Introductory note: challenges and criticisms are welcome. Rude, vulgar or hostile responses will be thrown out with the garbage.
I recently came across previews for Ben Stein’s documentary, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.” The premise of the documentary is that there is a systematic effort on the part of the scientific community to suppress any dissent to the prevailing theory of evolution, or “neo-Darwinism” as it is referred to. Its aim, or at least its primary stated aim, is to promote academic and intellectual freedom.
To me, the project initially looked promising – more academic freedom is always a good thing in my view. As a Catholic and a supporter of the theory of evolution – moreover, as one who was able to reconcile these views after years of struggle – I welcomed the prospect of the door being opened to the possibility of scientifically discussing the role of “intelligence” in the development of life.
As I investigated the blog site that promotes the release of the move in April, however, it became clear that, while Ben Stein can sound reasonable in an interview, this project is ultimately rooted in what thus far looks to be “soft” right-wing ideology. Of course this unfortunate discovery in no way invalidates the demand for greater academic freedom, for the ability to express ideas in an academic setting without fear of ridicule, censorship, a ruined career or in some cases, physical violence. For those who see double-standards implied in every position, I would defend Ward Churchill’s right to speak as much as I would Stein’s or anyone else’s.
Now is not the time to track the development of fundamentalism or the “Religious Right”; but it must be said that Biblical fundamentalism alone is not necessarily the motivation behind the “attacks on science”. There are deeper ideological problems which largely go unaddressed by the atheist crusaders, and by defenders of the theory of evolution in general. In a knee-jerk way that parrots the behavior of their foes, they have not sought to patiently explain, but rather to become just as aggressive, and now field their own highly visible and obnoxious contingent on the battlefields of the Culture War.
It may be argued that one good turn deserves another, and in the battle for Truth and Right and Good, no punches can afford to be pulled. Partisans on each side consider that they have a duty to their doctrines. In such a struggle the ends naturally justify the means, and no lie is too bold or audacious to repeat over and again until it gains an air of truth, and finally becomes truth to all who hear it. Those who aren’t conscious liars are at any rate doing all they can to avoid the displeasures of cognitive dissonance; they know that the further they stray outside of a carefully-defined paradigm of facts and methods, the closer they come to having their subjective, ideological pretensions undermined and possibly debunked.
Because they lack the critical thinking skills, or the necessary intellectual optimism, to attempt to synthesize apparently conflicting views (or at least build bridges between them), they say that the gap is unbridgeable without having ever taken a serious look at the possibilities afforded by the terrain.
At the end of the day it appears to me as if the EXPELLED project, even in spite of what I think are its flaws, errors, and downright silly pretensions, still has a valid point to make. If the Catholic Church 500 years ago was the status quo and the Galileos were the rebels, today the situation, in the minds of a significant section of the public, has been reversed. The modern scientific establishment, dubbed “Big Science” by the EXPELLED group, occupies an analogous position to the Church, and today’s creationists, in spirit if not in method, the position of the dissenting Galileo. Again I reiterate that this is how a large chunk the public sees it; I don’t buy into the popular Galileo narrative, most of which is based on some ridiculous play written long after the affair.
What is at the heart of the fear of the average fundamentalist or “evangelical” Christian with respect to evolution? Part of it is that inability to synthesize, out of intellectual limitations or rigid pessimism, which I might add is more shamefully shared by a growing number of atheists and horribly misnamed “free thinkers”.
Much of the objection in my experience to the theory of evolution is that it threatens to render life meaningless. Not just personal lives, not just personal relationships with Christ, but life in general, in the larger, existential sense. Ironically it does not seem to me that evolutionary biologists have ever accounted for the development, in humanity, of a need to search for meaning and embrace it when we believe we have found it. What role “meaning” could play in the survival of the species at a physical, material level is beyond me. Is it that any being capable of self-awareness and abstract thought will necessarily consider meaning? It seems rather that meaning was all around primitive and ancient man, practically taken for granted, and it was only with the advent of modern atheism (itself a product of man’s unexpected separation from nature) that it began to dawn on humanity how important meaning is.
Of course there are those who will state that those who “need” meaning are weak, in need of a crutch, incapable of dealing with harsh reality. They should strive to be satisfied with what science allegedly reveals – that there is no meaning but what we make. Life is, or can be, a party, so why not embrace what it has to offer? Have promiscuous sex. We have condoms and birth control pills for you, abortion if those don’t work. Eat fatty foods, we have by-pass surgery. Submit to a degrading, unfulfilling job or career – we have many drugs, from entertainment to consumer goods to actual pills and shots that can get you through it. The list could go on for some time.
Under these conditions, for those who absolutely reject this empty hedonistic perspective, religion is more appealing than it ever was in medieval times. And in our American society, it is highly individualistic; it takes its cues from American libertarianism and the legacy of English Puritanism. Unlike in
It is no surprise then that a highly personal religion would be vigorously defended against perceived threats to it. And at this juncture the greatest threat is perceived not to come from the degenerate “culture industry” or even the rival religions such as Islam, but from the march of “Big Science” and the regime of secularism it seeks to impose upon society.
The revolt against “Big Science”, I believe, is not necessarily some sort of revolt against the scientific method, empirical investigation, logical analysis, or rational thought. It is a revolt against arrogance and prejudice, against established orthodoxy and dogma. It is a revolt against “secularism”, against the materialism and hedonism which are rightly perceived to be at the root of personal and social malaise. Above all it is an expression of what seems to be a timeless human characteristic to question authority, no matter what that authority claims to base itself upon.
The creators of EXPELLED sense this and have marketed accordingly, portraying themselves as the heralds of a new rebel counter-culture. Along with other Christian youth movements such as "Battle Cry" they believe they have turned the tables on yesterday's radicals who are now today's academic establishment. "Every generation needs a rebel" says the EXPELLED website.
Wrapping up.
Ben Stein made an important point that I agree with; a theory that rests solidly upon fact and logic need not fear questions and challenges. As a supporter of the theory of evolution, I believe it can successfully withstand the criticisms of Creation Scientists and others who insist that the actual mechanics are somehow flawed or contradicted by other appearances of the facts. Evolutionary theory has nothing to fear. The real fear comes from ideological quarters, who believe that those who question evolution do so as part of a bolder and broader strategy to a) discredit science in general and b) impose a theocracy, setting back the “progress” of history and launching us back into a new Dark Age.
These claims are only partially grounded in an accurate understanding of reality. There will always be ideologues who want exactly those things, although it must be said that when even the most extreme positions on this side of the divide label themselves “scientific”, clearly it isn’t some sort of abstract hatred of science that motivates them. Their conception of science is incorrect, but that doesn’t mean they hate it. They instinctively realize that no theory today can have any credibility if it is not scientific, or thought to be scientific.
I will end on this note: successful challenges to materialism and hedonism, as well as successful defenses of the Christian faith, do not need to undermine science. The developments in physics and neuroscience are far more compelling and relevant to our cause than the controversy over Darwinian evolution, which has absolutely no account for the origins of life, the origins of the universe, the substance of the universe, or the existence of consciousness. “Darwinism” properly understood as a theory which explains the diversity we see in nature and how it has changed over time poses no threat to a spiritual worldview.
Likewise, atheists and secularists do not need to trample religion underfoot to build a rational and humane society. They will, however, need to recognize that some of their ideals and values will never be shared by the vast majority of the human race, not because of some mythical lack of intelligence, but because most of us are, I believe, hard-wired to seek out and embrace meaning where we can find it.
