mtcodex

Evolution and Fundamentalism

• home
• work
• about
• journal
• contact

Evolution and Fundamentalism Wednesday evening, 6 September 2006

It’s well known that ignorant ‘fundies’ such as myself don’t accept the theory of macro (atoms to man) evolution. However, that is because when one says fundamentalist that is usually taken to mean a Christian fundamentalist (and sometimes Muslims inclined to terrorism).

The core of fundamental teaching is a firm belief and defense of the fundamentals. To christianity this means the Bible as Gods revealed word. It means the veracity of the Bible, including the account of creation.

Leaving aside the negative connotations of the word, the outworking of the fundamental mindset is that all of lifes particulars and details are given meaning by the anchor of an absolute – God’s revelation. In terms of thinking, this is beneficial in that it gives a frame of reference, a coherency to ones outlook on life.

This is also seen as being narrow-minded, arrogant and simplistic.

However, I would like to point out that those that avidly defend the theory of evolution do so primarily for the same reasons. Evolution is the fundamental presupposition that provides terms of reference for understanding everything else. That is why what started with biology (Darwinism) is now the building block of cosmology (big-bang, red shift etc), psychology (genetic determination, Freudian therapy, etc), philosophy (rationalism, naturalism, etc), sociology (memes, inclusive fitness, etc), epistomology (logical positivism, metaphysical naturalism, etc) and so on. All of these ideas, most to a greater extent, rest upon the theory of evolution as the explanation of our existence.

I used to think that many those that hold evolution dear, did so because it meant escape from God. I still think that is true to some extent, however at the mental level I think the reason is because to reject it would destroy all the meaning in their life. They would literally, be barely able to think, one would have to relearn everything- a daunting prospect. This may be why only the disillusioned switch camps. if the outworking of one’s belief doesn’t give enough joy to life there’s less reason to stick to the belief.

With that in mind I thin it is reasonable to say that many proponents of evolution are in fact fundamentalists. They dogmatically defend biological evolution, just as the fundamentalist Christian defends the Bible.

This is borne out time and time again, compare this quote from J. Robert Oppenheimer (who was not a Christian) to what’s going on today.

“There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any asssertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.”

Two recent quotes coming out of academia regarding the sanctity of evolution:

Dr Richard Pike, of the Royal Society of Chemistry, was quoted in the Guardian newspaper in April-

“Above all, we should no longer talk of the theory of evolution as though it is ‘just an idea’. So well-established is it, that it now warrants the designation of an immutable scientific law, and should be taught as such. It is on this basis that further dialogue should begin”

A statement published by the Interacademy Panel on International Issues is really ironic. It opens thus-

“We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories [creationism and intelligent design] not testable by science.”

It also ends most intrestingly-

“Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.

While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.”

I find the latter an amazing statement to make given the current trend to explain everything in terms of our evolutionary origins. I would endorse the last bit myself. However, I believe the pressure to ban creationism in schools, as well as social solutions based on evolutionary fundamentalism (Francis Crick and Aldous Huxley fans, i’m looking at you) are indicators that those societies which endorsed this statement don’t really believe that anything is outside of natural science’s scope.

 

Comments