In Science and the Religious Right, biophysicist John Jagger discusses false scientific and social positions of the Religious Right, including the ideas that the earth is only six thousand years old, evolution never occurred, and the United States was founded as a Christian nation. At best, such stances of the Religious Right have produced extensive political turmoil; they undermine true understanding of ourselves and the world we live in.

Many Americans know little science and are thus easily confused by such positions of religious fundamentalists. Jagger begins with a scientific primer for the intelligent and curious nonscientist, with simple explanations of such highly successful theories as relativity and evolution. He then discusses religion, explaining why many scientists become freethinkers after the models of Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, who did not believe in a personal God. He shows that, while mainstream religion largely accepts modern science, the Religious Right holds anti-science and anti-intellectual ideas that have great social and political consequence-they want to replace teaching of evolution in our public schools with creationist ideas that are totally unsupported by science.

Science and the Religious Right shows why knowledge of some basic science, as well as of correct religious history, is essential for understanding false stances of the Religious Right that threaten American values and scientific truth.

Science and the Religious Right: What Americans Should Know about Both

By John Jagger

iUniverse, Inc.

Copyright © 2010 John Jagger
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-4502-3541-9

Contents

Introduction............................................xi1. The Search for Truth.................................1I. Physical Science.....................................132. The World of Newton..................................193. The World of Einstein................................254. Radiometric Dating...................................35II. Biological Science..................................395. Evolution............................................456. Vitalism.............................................617. Brain and Mind.......................................678. What Science Does Not Know...........................83III. From Science to Secularism.........................899. What Is Secularism?..................................9110. A Personal God......................................9711. God the Creator.....................................10112. The Sources of Ethics...............................109IV. Religion............................................11713. World Religions.....................................11914. Religious Ethics....................................12715. Facts and Myths.....................................13516. Positive Aspects of Religion........................147V. The Religious Right..................................15117. Intelligent Design..................................15318. Literal Reading of the Bible........................16719. Science, Religion, and Politics.....................173VI. A New Century.......................................19320. The Future of Religion..............................19521. The Future of Secularism............................21122. Concordance.........................................231Acknowledgments.........................................235Glossary................................................237Recommended Books.......................................247Bibliography............................................255Notes...................................................259

Chapter One

The Search for Truth

This chapter describes and characterizes several different approaches to truth, with emphasis on science.

Truth is not easily defined. People have been making stabs at it since the ancient Greeks coined the term philosophy, meaning "love of wisdom." Philosophy includes the study of fundamental problems such as the nature of existence, knowledge, mind, ethics, and justice. It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such matters, such as mysticism and mythology, by its critical and systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

Science used to be a branch of philosophy, but today it is usually considered a separate activity. Before 1800, it was called natural philosophy, a term applied to the study of nature and the physical Universe. Science has now become much broader, studying some problems previously felt to be solely in the realm of philosophy, such as the nature of the mind. Philosophy is largely concerned with unsolved problems, so as science progresses, especially in areas of the human brain and human behavior, knowledge tends to move from philosophy into science.

Science comprises all the subjects we consider to be hard science, with known laws and well-established explanations, such as most of physics, chemistry, biology, and cosmology (study of the Universe). Much of the knowledge found in the "softer" sciences—such as archeology, paleontology, and psychology, which deal more with facts than explanations-also falls under the umbrella of science, since conclusions are based upon reasoned argument.

Modern science requires some study, but it is so pervasive in our daily lives that failure to understand at least the elements of science can lead to false conclusions and a lack of appreciation for what science has truly accomplished for humanity. I try to explain here what science is and how it works and then to look briefly at other approaches to truth.

Scientific Truth

Most of what we call "well-established science" concerns physical reality, and much of that may be considered fact, such as that the Moon orbits the Earth, or that matter is composed of atoms. But some scientific knowledge can be less certain, such as the idea that the Sun rises in the morning and sets at night, which we once thought was true, but now know is false—it is the Earth that rotates, while the Sun is stationary relative to the Earth. Another less certain idea is that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The goal of science is knowledge of the truth. This goal is never actually reached, but much scientific knowledge is sufficiently certain that it has enabled us to build our modern civilization. In short, science works. Its truths may change as science progresses, but it will not change basically. There may be additions to what we know, or even whole new conceptions of reality (as with the theory of relativity), but the original science will still be tremendously useful because it will still be correct for the ordinary aspects of the world (as with Newton's laws of motion).

