Karl Giberson, physics professor, author, and P.Z. Myers nemesis, thinks—perhaps rightfully—that there’s no reason you can’t have it all: knowledge and understanding of evolution, belief in God, and adherence to Christianity. Planting his feet in such a roiling middle ground puts him in a unique position that warrants discussion. Enter the Templeton Foundation, self-appointed adjudicator of the God-science debate. In Monday night’s event at the Harvard Club in New York, the organization brought Giberson together with resident agnostic Michael Shermer, an author and the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine.
In a rather tepid exchange (though after Hitchens, a fistfight would seem tame), the two men danced around what’s wrong with creationism, why religion may be more than a result of evolutionary psychology, and whether there’s a “reason” to believe in God.
Shermer got things rolling with a question about why evolution and Christianity—which, he said, is “about God’s relationship to Christ”—are so consistently combined in American culture. “The U.S. has always been very religious and very entrepreneurial,” Giberson responded. “And assaulting religion turned out to be successful entrepreneurially.” True enough, though a fundamentally weak point when you consider that promoting religion has been just as—if not more—profitable.
On the issue of “what’s wrong with creationists,” Giberson criticized the group for “spin[ning] the Creation story into pseudo-science” and “elevat[ing] Genesis beyond what is appropriate.” His objection to this approach wasn’t so much that it was contradictory to all scientific evidence, but rather that it “rob[bed Genesis] of everything that is interesting.” Of die-hard young creationists, who Shermer diplomatically singled out as “not dumb” and “not ignorant,” Giberson dismissed them as overcommitted to Biblical literalism: “They have all these reasons for making the Bible supernatural…They want to be able to read the Bible as if it was written very recently.”
Another benefit of religion, he proposed, is that it fills in the moral gaps Darwinism leaves behind: “Darwin doesn’t give you statements of morality.” In fact, he argues, “morals are conflicting with science,” on issues like procreation—pure Darwinism supports the idea of promiscuous sex, for example.
As to why he believes in God, Giberson offered the following:
“Part of me wants to go with the…argument that it makes the world so much more interesting. I’d rather have the mysteries that come with belief in God. I’m not convinced religion can be all explained away as evidence of evolutionary psychology…[Religion] suggests a possible solution for the deepest mysteries science hasn’t been able to solve.”
Maybe so—but it also does its darndest to undermine those “mysteries” science has already nailed.
Related:
RB: God 0, Atheism 2: Hitchens Eats Another Religious Figure for Lunch
RB: This Week’s God-Science Face-Off: Rick Warren v. Sam Harris
RB: Rant of the Day: Hitchens Slams Palin on Science
November 19th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Actually I find more mysteries in science than I can in God. “What created the super massive blackholes at the center of our galaxy?” “God.” There is joy or fun in that bland answer. Even though I can hardly understand a lot more complex science, to me science creates more mysteries than religion of every variety. Of the nature of consciousness, space, time, geography, evolution, genes and so on.
And while I find no fault in personal faith, America has a long tradition of attempting to force religious views upon others. I believe religion is a personal right, but not a public mandate.
November 19th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
This discussion comes up in my class a lot. Many people are die-hard creationists, while many others are die-hard evolutionists. Then there are some of us who are in between. The Bible influences many people’s opinion regarding the evolution vs. creation debate. It will be interesting to see how this argument changes in the future while science advances.
November 19th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
[…] Karl Giberson Wants God and Science to Just Get Along Karl Giberson, physics professor, author, and P.Z. Myers nemesis, thinks—perhaps rightfully—that there’s no reason you can’t have it all: knowledge and understanding of evolution, belief in God, and adherence to Christianity. Planting his feet in such a roiling middle ground puts him in a unique position that warrants discussion. Enter the Templeton Foundation, self-appointed adjudicator of the God-science debate. In Monday night’s event at the Harvard Club in New York, the organization brought Giberson together with resident agnostic Michael Shermer, an author and the founding publisher of Skeptic magazine. […]
November 19th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Greetings,
Intelligent design/creationism is not only cherry-picked science, it is faulty theology as well. Startling as it may seem, by continually protesting that “blind” chance could only lead to “accidental evolution”, all denialist forms of creationism contradict the Bible’s clear teachings that chance occurrence in the universe (randomness), is always under God’s direct control!…Oops! How long will it take proponents to realize they are pushing what they themselves would call heresy? Try this:
http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=34289
It’s called: “Intelligent Design Rules Out God’s Sovereignty Over Chance”
November 20th, 2008 at 5:36 am
Evolution is a dead theory.
