Because most philosophies that frown on reproduction don't survive.

Monday, June 12, 2006

Trying Darwin On Trial

Commenter CMinor asks:

Do you know anything about the book Darwin on Trial? Somebody donated a copy to our parish library (which I am organizing.) I'm trying to decide what to do with it.

Well, it sells for about three bucks used on Amazon, so even if you sold it you'd need seven more dollars plus shipping to buy Cardinal Ratzinger's commentary on Genesis instead...

But if you wanted a snarky response, you would have asked for one. So I'll attempt to address the question in a more helpful vein.

Now, I haven't read Darwin On Trial, partly because I neither expected to be interested by it or to agree with it. (Which I realize is rather close-minded of me and all, but with limited time it happens a lot these days...) So given that I haven't read the book (though I've read a number of shorter articles by Johnson), I shan't make so bold as to speak directly to it's quality, but rather try to cover the topic (about which I do know a bit) and the way one would go about evaluating whether it should be in a parish library.

Darwin On Trail was written in the early 90s by UC Berkley law professor Phillip Johnson. Though without formal training in biology, Johnson turned his skill as a lawyer and debater against the work of prominent secularists and evolutionary biologists to make the case that the available scientific evidence does not in fact support evolutionary theory. Johnson's basic critique (appearing in all his books and articles) is that modern science has an inherent atheistic bias in that it only looks for material causes, not supernatural ones. Thus, he argues, scientists often adopt fanciful explanations which are material in nature (evolution being his primary example) rather than admit the possibility of divine causation.

Now, I think that Johnson is wrong in his assessment of the evidence for biological evolution, and some of his quote mining in articles I've read strikes me as being a sign of either not reading very carefully, or intentionally engaging in selective quoting -- but scientific inaccuracy and rhetorical sloppiness are not necessarily reasons why something should be excluded from a parish library. The more important question is, does the book in any way contradict or lead away from the Catholic faith?

I think there are two theological danger areas to watch out for in a book like this:

1) False Apposition -- As early as the 1860s John Henry Newsman stated that Darwin's theory was not inherently contradictory to the Catholic faith, a judgment supported by Pius XII in Humani Generis and John Paul II in his letter to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. However, opponents of evolution (perhaps because they subscribe to non-Catholic ideas of biblical interpretation, perhaps in an effort to bolster their arguments by exaggerating the evils of the alternative) sometimes state that if evolution is true, there is no room for God as the creator of the universe. Their intent in doing so is to emphasize to the reader of impossible it is to believe that evolution is correct, but considering that the Church has taught that evolution and God's creative agency are not contradictory, I think these kind of statements are a bit dangerous, in that according to Church teaching evolution may be true -- and it is never wise to set up unnecessary stumbling blocks for the believer.

2) Knowledge of God's creation -- Several books and articles I've read by members of the Discovery Institute (of which Phillip Johnson is one of the founding members) say that if God's 'thumbprint' is not clearly visible in the created world, then God is cruel and unjust -- since we are expected to believe in God to attain salvation, and if God "hid" his presence by working only through natural processes, then he would be holding people accountable for not knowing something which he had in turn made it impossible to discern.

This, I think, steps into two danger areas. First, it suggests that God could only have created the universe in a way that looks to us like design. Second, it implicitly limits the evidence for the creation of the universe to those physical aspects of creation which can be successfully studied by science. Both of these suggest significantly narrower criteria for discerning God's creative power than a traditional Catholic understanding.


Though this is at the other end of the educational spectrum, we've been tackling a similar issue lately in that we were thinking of putting in an order for a few kindergarten level books from Seton. They have a phonics book which MrsDarwin thinks Noogs would enjoy, and a bunch of the St. Josephs picture books about saints and sacraments and such. We've been trying to decide if we should also get their Science1 book, which mostly deals with how the human body works (Noogs loves her books on muscles and skeletons at the library) and is illustrated by Ben Hatke, who illustrated the charming Angel in the Waters. On the one hand, there's certainly nothing wrong with talking about how the ear works under the heading of "God's Gift of Hearing". However, since I don't plan on using later Seton science texts (which quickly dive down the creationist rabbit hole in the later grades) I'm a bit concerned that starting off in the younger grades about "God's gift of hearing" and then later talking about biology within an evolutionary framework will create in my daughter's mind the false dichotomy that either the ear was created by God or it is the result of evolution, with the former as the explanation for children and the latter for adults. (Like telling children than babies come from the stork, and adults that they come from sex.) It seems to me that it's always dangerous to create an apparent association between religious beliefs and an over-simplified view of the physical universe, since that runs the risk of the student discarding religion as his knowledge of the universe grows.

