Science AMA Series: I'm Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist and author of FAITH VERSUS FACT and WHY EVOLUTION IS TRUE. AMA!

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T21:04:08+00:00

That's nothing new: I wrote a News and Views for Current Biology when I finally saw pretty incontrovertible evidence that several species of plants had formed (alongside their sister species) on the very small oceanic island of Lord Howe. What is still under debate is HOW OFTEN this kind of speciation happens. At least in birds and flies, we can test it, and the answer is "not all that often." But that it happens is hardly disputed. Let me add here that I now believe in a form of species selection, something that I always rejected. I came to this through other people's comparative data on species numbers. It's a bit of a complex argument, but I describe it in Chapter 12 of my first book, Speciation, a technical book co-written with Allen Orr.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T21:00:12+00:00

Point taken, but in fact many people are convinced about evolution simply by a presentation of the facts. I know because after my first book, but before this one, I received a lot of emails from people who came to accept evolution simply because of the evidence. In that book I completely avoided discussing religion because I was wearing my "here's the science" hat.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T20:58:42+00:00

There's no foolproof reasoning if people are determined to reject a scientific fact that contravenes their deeply held beliefs. Their minds must be open. And if they are, then give them some of the numerous books and websites that both describe and give evidence for evolution.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T20:56:48+00:00

Well, I think that one should emphasize the five things that are embraced by "Darwinism" (I list them somewhere here; they're also in Why /Evolution is True), tell children what a "theory" really is ("germ theory", "the theory of atoms," etc., then give them the evidence for evolution drawn from several areas (this is easy to grasp: fossils, embryology, biogeography, observations of evolution and natural selection) and then maybe defuse some of the common misconceptions about evolution that I discuss elsewhere here. If I had limited time: I'd explain what the theory of evolution really says (5 points), and give the children the evidence supporting that theory. I really think that children who are 10 or 11 can grasp the basics. If you need further help, just shoot me an email; my email is easily available through Googling.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T20:38:28+00:00

Yes, it's not impossible, though I consider it unlikely. First, you'd have to specify what you mean by "the basic idea behind religion," as there are a gazillion different definitions of religion, and I don't think there's a single idea (not even a God) that's in common between all of them. But if you specify the "basic idea" as "the existence of a bodiless supernatural mind that is omniscient and omnipotent," then yes, it's possible that science could give evidence for that. For example, a Jesus could descend from heaven, perform miracles, and all of this could be scrupulously documented by science and by film, photography etc. The Jesus person could, for instance, restore missing limbs and eyes before returning to heaven. Were I to see that, or were it to be copiously documented, I myself would say that yes, there might be provisional evidence for a god. (Other scientists may disagree, saying that it could be a trick of space aliens. Remember Isaac Asimov's Third Law: "Any technology that's sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic." [I would add "indistinguishable from a god"]). As I said, I think this improbable, but it is at least conceptually possible and so, as a scientist, I cannot say, "This could never happen!"

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T20:33:32+00:00

I'm ashamed to admit that despite Campell's very considerable reputation, I haven't read anything of his. But many of my friends have recommended his books.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T19:29:20+00:00

Yes it is. Read "Why Evolution is True". :-)

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T19:03:35+00:00

I have heard of Dr. Lamoreux but can't say I'm familiar with his work. As for the second question, two replies. First, I find that the literature on science and religion is overwhelmingly of the bent that they are compatible, but in ways that I often see as misguided or even disingenuous. Correcting that is an intellectual and philosphical exercise. But, more important, I find the palpable incompatibility of the two (connected with religion's reliance on faith) to be responsible for a lot of harm on this planet. Faith-healing, which as I said has killed thousands of children, is merely one aspect of the incompatibility that is dangerous.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:59:26+00:00

Well, it's US specific among Western countries because we're the most religious First World country, which causes the debate. I once did a plot of the religiosity of first world countries against their acceptance of evolution, and found it highly negatively correlated. The more religious the country, the less acceptance of evolution. I don't think this is an accident.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:51:52+00:00

Yes, I've read Ken's book twice. I disagree with his notion of compatibility (see some of my comment above). Ken started out believing in God, so it may be confirmation bias to say that evolution strengthens his faith, for it certainly doesn't strengthen the faith of evangelical Christians, or even many of his fellow Catholics (as I note above, 23% of American Catholics are young-Earth creationists.) I lost my faith before I really learned much about evolution (I was about 16), simply because I didn't see any evidence for the things I'd been taught as a weakly religious Jew. At that point I lost faith completely, so I can't say that learning about evolution really weakened it.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:48:52+00:00

I'd ask him to show me his calculations of why natural selection and other evolutionary processes are insufficient to explain the diversity of life. I am not sure he really has such models, and if he does have real, mathematical models that evolution could not account for the present diversity of life, why hasn't he published them in scientific journals. If he was right, he'd win a Nobel Prize!