There are 100 million fossils which show that animals which lived hundreds of million years ago are exactly the same as their current counterparts. This is clear evidence “against evolution.”
Also, natural selection does not have the capacity to change the genetic code on the DNA. The rabbits may run faster, and survive but they do not turn out to be other “more advanced” and “advantageous” creature because their DNA code is not effected. They die in the end along with their faster running legs. Lamarckism is already an outdated theory.
Therefore, creation is a fact, evolution could not have happened. Besides, no graduation can explain the irreducible complexity in for instance body organs. Think of the blood, if all blood cells had presumably evolved without the hemoglobin molecule inside, what use? If the stomach did not have the protective tissue to prevent destroying itself due to hydrocholoric acid, what use? If all organs were there but you could not breathe with your lungs and the oxygen was not transferred to each one of your cells, what use?
Please think once again before you decide. Evolution - really did not happen, cannot have happened - there is no evidence, no mechanism. But all findings and science indeed show that there is an anthropic principle behind the universe with incredibly fine tuned quarks in the atom, nuclear power in the nucleus of the atom, 3 billion lettered vast library with immense information in the DNA.
Who encoded the DNA?
Who made the quarks in the atom?
Who set the oxygen in the atmosphere just in the right ratio so that we are not burnt to death?
Who mixed water - soil and minerals to bring out thousands of vegetation and fruit with wonderful tastes and scents right from the dark earth?
God is the Creator of every detail that we see in this universe, and we will see the intelligence and wisdom behind each and every created thing if we look with an open eye (heart).
November 20th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Holy crap, that’s a lot of logical fallacies! Denying the antecedent, non-sequitur, along with some good old-fashioned ignorance. Quaint cliches too, including the blind watchmaker and Pascal’s wager!
“There are 100 million fossils which show that animals which lived hundreds of million years ago are exactly the same as their current counterparts. This is clear evidence “against evolution.”
Evolution does not mandate that all living things change at a constant rate. This lack of understanding is shown in the following statement as well:
“Also, natural selection does not have the capacity to change the genetic code on the DNA. ”
Natural Selection is the mechanism through which helpful mutations are propagated and harmful mutations are weeded out, not the mechanism through which they are created in the first place.
The entire rest of the basis for your argument appears to be your own failure to understand evolutionary mechanisms by your own admission. Because you do not understand it you attribute it to your own god of the gaps. Even if your presented evidence against evolution were valid it does not promote the idea of creationism in any way. It especially does not promote the idea that your own particular religion is correct in all its supernatural assumptions. Your plea to be open-minded (eyed? hearted, I guess?) is a weakly disguised display of arrogance trying to uphold a false dichotomy.
There is no need for a god or any other supernatural force to explain what are already well (if not completely) understood natural processes, or even any processes that are not yet understood.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Therefore, creation is a fact, evolution could not have happened.
Let me get this straight. Despite all scientific evidence, you refuse to believe that life evolved over billions of years through natural processes, but instead, based on no evidence whatsoever, choose to believe the invisible cloud-daddy created everything out of thin air in 6 days using magic. Is that about right?
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Planting his feet in such a roiling middle ground puts him in a unique position that warrants discussion.
His position is not unique. The episcopal church, which has millions of members and is one of the largest in the US, believes in evolution. The church supports women clergy and gay rights, the Bishop in New Hampshire is actually gay. The church is both spirtiually and politically progressive. The idea that religion and science agreeing is some amazing thing is a pretty ignorant stance.
In general, the idea that any religion and science are opposed is ignorant. I’m a buddhist and we support science over mythology, as do most of the christians I know. Unfortunately, dedicated christians or buddhist being normal is very controversial, so the media, and apparently Discover Magazine, have decided to portray people like Sarah Palin and other nutjobs as average Chrisitans.
Go to a buddhist, episcopal, unitarian gathering. Talk to people from progressive churches. Relgion and science can co-exist, as they have for 1,000s of years. If we extremist christians and anti-religion people make this a black and white issue, nobody will be happy with the result. It would be nice to some posts on a science site that don’t vilify anybody who’s not a strict atheist.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Doh! There is a typo in that last comment. I meant “If we let extemist christians”, not “If we extremist Chistians”.
November 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Last Comment:
@Steve Barlow:
Please point to one peer-reviewed article by an actual scientist that proves any part of your arguement. Texts written after 1850 would be preferred.