Last week?s essay, ?Between Rock of Ages and a Hard Place,? by Nicholas Wade, on a comment by Senator Marco Rubio of Florida that the age of the earth was ?one of the great mysteries,? prompted dozens of letters. Here are some of them, followed by a response from Mr. Wade.
To the Editor:
Nicholas Wade argues that creationists will be converted to evolution only when scientists show ?respect for all religions.? That claim is patently false. Organizations like BioLogos, founded by Francis S. Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, have spent many years and much money trying to turn Christian creationists toward evolution by ?respecting their faith.? It hasn?t worked.
Teaching that the Book of Genesis is a metaphor, as Mr. Wade suggests, is anathema to fundamentalists, since it implies that Jesus died for a metaphor: the original sin of a nonexistent Adam and Eve.
Reconciliation doesn?t change minds; reason and logic do.
Jerry A. Coyne
Chicago
The writer is a professor of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and the author of ?Why Evolution Is True.?
?
To the Editor:
I doubt that Nicholas Wade?s suggestion of handing fundamentalists a ?fig leaf? on evolution would be effective in the way he intends. Stressing the word ?theory? in the theory of evolution, as if it were just an idea, only reinforces the popular but incorrect reading of that word and suggests that science is uncertain in areas where it is not.
The late biologist Stephen Jay Gould suggested the metaphor of ?non-overlapping magisteria? ? the concept that science and religion operate in two distinct, legitimate realms. When Senator Rubio was asked about the earth?s age, his answer should have been: ?Are you asking me a question about science or a question about religion? Science tells me how the earth was created; religion tells me why.?
Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana
Portland, Ore.
?
To the Editor:
Words matter. Properly used, they define problems in ways that lead to solutions. Nicholas Wade suggests scientists should call evolution ?both a theory and a fact? and adds that ?no one talks about Darwin?s ?fact of evolution.???
For decades, I have corrected those who muddle the difference. I say, ?Darwin developed the theory of natural selection to explain the facts of evolution,? and I recommend we all do so.
Darwin C. Hall
Long Beach, Calif.
The writer is an emeritus professor of economics and environmental science at California State University, Long Beach.
To the Editor:
In calling Senator Marco Rubio?s answer to a question about the age of the earth ?15 back flips and a hissy fit,? Nicholas Wade grossly misdescribed the answer quoted earlier in his article. Mr. Rubio?s answer was a simple and ordinary evasion. It left room for Mr. Rubio?s religious right supporters to hope that he will support teaching the Bible in science class, while leaving himself room not to appear to be an outright science denier, to appease his more scientific supporters.
Possibly, the article should have been put in the political news section rather than the science section; the scientific truth of the theory of evolution has not been news since about 1859.
David Rabinowitz
New York
?
To the Editor:
Nicholas Wade does not recognize that there are two categories of sciences: those that deal with past events and those that deal with the nature of things. Any dispute in the latter can be settled in a lab; not so simple for sciences that deal with past events, where any set of hard evidence can be made to fit multiple scenarios depending on beliefs.
Thus Senator Rubio is right when he says there are multiple theories about the creation of the universe and that children should be exposed to them ? not just to the atheistic scenario favored by the scientific community.
George Valliath
Winnetka, Ill.
To the Editor:
Nicholas Wade?s fine article does include a misleading reference to Martin Luther, suggesting he was responsible for the Protestant belief that ?the Bible was the literal truth and the sole dependable source of divine knowledge.?
The source of that belief is a complex historical question; in fact, Luther had a much more critical view of Scripture than Mr. Wade suggests. He was suspicious of the Books of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, and declared that the Book of James was an ?epistle of straw.?
Van A. Harvey
Palo Alto, Calif.
The writer is an emeritus professor of religion at Stanford University.
To the Editor:
Admitting evolution is a theory won?t change anything. Gravity is a theory, but you don?t see fundamentalists jumping out of 10th-floor windows. The problem here is not in the semantics of the discussion, but in the irrational refusal of empirical and scientific evidence by religious organizations.
Eric Schwaber
Medford, Mass.
To the Editor:
I have never met an actual scientist who ?allowed? that evolution was anything but a theory. I have, however, seen ample evidence of science writers who take this position, thereby setting up a straw man they can then pretend to take down.
Christopher B. Boyko
New York
The writer is on the biology faculty at Dowling College.
?
Nicholas Wade replies:
Was I too hard on Senator Rubio? Our politicians have to cope with increasingly complex and technical issues. If they do not distinguish between good science and nonsense, they will be without guidance and, as I said, rudderless. But the thrust of the article was to blame the unresolved war between fundamentalists and scientists for putting politicians like Mr. Rubio in such a difficult position.
As Rabbi Cahana suggests, creationists like to say evolution is ?just a theory,? as if it were mere speculation. In scientific parlance, however, a theory is a vast intellectual edifice that explains and is supported by a large array of facts and scientific laws. Evolution is a theory in the latter sense only.
Still, many diplomatic treaties are written so the two sides can interpret critical terms in their own way and allow business to proceed. This is the basis for a compromise: let fundamentalists interpret the word ?theory? as they wish and in return cease to oppose the teaching of evolution in schools.
I confess that I lack Dr. Coyne?s zeal for converting the creationists to Darwinism. Nor did I suggest it would be either possible or desirable.
What would be desirable is to get them to drop their opposition to teaching evolution in schools. That is a practical issue to be settled by negotiation. Unfortunately, the extremists on both sides are so fond of striking militant stances that the gap between them has only increased.
john edwards conocophillips octomom dan savage new world trade center kellen moore ryan braun
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.