by Mario Livio
DARWIN VERSUS “INTELLIGENT DESIGN”
All of Galileo’s arguments are equally valid for the topic of teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution, the controversy over which remains as lively today as it has ever been. Astonishingly, even though the Pope himself admitted that it had been wrong to transfer “to the field of religious doctrine an issue which actually belongs to scientific research,” and in spite of more than a century of solid evidence confirming evolution by means of natural selection, many Americans—and a considerable number of people in other parts of the world—still adhere to creationist ideas. Sadder yet, the beliefs on the creationist side have been so strong that there appears to be no resolution in sight in popular opinion and the dispute over how the subject should be taught at school continues. One cannot emphasize enough the fact that there isn’t even the slightest scientific doubt.
First, the age of the universe is now known with an uncertainty of less than ten percent. Second, the National Academy of Sciences clearly pronounced: “The concept of biological evolution is one of the most important ideas ever generated by the application of scientific methods to the natural world.” On October 27, 2014, Pope Francis issued a statement at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences that said: “The big bang, which nowadays is posited as the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine act of creating, but rather requires it. The evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, as evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve.” He was following here in the footsteps of Pope John Paul II. The latter said about the theory of evolution in an address on October 22, 1996: “It is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.”
In spite of these clear judgments from the highest scientific and religious authorities, quite a few people simply refuse to be convinced. Even more embarrassingly, creationists have occasionally managed to convince educators, politicians, and judges that evolution is merely a “theory,” and that the more fashionable variant of creationism—“intelligent design”—should be taught side by side with evolution, in science classes.
The similarity between the arguments by creationists and those advanced against Galileo is absolutely striking. First, creationists say, evolution by means of natural selection is not a proven fact, and it hinges on processes that were not observed, nor can they ever be observed. To this, biologists respond that the fossil record does provide ample compelling evidence that organisms have evolved over the age of the Earth. In fact, the theory of evolution could have been falsified easily had it been incorrect (which is one of the hallmarks of an acceptable scientific theory). For instance, finding even one fossil of an advanced mammal, such as a mouse, dating to two billion years ago would have been sufficient to refute the entire theory. No such evidence has ever been found. On the contrary, the findings fully support evolution. For example, evolution predicts that from the period between a few million years ago and a few hundred thousand years ago, we should find fossils of hominins (ancestors of modern humans) with progressively less apelike features. This prediction has been unambiguously confirmed. Furthermore, no fossils of anatomically modern humans dating to millions of years ago have ever been discovered. We should also note that there are numerous examples of natural selection at play, ranging from bacteria becoming resistant to certain types of antibiotics, to the evolution of the colors of the peppered moth in nineteenth-century England.
A second objection that creationists raise is the claim that no transitional fossils, such as half-bird-half-reptile creatures have been found. This is simply false. Paleontologists have discovered fossils that are intermediate between taxonomic groups. For example, a fossil named Tiktaalik roseae, which dates to about 375 million years ago, demonstrates the transition from fish to the first legged land animals, and a whole series of fossils chronicles the transition from a small species called Eohippus to today’s horse, over a geologic timescale of about fifty million years.
Finally, creationists resort to an argument the origins of which date all the way back to the Roman orator Cicero in the first century BCE: such complex “machines” as exhibited by various life forms, the claim goes, could only have been produced by an “intelligent design.” In the early nineteenth century, natural theologian William Paley adopted the same line of reasoning: an intricate watch attests to the existence of a watchmaker. Creationists latched particularly on the example of the eye as an anatomical organ that could not have evolved naturally. However, the discovery of more primitive organs that trace the evolution of light-sensing apparatus has invalidated this argument as well. Fundamentally, any biological feature that appears to be a contrivance was the outcome of a long evolutionary selection aided by symbiosis with the environment. In general, processes that are not fully understood don’t constitute flaws. Creationists seem to forget or ignore that Galileo had already fought this type of battle four centuries ago, and eventually won.
The continuing debate concerning climate change is even worse, since to avoid catastrophic consequences requires a much more rapid response. Climate change denial is fed mainly by political, financial, and religious motivations. Unlike Darwinian evolution, where rejection of the theory is strongly correlated with religiosity, in the case of climate change, political conservatism is the dominant cause for denial. The religious component was perfectly captured by what Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma told the Voice of Christian Youth America’s radio program Crosstalk with Vic Eliason in 2012: “God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.” Contrast this with the fact that there is now overwhelming expert scientific consensus (about 97 percent) that “it is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-twentieth century.”
