Every now and then a Darwinist will trot out the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900-1975) , co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian modern synthesis, as an example of how `religion' (or `faith') and evolution are not incompatible.
[Graphic: Theodosius Dobzhansky, Wikipedia]
The latest (thanks to Denyse O'Leary for alerting me of this) is a letter in Nature ("Dogma, not faith, is the barrier to scientific enquiry," Nature, Vol. 443, 7 September 2006, p.26) by a German evolutionary biologist, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Kutschera, who claims that: 1) "famous evolutionists such as Dobzhansky were firm believers in a personal God"; and therefore 2) "Christians and atheists can cooperate to develop scientific theories, as long as religious dogma is not mixed up with facts and experimental data"; which the latter 3. "Unfortunately ... is exactly what young-Earth creationists and intelligent-design theorists are doing":
"In his book The Language of God (Free Press, 2006), [Francis] Collins discusses the ideas of Theodosius Dobzhansky, a darwinist and the main architect of the modern synthetic theory of biological evolution. In a famous article, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" (Am. Biol. Teach. 35, 125-129; 1973), Dobzhansky described his religious beliefs: "It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of Creation." In contrast to modern creationists, Dobzhansky accepted macroevolution and the documented age of Earth. He argued that "the Creator has created the living world not by caprice (supernatural fiat) but by evolution propelled by natural selection". He collaborated for many years with Ernst Mayr, who, when asked about his religious views, replied: "I am an atheist. There is nothing that supports the idea of a personal God. On the other hand, famous evolutionists such as Dobzhansky were firm believers in a personal God. He would work as a scientist all week and then on Sunday get down on his knees and pray to God" (Skeptic 8, 76-82; 2000). In about 1950, Dobzhansky and Mayr founded our modern 'atheistic' evolutionary theory. Their work showed that Christians and atheists can cooperate to develop scientific theories, as long as religious dogma is not mixed up with facts and experimental data. Unfortunately, this is exactly what young-Earth creationists and intelligent-design theorists are doing. They should read the 1973 essay in which Dobzhansky - an open-minded, non-dogmatic theist - thoroughly refuted their irrational claims. "
1) Note that Prof. Kutschera says "famous evolutionists" (plural) and then cites only one who has been dead for over a quarter-century! Where are the current "famous evolutionists" who are "firm believers in a personal God"? The fact is that Larson and Witham surveyed members of the USA National Academy of Sciences and found that over 90 percent were atheist/agnostics, with biologists being "the most skeptical, with 95 percent ... evincing atheism and agnosticism":
"Disbelief [in a personal God] among NAS members responding to our survey exceeded 90 percent. The increase may simply reflect that they are more elite than Leuba's `greater' scientists, but this interpretation would also please Leuba. NAS biologists are the most skeptical, with 95 percent of our respondents evincing atheism and agnosticism." (Larson, E.J. & Witham, L., "Scientists and Religion in America," Scientific American, Vol. 281, No. 3, September 1999, pp.78-83, p.80)
I don't know where Mayr got his idea that "Dobzhansky" was a "firm believer... in a personal God" and that "He would work as a scientist all week and then on Sunday get down on his knees and pray to God." According to Dobzhansky's former student, fellow geneticist (and former Jesuit priest) Francisco Ayala, in what was originally a eulogy following Dobzhansky death, "Dobzhansky was a religious man" as long as one does not count his rejection of "fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death":
"Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity. He was a metaphysical optimist." (Ayala, F.J. & Fitch, W.M., "Genetics and the origin of species: An introduction," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 94, July 1997, pp.7691-7697, p.7693).
As Phillip E. Johnson, responding to one of Stephen Jay Gould's "skilful manipulation of definitions" in his claim that "Dobzhansky" was "the greatest evolutionist of our century and a lifelong Russian Orthodox," pointed out, "Dobzhansky made a religion out of evolution," he "was what we would today call a New Age pantheist" and "Of course evolution is not incompatible with religion when the religion is evolution" (my emphasis):
"The organizations that speak officially for science continue to deny that there is a conflict between Darwinism and `religion.' This denial is another example of the skilful manipulation of definitions, because there are evolution-based religions that embrace naturalism with enthusiasm. Stephen Jay Gould holds up the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky, `the greatest evolutionist of our century and a lifelong Russian Orthodox,' [Gould, S.J., "Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory," Discover, January 1987, pp.64-70, p.65] as proof that evolution and religion are compatible. The example is instructive, because Dobzhansky made a religion out of evolution. According to a eulogy by Francisco Ayala, 'Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind ... He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity.' [Ayala, F.J., "Nothing in biology makes sense except the light of evolution," The Journal of Heredity, Vol. 68, January-February 1977, pp.3, 9] In short, Dobzhansky was what we would today call a New Age pantheist. Of course evolution is not incompatible with religion when the religion is evolution." (Johnson, P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism,," [First Things, October 1990], Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1990, p.11)
Johnson repeated the above on at least two other occasions (Johnson, P.E., "Response to Gould," Origins Research, Access Research Network, Vol. 15, No. 1, Spring/Summer 1993, pp.10-11; and Johnson, P.E., "Darwinism and Theism", in Buell J. & Hearn V., eds., "Darwinism: Science or Philosophy?," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson TX, 1994, pp.43-44) and I know for a fact that he was never contradicted by anyone (including Mayr) with the claim that "Dobzhansky" was a "firm believer... in a personal God" and that "He would ... on Sunday get down on his knees and pray to God."
Indeed, it is evident in some of the very words of Dobzhansky that Prof. Kutschera quotes, "Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of Creation," that for Dobzhansky, "Nature" was "God," which is pantheism. But pantheism is a just another form of atheism in that it denies the existence of a personal God.
2) Prof. Kutschera says that "Christians and atheists can cooperate to develop scientific theories, as long as religious dogma is not mixed up with facts and experimental data (my emphasis)." But if Christianity is true (which it is), then apart from atheism being false, so would the twin philosophical foundations of evolution, Materialism (matter is all there is) and Naturalism (nature is all there is) be false. Then it would be clear that it was science and evolution which were based on "religious dogma," namely that "God had no part in this process":
"Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer, M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis)
Now it is actually possible that both Christianity could be true (which it is) and "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process," if God had pre-programmed ("front-loaded") humans into the Big Bang and left the rest to natural processes. But then that would be something that would have to be established on the basis of the evidence, not just assumed to be so in order to be compatible with then false materialistic-naturalistic philosophy.
3. Prof. Kutschera's "Unfortunately, this is exactly what young-Earth creationists and intelligent-design theorists are doing" assumes that the "facts and experimental data" would never point to God having supernaturally intervened in life's history (otherwise he would be proposing that science should always prefer a materialistic-naturalistic falsehood, to a creationist truth).
But in fact leading former atheist philosopher Antony Flew came to precisely that view (that God had supernaturally intervened in the origin of life), based on the scientific evidence alone (Ostling, R.N., "Atheist Philosopher, 81, Now Believes in God," Livescience, 10 December 2004).
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol)
Genesis 1:9. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.
Posts
