1. A general resistance to science. If you imagine that you have to “believe in” a scientific theory, a conflict arises between science and religion, in which you are forced to choose one over the other. In particular, if scientific discoveries do not appear to support religious tenets, the religious tend to opt for religion, while the secular tend to opt for science.
2. Belief that evolution is a threat to specific religious tenets. Occasionally, rather than choosing religion over science, religious believers attempt to use science to prove religious tenets, or to mold scientific findings to fit religious beliefs. For example, the effort to prove that the Genesis creation story is accurately reflected in the geological fossil record has led many creationists to conclude that the earth was created within the past 10,000 years. This is in sharp contrast to the geological evidence for a 4.6-billion-year-old Earth. If one insists on the findings of science squaring true with religious doctrines, this can lead to conflict between science and religion.
3. The fear that evolution degrades our humanity. After Copernicus toppled the pedestal of our cosmic centrality, Darwin delivered the coup de grâce by revealing us to be “mere” animals, subject to the same natural laws and historical forces as all other animals.
4. The equation of evolution with ethical nihilism and moral degeneration. Decrying the inevitable dark hole of existence that comes from a “life without meaning” has become a potent tool of social persuasion—what “meaning” means, precisely, being left to whoever is leading the lament. The neoconservative social commentator Irving Kristol expressed the sentiment tidily in 1991: “If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded—or even if it suspects—that its members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe.”10 Similar fears were raised by Nancy Pearcey, a fellow of the Intelligent Design hothouse the Discovery Institute, in a briefing before the House Judiciary Committee of the U.S. Congress. Pearcey cited a popular song urging “you and me, baby, ain’t nothing but mammals so let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel” and went on to claim that since the American legal system is based on moral principles, the only way to generate ultimate moral grounding—and, apparently, change the Billboard Top 40—is for the law to have an “unjudged judge,” an “uncreated creator.”11 God and mammon in the halls of Congress.
5. The fear that evolutionary theory implies we have a fixed human nature. The first four reasons for the resistance to evolutionary theory come almost exclusively from the political right. This last reason originates from the political left, from liberals who fear that the application of evolutionary theory to human thought and action implies that political policy and economic doctrines will fail because the constitution of humanity is stronger than the constitutions of states. (This is what I call “liberal creationism,” the doppelganger of conservative creationism.)12
These fears say nothing about the evidence for evolution, and they do no more than conjecture about the effects of accepting evolution on human psychology and behavior. There will always be some—True Believers—who, like Bryan, will not be able to set aside their biggest fear: that accepting a scientific view of the natural world will challenge their faith in God.
But if one is a theist, it should not matter when God made the universe—ten thousand years ago or ten billion years ago. The difference of six zeros is meaningless to an omniscient and omnipotent being, and the glory of divine creation cries out for praise regardless of when it happened. Likewise, it should not matter how God created life—whether it was through a miraculous spoken word or through the natural forces of the universe that He created. The grandeur of God’s works command awe regardless of what processes He used. We have learned a lot in four thousand years, and that knowledge should never be dreaded or denied. Theists and theologians should embrace science, especially evolutionary theory, for what it has done to reveal the magnificence of the divinity in a depth never dreamed by our ancient ancestors.
The Greater Threat
There is, however, a greater threat to the theory of evolution today: not from those who resist evolution, but from those who misunderstand it. Most people know very little about evolution, and this makes it easier for the people who do not accept evolution to encourage others to question the theory, even to the point of denial.13 In a 2001 Gallup poll, for example, a quarter of the people surveyed said they didn’t know enough to say whether they accepted evolution or not, and only 34 percent considered themselves to be “very informed” about it. Because evolution is so controversial, public school science teachers typically drop the subject entirely rather than face the discomfort aroused among students and parents. What is not taught is not learned.14
The modern Intelligent Design movement has seized on this misunderstanding, from their claim that evolution is “only a theory” to their narrowing of the scientific method to experiments in a laboratory to their insistence that any appearance of order in the natural world proves both design and the existence of a supernatural designer. It is this last argument that is especially appealing to those who are unsure about what exactly evolution means: What is so wrong with teaching that there is an intelligent design to life? Is there something wrong with wanting to see an Intelligent Designer in the universe?
IN SEARCH OF THE DESIGNER
Man has been here 32,000 years. That it took a hundred million years to prepare the world for him is proof that that is what it was done for. I suppose it is. I dunno. If the Eiffel tower were now representing the world’s age, the skin of paint on the pinnacle-knob at its summit would represent man’s share of that age; and anybody would perceive that that skin was what the tower was built for. I reckon they would, I dunno.