Science is noted for its extensive use of experimentation, which sets it apart from most other approaches to truth. Science also is noted for its attempts to explain many related facts by a broad intellectual structure called a scientific theory. Scientific research includes both experiments and theories, and it follows certain procedures, loosely called scientific method, that have become well developed over the past five hundred years. This approach ensures that science does not make serious errors. It is a self-correcting method.

One way scientists ensure that they don't make mistakes is to publish their findings openly. Scientists do not take claims of new knowledge seriously until the findings are reviewed by experts in the process of publication in reputable scientific journals. After publication, others can see what that scientist has done, and can put the experiments or ideas to the test. If such tests reveal a weakness in the findings, other scientists will publish the contradictory results, and then we have a debate. Until the matter is cleared up, it is not accepted as new knowledge (an example is cold fusion of atomic nuclei). Creationists, who believe in a young Earth, are not taken seriously by science because they do not publish findings in this open fashion. Creationists do not in fact have new findings, but only new interpretations of existing facts.

I give here some simple definitions of scientific fact and scientific theory:

Scientific fact — something known to be true, from actual experience and observation or from clear results of experiments.

Scientific theory — a description or explanation of a wide variety of facts or observations by a broad conceptual structure that makes predictions about future observations.

As an example, we all know that the Earth is round (spherical). Many educated people believed this five hundred years ago, when Columbus sailed, but, in fact, the ancient Greeks also knew this, and they even estimated the circumference of the Earth. But how do we know the Earth is round? Where I live in northern Texas, it looks pretty flat. Our knowledge of the shape of the Earth was derived from a general idea that the Earth is round. This idea was really a theory that explained many facts, such as ships "sinking" as they go over the horizon, and predicted new facts, such as maps making sense only if we assume a spherical Earth.

The point I am making is that there are lots of things that we accept as facts, such as that baseballs thrown harder move faster, because they are evident to our senses or based on our experiences. But the idea that the Earth is round is just a theory! However, when a scientific theory satisfies certain scientific truth criteria, that is, it

1. is supported by many different, and independent, lines of evidence,

2. survives all attempts at disproval, and

3. makes verifiable predictions of future observations,

then it becomes a well-established theory.

Well-established scientific theories have withstood many tests over many years. Although they may be modified by new theories, they still represent truth in that they provide a useful framework for explaining a wide variety of facts. Newton's laws of motion are an example (see chaps. 2 and 3): they have been modified by relativity theory for certain unusual circumstances but remain valid for most of what occurs in our everyday world. By every test to date, relativity, quantum mechanics, and biological evolution are also well-established theories. Other well-established theories include atomic theory (that matter is made of atoms), the kinetic theory of gases (which explains heat), and the germ theory of disease.

A scientific theory is not just a hunch or a bright idea. It is a broad structure that attempts to explain a wide variety of facts or observations. One usually does not propose a scientific theory until there are many things to explain. Theories start out being tentative and undergo much change before they become well established. They often make surprising predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or by observation in nature. This holds for the theories of biological evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Let us look a little more closely at how the above scientific truth criteria are satisfied by well-established scientific theories.

Much science that comes to public attention, like the idea that humans are causing the Earth to warm up (global warming), involves an area where there is not yet scientific consensus. That global warming is occurring is now certain scientific fact, as shown by temperature records and the recent melting of polar ice. However, the causes of the warming are still under some debate (although the evidence that it results largely from human activities is compelling). The same can be said of biological evolution, which certainly has occurred, but the ways in which it occurred (the causes) are still under some debate.

Different lines of evidence means just that, but it also usually requires evidence from different independent specialties. Thus, biological evolution is based on data from geology, paleontology, systematics (classification of organisms), radiometric dating, comparative anatomy, and molecular biology. Relativity is supported by many facts of cosmology and astronomy.

Failure of attempts at disproval means no exceptions. Any physical theory is always provisional in that it is only a hypothesis, since you can never prove it is correct under all circumstances. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with a theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single important observation that clearly disagrees with the theory. The finding of a single human bone as old as dinosaur bones would demolish the concept of evolution—no such bones have been found.

Prediction means that the theory predicts things that can be investigated. Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted that when light from a distant star grazes the Sun, it will be bent by the mass of the Sun twice as much as predicted by Newton. This was demonstrated in 1919 during a solar eclipse, when light from such stars was found to be deflected by the Sun by almost exactly the amount predicted by relativity. Today we make corrections to Newtonian physics for relativistic effects all the time—the courses of our spaceships require such corrections, as does our Global Positioning System (GPS), which would be off by seven miles a day without them.

