– Bertrand Russell

I write with special reference To Fr. Mervyn Fernando’s article "Thank God for Evolution" (The Island, 11th February 2009). Before I proceed further I must make it clear that the Blake, I refer to, is not Robert, the US Ambassador, but William. This clarification is necessary in the context of several references made to him in relation to a negotiated settlement of the war in the North. Russell refers to the Bengali variety about whom Blake’s namesake William has said,

"Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger, Tyger burning bright,

In the forests of the night"

The Debate: Science vs. Religion

Craig Mello’s statement, "The science vs. religion debate is over. Michael Dowd masterfully unites rationality and spirituality in a world view that celebrates the mysteries of existence and inspires each human being to achieve a higher purpose in life", is no more than a manifestation of evangelical exuberance. We need to bear in mind that there is no essential conflict between science and religion. They have, and will run together on two parallel planes that will not converge. This position is clarified by Max Planck in the following words, "There can never be any real opposition between religion and science, for the one is the complement of the other… Science enhances the moral values of life because it furthers a love of truth and reverence - love of truth displaying itself in a constant endeavour to arrive at a more exact knowledge of the world of mind and matter around us, and reverence, because every advance in knowledge brings us face to face with the mystery of our own being" (Max Planck: Where is Science Going?). Albert Einstein explains the status of science in the following words, "The belief in an external world independent of the perceiving subject is the basis of all natural science. Since, however, sense-perception gives information of this external world indirectly, we can only grasp the latter by speculative means. It follows from this that our notions of physical reality can never be final. We must always be ready to change these notions in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most logically perfect way" (Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist, ed. P.A Schlipp). The propositions and theories of science, as Karl Popper has pointed out, are falsifiable in principle. "Since we should call empirical or scientific, only such theories as can be empirically tested, we may conclude that it is the possibility of an empirical refutation which distinguishes empirical and scientific theories." (Karl Popper: Conjectures and Refutations, p.197)

Though measurements taken of the solar eclipse that occurred on 19th May 1919, by a scientific expedition to the Principe Island in the Gulf of Guinea, confirmed the validity of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, there is always the possibility that future observations could invalidate it. The propositions of religion on the other hand being metaphysical in character are not falsifiable because no verification is possible in principle. In these circumstances, we can only say that the theories of science are tentatively accepted on rational grounds, whereas the propositions of religion are believed on grounds that are not unreasonable. In these circumstances the imputed conflict between science and religion and the passions generated in debate are fuelled by the strong confessional positions taken up by religious institutions and the views of some scientists who believe the theories of science reveal a strict one-to-one correspondence with the ultimate reality. Wiener Heisenberg who developed the Principle of Uncertainty in the observed relationship between the position and momentum of elementary particles explains the imputed hostility of science to religion in the following manner, "The nineteenth century developed an extremely rigid frame for natural science, which formed not only science but also the general outlook of great masses of people" (Weiner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy).

Charles Darwin and Evolution

We need to admit that Darwin has made a positive contribution to the study of biology. He was by nature a modest man (perhaps more modest than Rev. Dowd), who in his youth had engaged in the study of theology. In the course of his research in biology he realised that what he had observed, studied and offered for public scrutiny would bring him into conflict with the Christian Church. Men like T.H. Huxley and Herbert Spencer supported his quest not only because they valued the scientific value of his observations but also because they recoiled at what they regarded as the bludgeoning influence of parsons and their fenced-off kingdom. Their biting sarcasm was directed more at ‘parsondom’ than at God’s kingdom. Though the available data that supports Darwin’s thesis of Natural Selection, and the ‘Big Bang’ theory of the origin of the world, are based on sound evidence, they cannot be extended to debunk the origin of man and the creation of the world as depicted in the Book of Genesis. On the other hand the narrative in this sacred Book cannot be taken literally in all its details as they relate to historical time and the sequence of events that led to the world as it stands now. The allegorical character of the Biblical story is what matters. Karl Popper admits that separate elements in the theory of Natural Selection are scientific to the extent that they are empirically testable. Yet, he argues that the overarching theory of Darwinian evolution "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme" (Karl Popper: Unended Quest, Glasgow: Fontana Collins, p.151). He explains this further by saying: "The earlier, naturalistic revolution against God replaced the name God by the name Nature. Almost everything else was left unchanged. Theology, the science of God, was replaced by the science of nature and God’s laws by the laws of nature. God’s will and power by the will and power of nature (the natural forces) and later God’s design and God’s judgment by natural selection. Theological determinism was replaced by naturalistic determinism. God’s omnipotence and omniscience were replaced by the omnipotence of nature and the omniscience of science". (Karl Popper: Conjectures and Refutations). The quest for knowledge and the resulting debates will continue despite Rev. Dowd’s claim to have closed the debate by uniting rationality and spirituality. Ultimately, conflict and impassioned debate are fuelled by rigid confessional positions. The passions associated with this particular issue were ignited in the tinder box of institutional religion’s role in society.

