Since Charles Darwin first published his now-famous work, The Origin of Species, the delicate balance between religion and science has suffered from a tension that does not need to exist. Darwin's studies revealed new scientific information, to be sure, but they did not necessarily eliminate God from the equation. This is the viewpoint of Phil Dowe, an associate professor of philosophy at Queensland University in Australia. In his book, Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion, he takes the position that harmonious interaction between the areas of science and religion can and does exist. One of the topics he uses to prove his case is the epic battle between the story of Creation on the side of religion and Darwin's Theory of Evolution that is the heart of modern science.
Dowe begins by explaining the debate between creation and evolution. He cautions the reader to place each argument in its historical context and to recognize the difficulties of defending one's own position before beginning to examine the evidence. He follows with an overview of the two different ways to explain an object. To look at something teleologically is to define its intrinsic purpose, answering the question "What is it for?" To explain an object in a mechanical sense is to discuss its mass, position, velocity and force. Science often tends to look at things in a mechanical sense whereas religion is more partial to teleological thinking. He moves gracefully into a discussion of William Paley's "design argument." A watch is complex enough that it could not have just formed in nature; someone had to have designed and created it. In the same way, certain organs, such as the human eye, are so complex that it is not probable that they formed on their own. There must have been a Designer, a Creator. After spending some time with Paley, Dowe moves into the much-awaited conversation regarding Charles Darwin. He explains Darwin's ideas about the evolution of different species in a simple, easy-to-understand manner and enlightens the reader as to why so many scientists accept this theory. Dowe criticizes several aspects of both Darwin's theory and the method used to justify it, and he brings in Asa Gray, a man who believed that evolution was most likely initiated by God, as an example of someone with confidence in a relationship of harmony between science and religion.
This writer strongly agrees with Dowe that science and religion can co-exist peacefully and work together to solve the world's problems. The topics chosen for discussion in Dowe's book all show great relevance to the overall theme, but this writer saw a particular strength in the conversation about evolution. For starters, Dowe's style of attacking arguments is strategically brilliant. He observes the reasoning used in the argument that science and religion are at odds, then counters with more strong, pure logic that provides evidence that this idea is false. In particular, this writer believes that using the argument of William Paley was genius, especially when placed BEFORE the examination of Darwin's ideas. The reader still has the notion of complex objects needing a designer in the back of their mind while reading about Darwin's analysis of the complexity of life. A subconscious connection between evolution and a creator is made in the mind before it is made in the pages of the book.
Another strength in Dowe's argument is his ability to discredit the reason that scientists accept evolution. Dowe criticizes the method of "inference to the best explanation" that Darwinists use to justify their belief evolution and the supremacy of science. This method claims that the hypothesis which is the most probable should be accepted as true. But Dowe claims that inference to the best explanation is not as firmly supported by evidence as other methods such as enumerative induction (inducing a principle from data) or they hypothetico-deductive method (the basic scientific method). There is always the chance that the less likely hypothesis is actually the truth. Scientists cannot honestly claim they know everything about the universe, and it is ridiculous to accept a theory as fact without the proof necessary for its acceptance.
This writer would also like to point out a few of the weaknesses of Dowe's argument. The first of these is the fact that this writer believes that more time should have been spent discrediting Darwin's theory. If readers could see that they had been led astray by science where evolution was concerned, they would be more likely to accept the possibility of a higher power, an Intelligent Designer that put the earth's processes in motion. In Lee Strobel's bestselling work, The Case for a Creator, Strobel recorded an interview with Jonathan Wells, PhD, PhD, in which he systematically points out the flaws in the four major icons of evolution (1). This writer would have liked to have seen a similar argument somewhere in Dowe's discussion of evolution. Another of the weaknesses of Dowe's argument is that it causes the reader to ask: "So what?" So what if there is a harmonious relationship between science and religion? What will that change in one's everyday life? Most people will not be greatly impacted by the idea that much of what they believe about evolution is wrong. The bigger issue is that there is something more. This writer did not see quite enough of God in this argument, and nothing specific enough to get people on the right path if they are curious.
For now, science and religion are at war in the mind of the average person. Strobel asks if there is a "fundamentally different way to view the relationship between the spiritual and the scientific" (Strobel 27). It is obvious that Dowe's answer would be yes. And for the record, this writer happens to concur.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a
Creator : A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004.
Leave a comment