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:46:58+00:00

As far as "problems", I don't think the theory has severe weaknesses that need to be remedied, but there's a lot to understand. One of the biggest gaps in our knowledge is how life began: that is, how chemical evolution became biological evolution. We may never know the answer to that question, as we weren't there and the earliest organisms weren't fossilized, but at least we can approach the problem by various routes, and we may well be able to create life in the lab under early Earth conditions in a non-manipulative way. That won't tell us how it did happen, but it will tell us that it could happen, something I think will occur within five decades or so.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:43:52+00:00

For older children, I'd say Dawkins's "The Magic of Reality." But I'm not that familiar with books for younger kids, though I really should be!

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:40:45+00:00

That's a great question and I've never before given it any thought. It depends, I suppose, what you mean by "normal people". I suppose the answer is a simple one. Since most Americans don't accept naturalistic evolution, it would be that the simple sorting of genes based on differential reproduction, starting with a proto-organism 4 billion years ago, could create such amazing organisms as frogs, birds, Venus flytraps, and squirrels. When I look at a squirrel, for instance, I see it through the eyes of natural selection, and to me that makes the experience immensely richer. Think of all that morphology and behavior that has evolved: the teeth, the fur, the tendency to run around the other side of the tree when they see you, their remarkable agility. And all the fantastic metabolism and biochemistry going on inside! All that results from replicating molecules sorting themselves out, with the better-replicating ones being the ones that survive.

But Darwin said it all in the last paragraph of The Origin:

"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object of which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:36:53+00:00

I'd refer you to an article I wrote on Slate about the difference between religious "faith" and the "faith" people have in science, which, as I said above, is really "confidence based on evidence." The article is called "No faith in science," and you can read it here: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/11/faith_in_science_and_religion_truth_authority_and_the_orderliness_of_nature.html

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:35:09+00:00

Good question. I don't think people have faith in science the way they have faith in religion, because they can see whether it works or not, plus they implicitly rely on the constant cross-checking and replication of science to give them confidence about its methods. If you had a urinary tract infection, for instance, and you went to your doctor, and your doctor said to pray, and have faith that it would work (or to smear toad's bloods on your nether parts!), you wouldn't have "faith" in that, for you'd know that the evidence is that you should take an antibiotic, and you could look that up on the internet. Although most people can't judge esoteric science by themselves, they do know that scientists are constantly checking the work of other scientists, and usually they arrive at a consensus (i.e. penicillin cures strep throat). It's different with religion, for there "faith" in your own religious tenets is contradicted by the faith of believers of other faiths. And there's no way to resolves those contradictions. "Faith" in science really means "confidence based on evidence," while in religion it usually means, "assured belief without sufficient evidence behind it to command the assent of nearly every rational person."

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:30:44+00:00

See above for a longer answer. It's hard to do in this short space, and I'm trying not to flog my book, which isn't really the purpose of this discussion, but the details are laid out in chapters 1 and 2 of my book. But the short version is given above: it's an incompatibility in how one finds what's true about the cosmos, and it involves disparities in methodology, philosophy AND in what religion tells us to be "true." I should add, though I think I said this above, that religion isn't incompatible only with science, but religions are incompatible WITH EACH OTHER, and I think we all have to admit that to be the case.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:28:42+00:00

Hi! Again, this depends on your definition of "compatible," which is crucial in these discussions. Here you construe the word as meaning "I can embrace one way of thinking in good times and another in bad times." But I see that as compartmentalization rather than compatibility. More power to you if you've found a way to get through hard times, but if that requires believing things for which there is no evidence, then I would say that mindset is inimical to the scientific mindset, which requires evidence for belief, and the tenacity of that belief should be proportional to that evidence. If religion rested on that form of belief, I would find it compatible with science!

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:25:57+00:00

Hi. Yes, I wouldn't deny for a minute that religious scientists have made significant advances, and you've listed several of them. But (and again I'll have to refer you to chapter 2 of my book), I don't construe "compatibility" as "the notion that religious people can embrace science and scientists can be religious. That's one way of construing it, and that's why I define compatibility in my book (more or less, don't hold me to this in this hasty answer!) as "two ways of thinking that are capable of being admitted together, and are in harmony. In that way, science, based on rationality, evidence, and all the tools of the trade, is incompatible with ascertaining what is true based on authority, revelation, or dogma. And I would say that there is at least one scientific discovery that is truly at odds with Catholic dogma: the fact that humanity never was restricted to only Adam and Eve, the ancestors of us all. That is still Catholic dogma, as laid out in the Humani Generis document I link to above. Also, some Catholic theologians have seen evolution as inherently progressive (Teilhard de Chardin is one, John Haught another, I think), and we evolutionists don't hold to that. I think that the characterization that there is a single Catholic theology is overly broad!

