Biologist meets theologian:
Does Darwin threaten God?
Fewer and fewer people believe in Charles Darwin's theory that every species has arisen through gradual evolution. This is an unhealthy sign in society which researchers must take very seriously, according to two of Norway's highest-profile experts, theologian Inge Lønning and biologist Nils Christian Stenseth.
200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin.
The year 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth and 150 years since the publication of his landmark book on the preservation of species by natural selection. Darwin's theory of evolution has so monumentally influenced how we as humans view ourselves and our place in nature that researchers consider On the Origin of Species to be the most important scientific book of all time.
No other researcher of the past 15 decades has created as much controversy as Darwin. When he presented his theory, many perceived it as a frontal assault on religion - and many still feel this way today.
Darwin's theory seemed to render faith in a Creator unnecessary. This was, and remains, an extremely unsettling thought for many. One in three Americans reject outright the theory of evolution, and half of Britons have doubts about Darwin, according to a study conducted at Michigan State University in 2006.
Fewer Norwegian sceptics
Norway has fewer sceptics. Questionnaires indicate that one in ten Norwegians, men and women alike, does not believe that life has developed gradually through evolution.
In honour of the Darwin anniversary, Forskning magazine hosted a discussion between theologian, politician and former university rector Inge Lønning and biologist Nils Christian Stenseth, who currently heads the Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES) in Oslo, one of 21 Norwegian Centres of Excellence.
Does Darwin threaten God? Open dialogue on evolution between theologian Inge Lønning and biologist Nils Christian Stenseth. (Photo: Andreas B. Johansen)
Forskning Magazine: Does the theory of evolution preclude belief in a Creator
Lønning: Personally, I have never been able to see any contradiction between the theory of evolution and belief in a God. It's a different matter, of course, if one considers "God" a necessary explanatory hypothesis for solving all the mysteries of the world. But in my view, the reason for believing in God has never been to have some kind of supporting hypothesis to assign order to reality. That would be a typically rationalistic approach which is, in my view, at odds with the spiritual.
"I do not know how evolutionary biologists can use the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God," says Nils Christian Stenseth. (Photo: Andreas B. Johansen)
Stenseth: I am not a Christian. I do not believe in the existence of God. But I also do not understand how evolutionary biologists can use the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God. God is not a rational explanation; science is a rational explanation. Therefore I feel it is completely wrong when evolutionary biologists invoke Darwin's theory of evolution as proof of God's non-existence. The only thing that biology can say here is that we don't need to refer to God to explain biological diversity.
Forskning magazine: Tremendous advances in genetics have revealed, for instance, that human genes are extremely similar to those of the chimpanzee. Yet the proportion of people worldwide who reject the theory of evolution is growing. In 1985, 45 per cent of adults in the USA accepted the theory. But in 2005 the proportion was down to 40 per cent. What is happening?
Stenseth: It's true that empirical data show more and more people saying they are sceptical to the idea of evolution. I believe this has to do with attitudes toward science. Today there are so many alternative paths. Religious, somewhat mystical things are used as a replacement for the rational approach that science represents. What concerns me most is not the creationists who completely deny that evolution ever occurred. I'm actually more disturbed about all those who have thought so little about these questions and simply choose a side randomly, without basing their choice on knowledge.
Lønning: "I feel that this age is some kind of reaction to the Enlightenment." (Photo: Andreas B. Johansen)
Lønning: It is often said that we live in enlightened times. But that is only true with some major caveats. I feel that this age is more a reaction to the Enlightenment. There has been a "recoil effect" that I believe relates to advocates of science having overdrawn their account. At the beginning of the last century, the western world was enormously optimistic about progress. We had left the dark ages behind us and were entering a new era where anything could be solved through reason and science. We believed we were through with primitive urges such as war, destruction and religious and political deception. Then, in two world wars, we witnessed the old primitivism being multiplied by a hundred. This made many people sceptical about the entire notion of the Enlightenment. Science proved to be a double-edged sword at best. It carried with it not only wondrous new inventions, but destruction as well. The atomic bomb came to symbolise a psychological watershed. It marks the rise of ambiguity towards so-called progress.