The United Nations Environment Program’s Emissions Gap Report in 2018 showed that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions actually rose in 2017—the first time after stalling for four years. This is particularly alarming in view of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—a group of scientists convened by the UN to guide world leaders—which concluded that to limit the global temperature rise to 2.7°F (1.5°C) above preindustrial levels would require slashing emissions of greenhouse gases by 45 percent by 2030. In an unprecedented move, on December 2, 2018, the presidents of four former UN climate talks issued a joint statement calling for urgent action. The fact that the United States has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (although it cannot really leave until 2020), and President Donald Trump’s continued promotion of fossil fuels are, in this context, nothing short of shocking. As Nobel laureate in physics Steven Weinberg put it: “It is generally foolish to bet against the judgments of science, and in this case, when the planet is at stake, it is insane.”
Any list of the top scientists in history—those who changed the world—includes the names of Galileo and Einstein. This is an additional reason why, when discussing the topic of science and religion, it is interesting to compare the views of these two geniuses. We know that Galileo regarded Scripture as the guide to faith, ethics, and moral behavior (for “salvation”), and objected to literal interpretations of biblical texts only when they contradicted scientific observations and logical demonstration. More than three centuries later, Einstein shared Galileo’s scientific perspective, but he was almost diametrically opposed to him on matters of faith.
EINSTEIN ON RELIGION AND SCIENCE
There is no doubt that on the topic of intellectual freedom, the German-born Einstein had precisely the same views as Galileo. In a 1954 statement he made for a conference of the US Emergency Civil Liberties Committee, Einstein said: “By academic f
reedom, I understand the right to search for truth and to publish and teach what one holds to be true.” He was repeating here his own thoughts from an address written in 1936, three years after Adolf Hitler came to power in Germany—and Einstein immigrated to the United States: “Freedom of teaching and of opinion in book or press is the foundation for the sound and natural development of any people.” Galileo certainly would have agreed.
On the relation between science and religion, on the other hand, Einstein’s opinions were more complex. Here is a very brief synopsis.
Einstein mentioned God quite frequently in his writings, in talks, and in conversations. For example, when he wanted to pronounce his skepticism about quantum mechanics, the theory of the subatomic world, he said famously, “He [God] does not play dice.” Similarly, when Einstein expressed the opinion that nature may be difficult to decipher, but it is not bent on trickery, he said: “The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not.” Einstein even wondered whether the cosmic blueprint had allowed for any choice: “What really interests me is whether God could have created the world any differently; in other words, whether the requirement of logical simplicity admits a margin of freedom.” These quotes, however, are related mostly to the structure of the universe, and they don’t give us the full picture of Einstein’s attitude toward religion.
Einstein developed most of his perspective on religion, science, and the interaction between the two in a series of essays, letters, and speeches written mainly between 1929 and 1940. One of the first of these, an essay entitled “What I Believe” written in 1930, contains some of Einstein’s most memorable quotes:
The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery—even if mixed with fear—that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate… it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves.
Einstein repeats here an opinion he expressed in 1929, in response to a telegram from Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, in which the rabbi asked him, “Do you believe in God?” As a lifelong admirer of the seventeenth-century Dutch Jewish rationalist philosopher Baruch Spinoza, Einstein replied: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a god who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of humankind.”
Einstein further expanded on these views in two articles, one entitled “Religion and Science,” which he wrote for the New York Times Magazine in November 1930, and the other entitled “Science and Religion,” which was read at a conference in New York in 1940. In the former, Einstein outlined what he regarded as the three main steps in the evolution of religious beliefs, while in the latter he attempted to define science and religion, and expressed his view as to what he thought was the basic source of the perceived conflict between the two.
The three phases in the development of religions, according to Einstein, were: fear (“of hunger, wild beasts, sickness, and death”); the “social or moral conception of God” (a God that rewards, punishes, and comforts); and the “cosmic religious feeling.” Einstein himself admitted to feeling only this third religious experience:
“The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events—provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion.”
Evidently, for Einstein religion played a very different role from the one it played for Galileo. Whereas both agreed that nature operates according to certain mathematical laws, as we have seen, Galileo regarded Scripture as the chief guide for moral behavior that eventually leads to salvation, while Einstein’s religious sensation was inspired precisely and solely by those laws of nature.