6 comments:

John Farrell said...

Well said. Johnson is clueless about evolution. He relies on "facts" provided for him by creationists and the usual "gaps in the fossil record" drones who have never read a real scientific paper on evolutionary biology or spoken with anyone who works in the field.

When I read the book I had to keep checking the copyright, thinking, there's no way this guy could've written this in the early 1990s...he can't be that ignorant...

Alas...

Anonymous said...

"However, since I don't plan on using later Seton science texts (which quickly dive down the creationist rabbit hole in the later grades) I'm a bit concerned that starting off in the younger grades about "God's gift of hearing" and then later talking about biology within an evolutionary framework will create in my daughter's mind the false dichotomy that either the ear was created by God or it is the result of evolution, with the former as the explanation for children and the latter for adults."

I'm not sure this would really be a problem. Growing up in the Darwin household, mightn't Noogs come to the conclusion that hearing is a gift from God AND that evolution was the process that brought it about?

Of course, one would have to actually see the book to ascertain whether or not it would fit into your family's mindset.

Darwin said...

I'm not sure this would really be a problem. Growing up in the Darwin household, mightn't Noogs come to the conclusion that hearing is a gift from God AND that evolution was the process that brought it about?

Well, yes. That's definately the goal. I suppose the thing is that, knowing myself that Seton's science texts have a very heavily creationist bent to them, I have a hard time setting that aside in order to see whether this particular book is acceptible to me.

I suppose it's much the same (though not on as important a topic) as the anxiety a Catholic parent might feel over buying a bible story book printed by a Protestant publisher. The chances that anything theologically objectionable would be in something for a such a young age group are pretty small -- and even if they were you'll have much greater sway over your child than ny one book will. And yet you worry...

Fidei Defensor said...

darwin, i got to a computer with internet but I don't have a lot of time, let me know if you ever got the WWII rifles out to the range

CMinor said...

Wow--a whole post is more than I expected!
Thanks for the thoughtful response; I'll print it out for reference. I've only read a little way into the book myself; my inclination was to leave it in as long as there was nothing downright heretical. Still, there seems to be enough confusion among the laity as to what the Church says about evolution that I'm not sure we want to create the impression that it contains Church teaching.
One thing in Johnson I've found hard to argue with is the extent to which many scientists who are atheists employ the Theory to 'disprove' God just as the creationists try to 'prove' Him. I find the lack of scientific spirit in this as annoying as the atheism. The stretching of the Theory to cover things it was never meant to cover (such as 'Social Darwinism' which Darwin himself would have vehemently opposed) is also a concern. But in my experience, the biggest problem with Darwin's theory generally is the amount of sheer ignorance of what it actually states on both sides of the question. I don't see this improving as long as both sides are trying to turn it into a referendum on the existence of God.

Don't know if I can be of any help re the science curriculum. I read the Seton lady's homeschool handbook once and she came off as so darn strident I was never tempted to try the curriculum. For early primary we stuck to easy-read science books available in most libraries, or cheap from Scholastic. Usborne or Dorling-Kindersley have good illustrated science materials at various levels, if you like the format.

Again, thanx for the input!

Anonymous said...

Hey Cat-
I'll be on the look-out for those kinds of conversations! Yikes! :) Actually, I could care less about talking about the details...I guess it's more about having that in common and being able to have other moms relate to that b/c I can't relate to or understand birth control and the mentality that goes along with it! Have a great day!

So, you guys are in Austin? My bro is in Austin, too!

Bridget