The Gospel

In talking of the Gospel (Good News) of Evolution, Fr. Mervyn says that "Dowd’s solution is to take the wind out of the sails of the science vs. religion debate by taking a meta-view of both science and religion, a view as comprehensive as to include cosmic history, psychology, mythology, sociology, spirituality and the human future". Father Mervyn is to be admired for his views which are in no way inhibited by his role as a priest in the Church that is ruled by Pope Benedict XVI, who is obsessed with the threat of religious relativism. This admiration cannot be extended to Rev. Dowd’s claim to have unified spirituality and rationality. His ideology is in the nature of an eclectic brew: one that cheers in an emotional sense, does not inebriate in a physical sense, but induces euphoria of trivialised religious experience. Religion, as we know it, is a meta-view of reality, its origin and man’s place in it. Adding meta-layer upon meta-layer is the equivalent of building the Tower of Babel that trivialises both religion and science. What Fr. Mervyn calls the Gospel of evolution is a travesty of the unique Gospel of Jesus Christ, which confirms the richness and variety, inherent in the throb of life. The throb of life is the human predicament that man shares with Jesus Christ. Just as much as he did not promise to rescue man from the tragic consequences of this predicament, he did not assure man that he would lay bare the finely defined boundaries of knowledge acquired from sense experience, knowledge derived from the discipline of the scientific method and knowledge of the nether world, which includes both religious beliefs and atheistic metaphysics – blessed are those who have not seen but yet believe. In this context it is apposite that I quote an extract from the article "How life has preserved its mystery" by James Le Fanu that appeared on the same page as Fr. Mervyn’s tract in The Island: "Certainly for the foreseeable future there will be no need to defer to those, who would appropriate our sense of wonder at the glorious panoply of nature and ourselves by their claims to understand it. Rather, the very aspect of the living world now seems once again infused with that deep sense of mystery of "How can these things be"? What Rev. Dowd has attempted to do is to appropriate our sense of wonder and in doing so he has dispensed with humility, which is an essential quality of a genuine scientist or a teacher of religion.

Flat Earth Faith vs. Evolutionary Faith

The highly acclaimed transition from what is termed flat-earth faith to evolutionary faith is purely an exhibition of verbal prolixity and no more. It only serves to confirm that the apparent conflict between science and religion was stage managed by the Church which took upon itself, as part of its magisterium, to decide and promulgate what the faithful should accept as the permissible bounds of science. Long before the advent of Crick and others, the Church violated the rights of Galileo in the process of clinging to the vain anthropomorphic view of the sun revolving round the earth. A change in the attitude of the Church will not be brought about by Rev. Dowd’s intervention as a specialist in conflict-resolution, but because it realises that absence of a conjugal church-State relation no longer permits the enforcement of its will in the secular sphere. The distinction that Rev. Dowd has made between private revelation and public revelation is both specious and mischievous. Scripture was and will always be a form of public revelation. It is an offering for man’s acceptance in the context of the life he leads in an environment of communion with nature and his fellow beings. The notion that sacred Scripture was a form of private revelation prior to the advent of a newly-dispensed gospel of evolution is a preposterous claim. Darwin’s contribution to science does not require Rev. Dowd’s re-evaluation and rehabilitation. The latter’s attribution of flat-earth status to eastern religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Confucianism is a clear indication that he is far off the mark in grasping the essence of these religions. Buddhism in particular has never been a flat-earth faith because it has not imposed any blind-alley impediments in the path of those who accept it as a way of life.

Belief in God