should accept that's something they have chosen rather than "hitting on" what conflicts with their view. Ditto for the other way around.
BTW, it's not especially important and I know this is a slow-paced blog, but is my post under moderation in the 'On His Birthday, A Call to End Darwin Worship' thread going to be cleared one of these days? (It's been almost a week now!)
Posted by: Heraclides | February 13, 2009 6:11 PM
A wonderful read. Certainly given Darwin's context, it was about the most logical thing he could have done and the metaphor, punting, is wonderfully apt.
Humility is under appreciated in all spheres of knowledge. I kind of wish all scientists (I know some already are) were more like the guys who do Car Talk. They offer hypotheses and ways to test those hypotheses without attachment. You never get the feeling that they're staking their egos on their diagnoses. If they're right all the better, if they're wrong, they did the best with the knowledge they had.
Posted by: Jeremy L | February 15, 2009 4:18 PM
I have posted a long response to this blog column and Rick Weiss's original op-ed at http://www.freeinquiry.com/weiss-nisbet.htm. My response is too long to post as a comment here. I strongly disagree with the argument of both Matt and Rick that Darwin serves as an example of how good atheists should behave. Darwin was different in style and personality from the New Atheists of today, but his beliefs were identical.
Posted by: Steven Schafersman | February 20, 2009 12:02 PM
...Darwin's humility in the face of insufficient evidence -- his willingness to say "I don't know" -- is as important a lesson as any to be found in biology texts today. (...) But he also knew there is plenty of room for God at the top
I thought we were supposed to 'kill Darwin', not revere him as a prophet?
Posted by: windy | February 21, 2009 7:13 AM
One day, Nisbet, you might write something that demonstrates you actually understand the motives and arguments of the new atheists you love to criticize, but it isn't this day.
Posted by: H.H. | February 25, 2009 3:19 PM
This post that you quote so lovingly is complete rubbish. OK, I exaggerate, it's 90% rubbish. Let's look at 3 of the biggest fibs:
Darwin was fully confident there was no Christian God; this is clear. What "people of faith" read into it is usually irrelevant as few actually lift their lazy fingers to read anything that Darwin actually wrote, apart from odd bits of mined quotes.
Now that, is simply untrue. This sort of mendacity is hardly to be praised. Or have I misunderstood, is "framing" a nice word for what I know as "lying"?
While that is true, in this context it is misleading as it suggests that that was the only reason he didn't pick fights. Darwin was deeply loving of his family and reluctant to hurt the feelings of those dear to him in bitter fights, even if he knew himself to be right.
All in all, this is contrarian bollocks.
Posted by: Sam C | February 25, 2009 6:25 PM