Einstein’s definitions of science and religion endeavored to go even further. He defined science as “the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualization.” That is, science, according to Einstein, describes reality as it exists and not what reality should ideally be. Religion, on the other hand, Einstein explained, was “the age-old endeavor of humankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals [to be liberated from selfish, ego-oriented desires and to have superpersonal aspiration for the improvement of existence] and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect.” Specifically, to Einstein, traditional religion ascertains a desired state rather than reality. From these two definitions Einstein concluded that there shouldn’t have been any clash between science and religion unless religious institutions intervened into the realm of science (for instance, through insisting on literal interpretations of the Bible, as in the cases of Galileo and Darwin), or through the introduction of the doctrine of a “personal God,” which to Einstein was scientifically unacceptable.
While Einstein admitted that science does not possess the tools to unequivocally refute the concept of a personal God, he regarded this notion as “unworthy,” because it could “maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark.”
It was Einstein’s denial of a personal God that provoked an extremely strong reaction, mostly negative, from many circles. In a language closely resembling that of the Aristotelians against Galileo, a priest from North Hudson, New York, wrote in the Hudson (N.Y.) Dispatch: “Einstein does not know what he is talking about. He is all wrong. Some men think that because they have achieved a high degree of learning in some field, they are qualified to express opinion in all.”
Monsignor Fulton John Sheen, a professor at the Catholic University of America, criticized both the essay from 1930 and the one from 1940, concluding sarcastically, “There is only one fault with his [Einstein’s] cosmical religion, he put an extra letter in the word—the letter ‘s’.”
Not all the reactions were negative. A disabled World War I veteran from Rochester, New York, wrote: “The great leaders, thinkers, and patriots of the past who fought and died for free thought, free speech, free press, and intellectual liberty arise to salute you! With the great and mighty Spinoza, your name will live as long as humanity.”
Einstein himself was particularly annoyed by the fact that he had been labeled an atheist. At a charity dinner in New York, he told an anti-Nazi German diplomat in words very reminiscent of Viviani’s eulogy of Galileo: “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
Fascinatingly, a letter that Einstein wrote on January 3, 1954, in which he repeated his views about a “personal God” and “Spinoza’s God” sold at an auction at Christie’s for the astounding sum of $2,892,500 on December 4, 2018. The letter was addressed to the German Jewish philosopher Eric Gutkind, in response to a book Gutkind had written, which was a religious, humanistic manifesto based on biblical teachings. Perhaps the most significant sentiment expressed in the letter was Einstein’s agreement with Gutkind that humans should aspire for “an ideal that goes beyond self-interest, with the striving for release from ego-oriented desires, the striving for the improvement and refinement of existence, with an emphasis on the purely human element.”
Given that the relation between science and religion is a topic that will likely continue to be discussed by future generations, one piece of advice from Galileo and Einstein appears to be particularly insightful and helpful. As long as the conclusions of science concerning physical reality are accepted, with no intervention of religious beliefs and no denouncing of p
rovable facts, no conflict between the two realms can exist. Galileo understood that the Bible is not a science book. It represents an allegorical description of the awe that humans in antiquity felt when faced with a seemingly incomprehensible universe. Einstein still felt the same awe, even though he concluded that the cosmos was comprehensible after all. This was, in some sense, also the judgment of Pope John Paul II. A peaceful coexistence between science and mainstream religion (I exclude here both religious fanatics and aggressive “missionary” atheists) is therefore definitely possible, at least in principle. Philosopher of science Karl Popper nicely expressed his moderate views on this topic by writing: “Although I am not for religion, I do think that we should show respect for anybody who believes honestly.” Nevertheless, recognizing that the risk of conflict remains, the Pope’s suggestion to engage in “a dialogue in which the integrity of both religion and science is supported and the advance of each is fostered” appears to be a good step forward. We should allow for the coexistence of many ideas and ideals and the freedom to debate those, and disallow only intolerance.
CHAPTER 18 One Culture
Galileo would not have understood C. P. Snow’s concept of “two cultures.” The idea that literary or humanistic intellectuals would form a distinct group that excludes scientists and mathematicians would have been foreign to him. He himself comfortably inhabited both worlds, the scientific and the humanistic, commenting on art and literary works and performing music with the same passion and enthusiasm that characterized his scientific work. His artistic training both informed his interpretation of observations and allowed him to present his discoveries more effectively. Moreover, in publishing much of his work in witty but easy to understand Italian rather than Latin, Galileo was also a perfect example of what author John Brockman dubbed a “third-culture thinker”—a person who disposes of any mediators and communicates directly with the intelligent public.