Norwich Cathedral west end where a skeleton of a diplodocus is currently on display.
The wife and I attended the lecture at Norwich Cathedral by Nick Spencer of Theos. The lecture came under the auspices of Science and Faith in Norfolk and was titled "Dinosaurs, Evolution and Religion". Although I was familiar with much of the story Spencer related, below I log some notes on salient points. (I've also embedded some comments of my own in square brackets):
***
Science & Faith in Norfolk Lecture 21 September. Nick Spencer
The "Warfare Thesis" of science vs religion is invalid. For example Galileo was not arguing against Christianity but the failure of Aristotelian "science". [I believe he also was perceived to have shown disrespect for the authority of the religious leaders of the day - the problem was less with his science than his lack of deference to authority and lack of diplomacy when dealing with it]
The idea of man evolving from other primates appeared to blur the distinction between man and the animal kingdom and this upset many. [Evolution was less the issue than was the perceived demeaning of human life and an apparent concomitant loss of its sacredness] But Darwin's Origins was a storm in a teacup compared to the reaction to "Essays and Reviews".
Huxley was one of the first professional scientists: The word "scientist" was coined in 1834. His problem was with the authority of amateurs like Bishop Wilberforce who were making unfounded dogmatic pronouncements on evolution. Wilberforce, on the other hand, was concerned with humanity: He was indignant about the belittling of humanity. (But evolution isn't the only perspective on humanity). There was a mismatch of underlying motive here.
As if to confirm the fears of the dehumanizing effect of Darwinism, in 1901 the pygmy Ota Benga was exhibited in the monkey house of Bronx Zoo and portrayed as a missing link. Black ministers were enraged that this exhibition made a beast of the pygmy. In reaction these black ministers stressed the soul of man, setting him apart from animals. [The fault line between the third person perspective vs the first person perspective was opening up between the practitioners of science and religion respectively]
But man isn't just an evolved primate. We need to understand humans in subjective and first person terms. There is "I and you" as well as an "it". We aren't just an "it". Spencer's point was that evolution dealt with the "it" only.
The expanse of time also raised questions. Why so much time between humans and dinosaurs? Spencer was asked this question by a child: His response was that important things take time. cf: Carl Sagan's quip about the time needed to make an apple pie.
Points made during Q&A time:
There are human values well mixed into science that are needed to make it work - truthfulness and integrity.
There is a replication crisis in some sciences - many psychological studies can't be replicated.
At what point did we become human? Where's the threshold? There is the "human revolution" of 30,000 years ago.
Even Monkey's have a sense of fairness. Evolution isn't just about competition - it can also favour cooperation and altruism [But even taking into account the evolution of altruism, nature still comes over as utterly ruthless and impersonal, favoring only a survival ethic. This observed ruthlessness, especially when put together with the death of Darwin's daughter, slowly sucked the life out of Darwin's faith (and the faith of others too - it was yet another manifestation of the problem of suffering and evil)]
FURTHER COMMENTS
I'm glad to see that Spencer made the point about the internal first person perspective. As I've said before everything hangs on this perspective: Without it life becomes a meaningless simulacrum (See my "consciousness" label).
What I will say however, is that the findings of systematic science have been and remain a challenge to an anthropocentric perspective on the cosmos even to the extent that some, fooled by the language games of the third person perspective, have attempted to deny the reality of the conscious first person perspective. Although distorted by polarized interests, the humanity vs mechanism fault line that was coming very much to the fore in 18th and 19th centuries is evidenced in Spencer's lecture material. (See also here). But here's a point I've made before: It's easier to design & make a car than it is to design & make a machine that designs and builds cars. It seems that in the cosmos we have something more like the latter. But it comes with overheads.
This is a picture of the lecture video camera screen. I can be seen taking a picture of the screen. I'm on the far right at the edge of the small audience. The diplodocus skeleton can be seen in the middle background.
NB: Science and Faith in Norfolk along with the Faraday Institute are the go to people for Christians interested in Science & Faith in the UK. In these days of cranky christian trends promoting crackpot conspiracy theories and anti-science notions about a flat earth and/or young earth, a source of technical & scientific competence such as we see in these institutions is sorely needed.
Links:
Network Norfolk : Dinosaurs, evolution and religion lecture (networknorwich.co.uk)
Talkative Tuesday - Dinosaurs, Evolution and Religion - YouTube
No comments:
Post a Comment