Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.

Donate to Project Reason

Join the Mailing List

Sign up to receive email updates from Project Reason.

Log in

 
not a member? Join here.
Forgot your password?

Twitter and Facebook

Follow Project Reason on Twitter

The Scripture Project

Browse the Bible, Qur’an or Book of Mormon for scriptural criticism, insights and careful annotation.

Most Recently Updated Passages

Christians battle each other over evolution

Amanda Gefter
Posted: May 27, 2009.

Print: NewScientist

The Discovery Institute – the Seattle-based headquarters of the intelligent design movement – has just launched a new website, Faith and Evolution, which asks, can one be a Christian and accept evolution? The answer, as far as the Discovery Institute is concerned, is a resounding: No.

The new website appears to be a response to the recent launch of the BioLogos Foundation, the brainchild of geneticist Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project and rumoured Obama appointee-to-be for head of the National Institutes of Health. Along with “a team of scientists who believe in God” and some cash from the Templeton Foundation, Collins, an evangelical Christian who is also a staunch proponent of evolution, is on a crusade to convince believers that faith and science need not be at odds. He is promoting “theistic evolution” – the belief that God (the prayer-listening, proactive, personal God of Christianity) chose to create life by way of evolution.

It sounds like a nice idea, but to my mind any time you try to reconcile science and religion by rejecting Stephen Jay Gould’s notion of “non-overlapping magisteria” and instead try shoehorning them into a single worldview, something suffers. My concern is that science will take the hit – and Collins’s speculative arguments about divine intervention via quantum uncertainty seem dangerously poised for the punch. The Discovery Institute’s concern, on the other hand, is that Christianity will take the hit. “For Christians,” they write on their website, “mainstream theistic evolution raises challenges to traditional doctrines about God’s providence, the Fall and the detectability of God’s design in nature.” For them, reconciling evolution and religious faith is simply a hopeless endeavour.

I think it’s interesting that the Discovery Institute – which has long argued that intelligent design qualifies as science – seems to have given up the game and acknowledged that their concerns are religious after all. It’s equally interesting that the catalyst doesn’t seem to be someone like Richard Dawkins pushing atheism, but Francis Collins pushing Christianity. Perhaps the Discovery folks realise that Dawkins’s followers are never going to be swayed by intelligent design; Collins, however, might very well cut into their target audience of scientifically-curious evangelicals.

The Discovery Institute has now made it crystal clear that they have no interest in reconciling science and religion – instead, they want their brand of religion to replace science. Which makes it all the more concerning when their new website includes resources and curricula for high-school biology classes, and promotes the pseudoscientific documentary film “Expelled” as part of their campaign to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of “academic freedom”.

Watching the intellectual feud between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos is a bit like watching a race in which both competitors are running full speed in the opposite direction of the finish line. It’s a notable contest, but I don’t see how either is going to come out the winner.

Read the full article | Print this article

Comments (6)

1. Atheos Habilis

“Collins, however, might very well cut into their target audience of scientifically-curious evangelicals.”

Haha sci-curious evangelicals.  Awesome.

posted on May 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hmm I see there are no forums and now way to comment ... What are they afraid of I wonder ? Reason ?

posted on May 28, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I continue to be bothered by the idea that “science” and “religion” are at odds.  It’s been said many times, but what’s really at odds are “reason” and “religion”.  I just saw “Angels & Demons” last night and once again saw Dan Brown’s attempt, like Collins, to find some way for the science/religion religion controversy to be managed.  I wish that the controversy were named more honestly—it is between “reason” and “religion”.  Science seems but a small subset of reason.  We all, evangelical or not, find our way in this world by way of reasoning from our experience and ability to analyze, hypothesize, test, observe, and relate with one another our common observations, conclusions, etc.  This cycle causes the development of consensus about facts and workable theories.  “Science” is only a subset of reason in this regard since it is a formalization of fact gathering and theories based on the scientific method.  I went to Catholic school.  Teachers (priests) were all keen on earnestly using reason to define the principles of the church and using science and the scientific method to discover the workings of the world.  This is true in all major religions, too.  So to find that religious zealots are at odds with reason is, well, not reasonable.  Yet, when reasoning threatens belief systems, only two choices are available: the “reason” must be renounced, or the beliefs must change.  Ultimately in each such case historically, reason is initially renounced and then ultimately the beliefs change.  It takes a long time, but that seems to be what happens.  If only there could be a religion based on reason that was built on pillars that allowed for dynamic change…

posted on May 29, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

In response to Jack
To keep my reply brief I have used the web based ‘Free Dictionary’ for definitions quoted in my reply.
Jack ends with the comment “If only there could be a religion based on reason that was built on pillars that allowed for dynamic change”
“Reason is good judgment; sound sense and in addition:  underlying facts or causes that provide logical sense for a premise or occurrence” therefore, Religion: “Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe” Means that it is unlikely that religion can ever be based on reason?  It seems to me that religion will never be more than human yearning in a society unable to fully develop its ethics based purely on good evidence and reason.

posted on June 1, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I guess Expelled wasn’t really getting it done for them. The point of that film was supposed to be that academia is stifling free debate about an alternative, scientific explanation for biodiversity. We were supposed to feel sorry for all the dazzling scientific minds who were being repressed, mocked and shunned by the cruel journal editors. Oops, looks like those editors were on to something after all. ID really IS about religion, and now even its most powerful proponent admits it.

posted on June 1, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I really dont understant how the faithful cannot belive in something that is fact,and are disputing over it.

posted on June 4, 2009
report this as inappropriate

You don't have permission to flag this entry.