As I have probably mentioned in the past, “On The Media” is one of my favorite weekly programs (and netcasts). It tackles issues concerning the media’s portrayal of events, and is interesting from a “peer review” point of view. In science, we review the work of other scientists and by doing so verify or invalidate it. “On the Media” is, in a sense, media peer review. I find the peek backstage rather enlightening.
This week, the show opened with a look at the media portrayal of atheists. This was spurred by a somewhat recent movement, an attempt to take moderate atheism and turn it into something more preemptive. For instance, the proponents of this new active atheism argue that religion is the root of so many ills in society that atheists should no longer be tolerant of its presence. Being moderate about the agressors in religion serves nobody, they argue. As was pointed out by the program, “South Park” recently took on this aggressive atheism in a comic light, pointing out that such aggressive tactics are no better than the divisive approach of existing fundamentalist religious organizations.
I took issue with a quote that the program aired. They played a line from Pat Robertson, somebody who has a broad fundamentalist audience and certainly the ear of many in government. He called those who promote evolution as an explanation of the natural world “religious”, implying that belief in evolution was a dogmatic as belief, say, in a virgin birth, or in a flying spaghetti monster.
I take linguistic issue with Robertson. First, unlike Christianity, Islam, or Judaism, evolution is a system based on scientific evidence. So-called “creation science”, which is beloved by some sects of Christianity and Islam, has never actually made a testable prediction and therefore is not science. There has never beem another kind of attempt to place such religions on a scientific footing, mainly because of the whole “proof denies faith” issue.
Second, we need to take a close look at the definition of “religion” and see if that is congruent with the practice of, and adherence to the conclusions of, science. The site dictionary.com lists many defintions of “religion”:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites.
8. Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one’s vow.
Since a belief in the conclusions of a scientific inquiry require only a few fundamental tenets – belief in the rational intelligibility of nature and an acceptance that reproducable observations of the natural world imply a set of facts about that world – it’s hard to see how science, and therefore evolution, constitute a religion. For instance, the primary definition of religion involved “superhuman agency or agencies”, which science specifically cannot test, nor use as a means of explanation. The only definition which does apply is the last, “strict faithfulness; devotion”. Certainly, many scientists are “devoted” to the principal of rational intelligibitility. But, they are also “devoted” to falsification; should evidence for a supernatual designer be forthcoming, then scientists would (by definition) adapt their view of the universe to accomodate that new evidence.
From this, one can quickly conclude that a belief in evolution is first and foremost beyond religion, outside religion. It is a belief based on the principals mentioned above, and thus those based on scientific observation, evidence, and falsification. Certainly, science cannot prove nor disprove a **supernatural** cause, and therefore such principals exist outside of science. This fact simulataneously invalidates Robertson’s baseless claim, and the practice of destroying religion by adherence to scientific fact. Scientific fact cannot destroy, but can modify, religious doctrine. At the same time, science is not itself a religion because it neither requires a supernatural creator, nor can disprove it.
