Darwinian Evolution: Science or Religion?
A Response to Carolyn Dipboye
By Derrel Watkins, Prof. Of Social Work, Emeritus (Ret.)
Fort Worth, TX
For over thirty years I have taught what I call "applied ethics" in theological seminaries and universities.
I question conspiracy theories, but as a social scientist I recognize that a group think mentality in a particular population may often appear to be a conspiracy. I think that is what has happened in the "Darwinian Evolution vs Intelligent Design" debate.
The article by Carolyn Dipboye, "Intelligent Design: Science or Religion," (Christian Ethics Today, Winter, 2006, 15-16) raises some questions that I feel need some elaboration. While the article contained some very good information and I respect Dr. Dipboye`s scholarly work, I feel the same question could be asked of contemporary scientists, "Darwinian Evolution: Science or Religion?"
It is my opinion that evolution is a fact of life and should be studied by honest scientists from every vantage point. The origins of life, however, must come under the scrutiny of philosophy and theology. The theories of the origin of the universe espoused by secular philosophies of science and biblical theologies alike are based on presuppositions that cannot be proven by science. Therefore, both groups must exercise a good deal of faith in order to embrace their particular beliefs.
Dr. Dipboye states that "Rather than exhibiting a fearful, protectionist mentality that seeks to put a lid on the questions that may be pursued and the answers that may be gained, we should model a faith so secure that it does not merely allow but actually encourages science`s pursuit of the mysteries of the universe." Amen! But, that must work both ways if we are to be honest. At the present time it is not the "Intelligent Design (ID)"scientists who are unwilling to examine with scientific objectivity the pursuit of the mysteries of the universe, it is the scientific community who is unwilling to examine anything that does not comply with religious adherence to their presuppositions.
Recently, the Board of Education in Ohio, in response to strong lobbying efforts by some scientists, banned a unit of study in science classes. The unit dared to recount the history of changes of Darwinian theories and examine the scientific conclusions that have radically changed over the history of the teaching of evolution in public school classrooms. There was no mention of ID or creation science in the unit. The fact that the unit dared examine the claims of Darwinian evolution was assumed to be drawn from ID literature.
I would say that rather than "exhibiting a fearful, pro-tectionist mentality that seeks to put a lid on the questions that may be pursued and the answers that may be gained," scientists should examine the hypothesis of any alternative presuppositions, including creation science and ID, and apply the same test to them that are applied to all scientifically examined phenomenon.
As a social scientist I say it can be done and indeed should be done. Open the belly of the feared "Trojan horse." See what is inside. If your science is what it should be it can readily dismiss any fallacies that may be found.
It seems to me that we are back to an ethical issue: Is the science that refuses to allow units in science classes in public schools to even discuss alternative presuppositions adopting an outdated modernist deontological ethic, or will contemporary science come into the postmodern world and take an honest look at truth claims regardless of origin? An ethic of responsibility would suggest that if it is to be true to its own claims, science must be open to looking for truth from any source.
I would agree with Dr. Dipboye`s conclusions IF middle schools and high schools were allowed to study theology at the same level they study science; if somewhere in their required curriculum they were allowed to examine the claims made by science without being required to accept the atheistic or agnostic assumptions generally presented in science text books.
I do not want religion taught as science, but nei-ther do I want science taught as religion. At the present time evolution is generally taught as a pseudo-religion. Unquestioned adherence to a set of unproven hypothesis has all the earmarks of religion. Scientists admit that they take those presuppositions by faith. For that reason I advocate that middle schools and high schools be allowed to at least recount the unanswered questions and the radically changing foundations of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Since evolution is the dominant scientific hypothesis, I feel it should be taught with integrity to every student, even those in private and church-sponsored schools.