—Mark Twain, “Was the World Made for Man?” 1903
Why do you believe in God?
I have been asking people this question for most of my adult life. In 1998, Frank Sulloway and I presented the query in a more official format—along with the question “Why do you think other people believe in God?”—in a survey given to ten thousand Americans. Just a few of the answers we received:
A 22-year-old male law student with moderate religious convictions (a self-rated five on a nine-point scale), who was raised by very religious parents and who today calls himself a deist, writes, “I believe in a creator because there seems to be no other possible explanation for the existence of the universe,” yet other “people believe in God to give their lives purpose and meaning.”
A 43-year-old female physician with a self-rated three on the nine-point scale of religious conviction says she believes in God because “I experience peace and serenity in myself and my life. It is always there when I choose to allow the experience of it. This is proof to me of divine intelligence, a Higher Power, the Oneness of all,” yet “I think most people believe in God because they are taught to. It is, in fact, a belief rather than a direct experience for them.”
A 43-year-old male computer scientist and Catholic with very strong religious convictions (a nine on the nine-point scale) “had a personal conversion experience, where I had direct contact with God. This conversion experience, and ongoing contacts in prayer, form the only basis for my faith.” Other people believe in God, however, “because of (a) their upbringing, (b) the comfort of the church, and (c) a hope for this contact.”
A 36-year-old male journalist and evangelical Christian with a self-rated eight in religious conviction writes: “I believe in God because to me there is ample evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer of the universe.” Yet, “others accept God out of a purely emotional need for comfort throughout their life and use little of their intellectual capacity to examine the faith to which they adhere.”
A 40-year-old female Catholic nurse with very strong religious convictions (a nine on the nine-point scale) says that “I believe in God because of the example of my spiritual teacher who believes in God and has unconditional love for people and gives so completely of himself for the g
ood of others. And since I have followed this path, I now treat others so much better.” On the other hand, she writes that “I think people initially believe in God because of their parents and unless they start on their own path—where they put a lot of effort into their spiritual part of their life—they continue to believe out of fear.”
Searching for Answers
When Sulloway and I noticed the difference between why people believe in God and why they think other people believe in God, we decided to undertake an extensive analysis of all the written answers people provided in our survey. In addition, we inquired about family demographics, religious background, personality characteristics, and other factors that contribute to religious belief and skepticism. We discovered that the seven strongest predictors of belief in God are:
1. being raised in a religious manner
2. parents’ religiosity
3. lower levels of education
4. being female
5. a large family
6. lack of conflict with parents
7. being younger
In sum, being female and raised by religious parents in a large family appears to make one more religious, whereas being male, educated, in conflict with one’s parents, and older appears to make one less religious.1 As people become older and more educated, they encounter other belief systems that lead them to see the connection between various personal and social influences and religious beliefs. This helps explain the differences we observed in reasons people give for their own beliefs versus the reasons they attribute to other people’s beliefs.
From the responses we received in a preliminary survey, we created a taxonomy of eleven categories of reasons people give for their own and others’ beliefs. The five most common answers given to the question Why do you believe in God?:
1. The good design / natural beauty / perfection / complexity of the world or universe (28.6%)
2. The experience of God in everyday life (20.6%)
3. Belief in God is comforting, relieving, consoling, and gives meaning and purpose to life (10.3%)
4. The Bible says so (9.8%)
5. Just because / faith / the need to believe in something (8.2%)
And the six most common answers given to the question Why do you think other people believe in God?:
1. Belief in God is comforting, relieving, consoling, and gives meaning and purpose to life (26.3%)
2. Religious people have been raised to believe in God (22.4%)
3. The experience of God in everyday life (16.2%)
4. Just because / faith / the need to believe in something (13.0%)
5. Fear death and the unknown (9.1%)
6. The good design / natural beauty / perfection / complexity of the world or universe (6.0%)
Notice that the intellectually based reasons offered for belief in God—“the good design of the universe” and “the experience of God in everyday life”—which occupied first and second place when people were describing their own beliefs dropped to sixth and third place, respectively, when they were describing the beliefs of others. Indeed, when reflecting on others’ beliefs, the two most common reasons cited were emotion-based (and fear-averse!): personal comfort (“comforting, relieving, consoling”) and social comfort (“raised to believe”).
