Writing Worth Reading
Writing Worth Reading
The biology professor, and Catholic, tells us what we should read to understand the battle being fought between scientists and creationists
Before we look at your five book choices, can you tell me a bit more about where you stand in the argument against creationism?
It is really very simple. Like most scientists, I understand the evidence that has been marshalled in support of the theory of evolution. I find the evidence convincing. I find it has predictive power, and also that evolution is the thread by which we tie everything together in life science. A famous biologist once wrote that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. And that is absolutely, positively true.
In the States, the word “creationism” is understood to mean the belief that the earth is 6,000 or 7,000 years old, that all living species were created at pretty much the same time, and that the geological formations of the planet do not reflect the world of the past but are simply artefacts of the worldwide flood. And there is this belief that the mechanism of evolution simply doesn’t work. That is what creationists believe, and on every single one of those central points the creationists are wrong. I think the creationists arguments against evolution are wrong scientifically.
Which is interesting because you are a Catholic, but you see your faith as being outside the scientific debate surrounding creationism.
I certainly do, and the important thing on the issue of creationism and faith is a very simple point – that the creationists, or for that matter advocates of intelligent design, would argue that natural processes alone are not sufficient to bring about the world of life as we know it. And I maintain, as I think nearly all scientists do, that natural processes alone are indeed sufficient to bring about the world as we know it. You couldn’t have a starker difference. So where does religion fit into that? Essentially, any person of faith believes that the very existence of those natural processes have to be explained one way or another. And their explanation is the hypothesis of God.
Your first book choice, The Blind Watchmaker, is by the leading British atheist Richard Dawkins. He argues that the only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, rather than a creator who puts us together.
I think that is right. I was torn between two of Richard’s books to recommend. The first one is really a classic, and that is The Selfish Gene. The Selfish Gene is an extraordinary book and I always recommend it to people who want to understand the way in which evolution can grapple with the question of self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviour, because many people regard this as a fundamental problem for evolutionary theory. What Richard did brilliantly in The Selfish Gene was to popularise the ideas of WD Hamilton and others, that explain altruistic social behaviours in terms of kin selection. I am not an evolutionary psychologist, but social behaviour is one of the most fascinating things in evolutionary theory, and Richard's explanations in The Selfish Gene have stood up very well.
In the Dawkins book I chose, The Blind Watchmaker, he brilliantly explains how complex mechanisms and structures are put together by the process of evolution. It is true that he makes certain theological points that I don’t agree with. In particular, he equates virtually any belief in God with creationism.
Which is not the case, especially from your point of view.
Indeed. I certainly think that is an over-simplification and an invalid connection, but that doesn’t detract from the brilliance of the book. One of my favourite examples is a discussion he puts forward on the evolution of the bat’s auditory system. Bats, as I think most people know, are able to fly about in near total darkness because they use a kind of sonar. They have specialised hearing apparatus and use hearing rather than sight to help them navigate. Creationists might wonder, how could evolution ever produce the integrated system of sound production?
But as Dawkins explains, pretty much all living beings have some ability to do this, and evolution has built upon those basic capabilities. One of the ways in which I demonstrate this to my students is by having one of them come up on stage, I place a blindfold over their eyes and spin them around two, three times. Then I move the large blackboard very close to them and ask them where the blackboard is while they still have their blindfold on. They are not allowed to touch anything, but simply by using their voice and the reverberations it causes they are easily able to locate the blackboard. Richard’s point is that the rudimentary ability to carry out this function is something that many animals have. What natural selection can do is refine that ability – to make it better and better, and eventually evolve it to perfection.
Next up is Sean B Carroll’s Endless Forms Most Beautiful, which explores evolutionary developmental biology. Can you explain what that is?
Sean Carroll is a developmental biologist. He uses molecular techniques to study the ways in which the embryo develops and uses specialised tissues and structures. His book actually comes, he claims, from a question one of his children asked him. The question was: Is the zebra a white animal with black stripes, or a black animal with white stripes? Which when you think about it is a very interesting question. This field in which he is a pioneer is sometimes called “evo devo”.
Which is seen as a red-hot field in science at the moment.
It has indeed become a red-hot field, and is properly known as evolutionary developmental biology. It has become a hot field because the molecular tools by which we analyse development have now got to the point where we can merge them with the study of transformation in fossils – in terms of the way in which certain organisms have developed in structure and patterns. Sean Carroll popularises – and I mean that in the very best sense – some of the most difficult and interesting findings in evolutionary developmental biology. He explains, in a very easy to understand way, the way in which intricate patterns in butterflies come about through the interaction of just a handful of genes, and how very slight changes in some of those genes can result in quite different patterns. It is top-notch research biology.
The title of his book comes from the final chapter of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, which has the phrase: “From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful, most wonderful, have been, and are being, evolved.” If a reader wants to know what is going on in molecular biology that is expanding our understanding of the theory of evolution, you could do no better than to read Sean Carroll’s book.
Kenneth Miller is a biology professor at Brown University. He is particularly well known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design movement. He has written two books on the subject: Finding Darwin’s God which argues that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God, and Only a Theory, which explores intelligent design
Debunking myth of "killer ape" theory of evolution. Studies of bonobos reveals calmer, more passive animals, likely to be our closest animal ancestors. Suggests mutual aid and pleasure not violence were keys to human success
In-depth interview with Jane Goodall, anthropologist. Touches wide range of issues but most importantly: "How come the most intellectual being, as far as we know, to ever have walked on this planet is destroying its only home?"
Research reveals molecular mechanism for why humans have large brains, no sensory whiskers and smooth penises. Turns out key DNA sequences present in apes are missing in humans. So "information is both gained and lost" by evolution
Why did birds get feathers? Not to help them fly. Their ancestors, dinosaurs, also had feathers. As, perhaps, did reptiles. Evolution may have favoured feathers mainly for insulation, or sexual selection, or camouflage
Investigating common sense raises the "monkey brain problem". We evolved from primates, whose brains are built not to seek truth but to survive. So, why do we trust our own cognitive apparatus in matters of philosophy or science?