Stenseth: The dwindling belief in and acceptance of the occurrence of evolution are also due to the fragmentation of science - and our lack of ability and will to convey what science can achieve. Lønning publishes in his journals, I in mine. And we don't read each other's articles. We must get better at sharing our work with other researchers and the general public. This is what creationists are very good at. While we researchers sit silently and think, "Sure, but the creationists are wrong; we learned that back in school." That's not enough! We need to stand up and explain what science actually says about the world we live in.
Forskning magazine: But why is it really so important whether people believe in one or the other, creationism or the theory of evolution? Or take no stand at all?
Lønning: It has a great impact on the fabric of society. If the concepts of "society" and "member of society" are to mean anything, a modicum of shared thoughts and approaches to reality is prerequisite. At the same time, different and opposing opinions must be allowed to fight it out. That's a precondition for a democratic society; if that does not happen, it's a sign of illness. It also weakens social protection against prejudice and superstition, or what we might call negative ideology.
Stenseth: Of course it is important what people believe in. I fear that these "New Age" trends we are seeing today may prove extremely dangerous. Trends like this support irrationality at the cost of rationality.
Evolution in the schools
Forskning magazine: In the USA it is controversial to teach the theory of evolution in schools. Could it come to this in Norway?
Stenseth: No, I don't believe it could. But we could easily reach the point where pupils go through their education and interpret a statement such as "an evolution has occurred" as mere speculation. That would be regrettable, and I believe it's an indication that the standing of modern science is deteriorating, even at schools. We must not ignore the anti-evolution movements in the USA, because they will always plant a seed of doubt about science. So it's important that we are all on the lookout.
Lønning: I don't believe either that this will be a problem in Norway. What worries me more is that we could be entering a climate of all-encompassing relativism, of "anything goes". Where people think, "Darwin is fine, other views are fine too," but no knowledge set is seen as being completely and fully valid.
Forskning magazine: How would you say Darwin's thoughts and theory of natural selection have influenced humanity's perception of itself, its role and the natural world?
Stenseth: The theory of natural selection explains a great deal around us, but certainly not everything. It does not explain definitively how our behaviour is determined. Clearly there are biological components involved, but our biological components interact with the world we live in and with other people. We are not unique as a species, although we possess a larger brain than other species and have an incomparable cultural apparatus. We are a special species, but we are part of nature as well.
Lønning: The reactions and fear that Darwin has spurred must also be viewed from a cultural-historical perspective. The emergence of modernity and technology has increasingly put us in a position to control the natural world. This has fostered the delusion that humanity itself is separate from nature, a delusion that magnifies just one aspect of human comprehension to the absurd. We exalt ourselves to the level of Creator, as if we had constructed reality itself. This is where I feel the theologian should see Darwin as an ally, since he made a good point. Humankind is woven into nature, and does not stand above it or outside it. I'm convinced that in the end Darwin will be proven right: the same natural order applies to Homo sapiens as it does to every other species. If we are not willing to adapt to the conditions nature sets for us, then things will go wrong.
Understanding and explaining
Forskning magazine: Do you feel, Professor Stenseth, that science is sufficient for understanding everything?
Stenseth: The notion that we should be able to understand absolutely everything from the perspective of evolutionary biology is unscientific and a dead end. We understand a great deal. But the fact that there is much we do not understand inspires me enormously to continue working in research. That's the driving force.
Lønning: If a scientist starts off with the goal of explaining everything, he is doomed to lose his way - or to become an ideologue. What makes us specifically human is that we have developed a consciousness that creates a need in us to interpret this consciousness and place it in a larger context. If you were to put every scientist's findings on the table at once, you would still not get a profound answer as to who you really are.
Stenseth: Let me mention here at the end that what we refer to as Darwin's evolutionary biology has changed enormously over these 150 years. Darwin was wrong in some important areas; he didn't understand genetics, for one thing. Still, the arguments against him are the same ones he heard when he first presented his theory, almost unchanged. I believe Darwin would chuckle in recognition if he could hear them today. At the same time, he would be delighted with the advancements made in evolutionary biology.
- Published:
- 04.03.2009
- Last updated:
- 04.03.2009