Sulloway and I believe that these results are evidence of an intellectual attribution bias, in which people consider their own beliefs as being rationally motivated, whereas they see the beliefs of others as being emotionally driven. By analogy, one’s commitment to a political belief is generally attributed to a rational decision (“I am for gun control because statistics show that crime decreases when gun ownership decreases”), whereas another person’s opinion on the same subject is attributed to need or emotional reasons (“he is for gun control because he is a bleeding-heart liberal who needs to identify with the victim”). This intellectual attribution bias appears to be equal opportunity on the subject of God. The apparent good design of the universe, and the perceived action of a higher intelligence in daily activities, are powerful intellectual justifications for belief. But we readily attribute other people’s belief in God to their emotional needs and how they were raised.
Designed to Find Design?
The intellectual attribution bias may be the result of evolution. Perceiving the world as well designed and thus the product of a designer, and even seeing divine providence in the daily affairs of life, may be the product of a brain adapted to finding patterns in nature. We are pattern-seeking as well as pattern-finding animals. One of numerous studies that supports this supposition was an experiment conducted by Stuart Vyse and Ruth Heltzer in which subjects participated in a video game. The goal of the game was to navigate the path of a cursor through a matrix grid using directional keys. One group of subjects were awarded points when they successfully found a way through the grid’s lower right portion, while a second group of subjects were awarded points randomly. Both groups were subsequently asked to describe how they thought the points were awarded. Most of the subjects in the first group found the pattern of point scoring and accurately described it. Similarly, most of the subjects in the second group also found “patterns” of point scoring, even though no such patterns existed.2
Finding patterns in nature may have an evolutionary explanation: There is a survival payoff for finding order instead of chaos in the world, and being able to separate threats (to fight or flee) from comforts (to embrace or eat, among other things), which enabled our ancestors to survive and reproduce. We are the descendants of the most successful pattern-seeking members of our species. In other words, we were designed by evolution to perceive design. How recursive!
Of course, until 1859 when Charles Darwin explained the natural, bottom-up origins of design, the default explanation—reverted to by most peoples in most cultures throughout most of history—was God. Since the most common reason people give for why they believe in God is the good design of the world, Intelligent Design creationists are tapping into the intuitive understanding most people hold about life and the universe.
But there is a deep-seated flaw in this argument that undermines the entire endeavor. If the world is complex and looks intricately designed, and therefore the best inference is that there must be an intelligent designer, should we not then infer that an intelligent designer must itself have been designed? That is, if the earmarks of design imply that there is an intelligent designer, then the existence of an intelligent designer denotes that it must have a designer—a super intelligent designer. And by the same course of reasoning, any designer who can create a super intelligent designer must itself be a superior super intelligent designer.
Ad infinitum. Which brings us right back to the natural world, and the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena.
Shermer’s Last Law: ID, ET, and God
One day I was thinking about what we might find if we went in search of an intelligent designer when I remembered Arthur C. Clarke’s famous Third Law: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”3 This led me to consider what a sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (ETI) would be indistinguishable from, which led me to formulate Shermer’s Last Law: Any sufficiently advanced Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence is indistinguishable from God.4
God is described by most Western religions as omniscient and omnipotent. Since we are far from the mark on these traits, how could we possibly distinguish a God who has them absolutely, from an Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence who has them in copious amounts relative to us? Thus, we would be unable to distinguish between absolute and relative omniscience and omnipotence. But if God were only relatively more knowing and powerful than us, then by definition He would be an ETI! From this I conclude that there is no difference between Intelligent Design, Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, and God, at least a God that is part of our world. This conclusion is derived from the following sequence of observations and deductions:
Observation. Biological evolu
tion is glacially slow compared to technological evolution. The reason is that biological evolution is Darwinian and requires generations of differential reproductive success, whereas technological evolution is Lamarckian, where change is inherited within the same generation.
Observation. The cosmos is very big and space is very empty, so the probability of making contact with an ETI is remote. By example, the speed of our most distant spacecraft, Voyager I, relative to the sun is 17.246 kilometers per second. The speed of light is 300,000 kilometers per second, so Voyager I is traveling at .0000574 percent of the speed of light. The Alpha Centauri star system, the closest to our sun, is 4.3 light-years away. This means that even traveling at a breakneck speed of 38,578 miles per hour, it would take Voyager I 74,912 years to get there (and it isn’t even heading in that direction).5
Deduction. Ergo, the probability of making contact with an ETI who is only slightly more advanced than us is virtually nil. If we ever do encounter an ETI it will be as if a million-year-old Homo erectus were dropped into the middle of Manhattan, given a computer and a cell phone, and instructed to communicate with Homo sapiens sapiens. An ETI would be to us as we would be to this early hominid—godlike.
Why Darwin Matters Page 5