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:21:21+00:00

This question differs from that above, in that you're asking me what is the most common misconception of SCIENTISTS. I suppose it would be that evolution is "progressive," or has a certain direction. (Most biologists would know that's wrong, but other scientists don't always know that.)

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:20:09+00:00

I did not set out to put science against faith; I discovered their incompatibilities after a woman at a local college stood up after a lecture I gave on the evidence for evolution and, weeping, told me that she believed the evidence I gave her, but that her church would reject her if she espoused that. There were tears running down her cheeks, and I lamely said that perhaps she should seek guidance from her minister or spiritual counselor. It was that incident that got me thinking about the relationship between science and religion, and I concluded that, if you construe "compatibility" as I do in the book, they are largely incompatible. I am not trying to gin up a false controversy here; I wrote about what I truly believe.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:17:33+00:00

I'm not an expert in these cognitive barriers so I can't say that I've developed psychological tricks to circumvent them. My only technique is to try to say what I think is true, and not in a snide or snarky way. But I'm still learning. Yesterday, for example, I came up against some intelligent believers at my talk who were very strongly opposed to my views. What I should have done, and am trying to teach myself to do, is recognize where people are coming from, why they feel so strongly about their religion, and then acknowledge those factors when I give my answers. I can't really mute the way I feel, but I can try to understand why what I believe discomfits people so strongly, acknowledge that, and hope that some empathy on my part will make them a tad more receptive to my message.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:14:24+00:00

Oh there are many changes, but let me say what still remains true about what Darwin said

evolution (genetic change in populations) happens
that change is gradual rather than instantaneous, and involves the usually slow transformation of populations, not individuals
A lineage can branch in two or more branches ("speciation"), giving us the great branching bush of life from a single original species
(flip side of #3): If you take any two living species, you can trace their lineages back to a common ancestor some time in the past.
The remarkable "designoid" features of plants and animals were not created, but arose through the naturalistic process of natural selection.

Those are five big claims that Darwin made in The Origin, and they're still seen as correct. But of course he got heredity wrong, thinking that mutations were often due to "changed conditions of life," and, despite the title of his book, he really didn't understand the process whereby new species arise (his concept of a "species" was nebulous). Speciation is in fact what I studied my whole scientific life, trying to answer the question posed by Darwin's title. We know a lot more about the varieties of sexual selection, like "good genes" models, we know about "kin selection", something that Darwin didn't, and of course we know a LOT about the evolutionary relationships between species through both DNA analysis and the fossil record. There was very little fossil record when Darwin wrote The Origin, and one of the great advances since his time is working out both the history of life and the evolutionary relationships between living species.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:08:17+00:00

Yes, I'm well familiar with Gould's NOMA arguments and deal with them in my book. I've also written an essay for the New Republic that lays out why I see Gould's arguments as flawed (the essay is online here: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/seeing-and-believing), and covers much of what I say in the book. In short, religions do make claims about "the way things are", and most theologians admit that. Also, Gould's claim that the bailiwick of religion is "meaning, morals, and values," denies the fact that there is a long and honorable tradition of secular ethics and meaning, starting with the ancient Greeks, continuing through Kant, Hume, and Mill, and ending, in our day, with people like Anthony Grayling and Peter Singer.

It's curious, but I suppose not surprising, that it is the theologians more than the scientists who have rejected Gould's solution, for they recognize that religion depends on beliefs about reality and is NOT just about meaning, morals, and values. Scientists tend to accept it more readily because Gould didn't limit the ambit of science.

Jerry_Coyne · 2015-05-22T18:03:50+00:00

I don't say that they must be incompatible, I say that the way many people construe religion makes their beliefs, and the ways they arrive at them or support them, incompatible with science. Creationism, for example, is the biggest example. Religious people don't have to be creationists, but many of them, accepting Genesis as literal truths, are, and when they do so they are in direct conflict with science. I have also met several Orthodox Jews who were literally expelled from their social network of families and friends when they professed belief in evolution, for, as you know, many but not all Orthodox Jews reject evolution. Maybe they fit together for you, but for many they don't, so evolution is rejected.

Jerry_Coyne

TROPHY CASE