The statement that an idea is just a theory must be made carefully—unless you know your science, what you label "just a theory" may actually be truth that has tremendous scientific power.

These scientific truth criteria can apply to knowledge other than scientific. They are actually reality rules, an elaboration of what we call common sense, and can apply to anything that admits systematic investigation. In simple ways we apply them in everyday life, as in figuring out why our car won't start. In this sense all of us are scientists, whether we like it or not. Applying the scientific truth criteria is simply being rational (i.e., sensible, or based on reasoning). We can be rational about everything, including not just science, but also politics, love, and religion.

Philosophical Truth

Today we separate much of science from philosophy, leaving to philosophy mostly things that are not quantifiable, such as ethics, politics, and justice. Science has recently assumed importance in such philosophical fields as ethics and the nature of mind.

Philosophy was a lively activity from the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries, and it made many important contributions to ethics and knowledge of the roots of human behavior. But without modern science, it could not reach truth about the basic chemical nature of humans, the evolution of the Earth and of life, and the vastness of the Universe. Most of what we know in these areas has been learned only in the past 150 years. Molecular biology emerged only in the twentieth century.

In America we revere our Declaration of Independence, which says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." These are not scientific statements, but philosophical statements. How are they "self-evident"? In what way are all men created equal? We are not born with the same ability to throw a football or the same intrinsic intelligence—only some of us will grow up to be athletes or geniuses. There is no physical equality of human babies.

So, again, in what way are we born equal? What Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote those words was that we should ensure that all babies have equal opportunity in life, equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are moral, or philosophical, statements. We cannot prove them to be true. And certainly they were not true for most people in the world before the United States was founded. We can agree that they should be true by observing people in a country like ours, where there is freedom of opportunity, compared with those living under a dictatorship.

Philosophical truth is often relative, differing in different societies and different religions. Yet, as we become a more unified world, certain moral imperatives emerge, as in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as other international agreements, such as those concerning freedom of speech, treatment of private citizens and military prisoners, and avoidance of nuclear war.

Historical Truth

Historical truth comprises the things that have been reliably reported in history books and other publications. That George Washington existed and was the first president of the United States is a historical truth and it is certain—the evidence is simply overwhelming. That he cut down a cherry tree and admitted his guilt to his father is a nice tale that has been published but is highly debatable. History tells us most of what we know about the human adventure on Earth since the invention of writing, and this knowledge has been a major factor in the development of our modern human world. We can deal with whether or not there is truth in written documents, but we cannot easily analyze folktales and such that are reported only verbally. The Norse myths are accessible to analysis because they were written down. We can also analyze ancient cave paintings, since they are a form of publication.

Religious Truth

Religious or revealed truth is the basis of religious belief, and results from what is believed to be divine inspiration (Dawkins 2008). It is based not on scientific evidence but on faith. Science cannot easily deal with such a nebulous concept as faith, for which there is little if any objective evidence and only testimony, chiefly from figures in the distant past.

Nevertheless, even faith could be based upon reason, in that one would expect it to be based on some sort of evidence. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are called the Abrahamic religions, having their origins in the beliefs that began with the prophet Abraham. Their holy books are the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and the Koran. The Abrahamic religions include over half of the world's people. Insofar as the Old Testament deals with the ancient history of the Israeli people, it appears to contain historical truth, although the correctness of much of that is doubtful. New Testament accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ are also in question (see chap. 18).

* * *

Science and religion are very different modes of human knowledge. We cannot expect the scientific method to apply to religion. However, we can expect that one may be rational about religion, and that is what I often attempt in this book.

The Judeo-Christian religious source is the Bible, written almost two thousand years ago, and little changed since that period. The Muslim religion is largely based on the Koran, written thirteen hundred years ago and still unchanged. Much the same can be said of the major Eastern religions—Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, and Confucianism. Religious truth, therefore, is usually based upon holy books that were written many centuries ago and does not readily change. Recent scientific truth changes all the time, but the elements of science do not; there will be further additions, but what is there now will not change. While religious truth is based on only one or a few holy books, scientific truth is based on thousands of books, and is constantly being refined and advanced. In short, religious truth is static, while scientific truth is dynamic.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Science and the Religious Right: What Americans Should Know about Bothby John Jagger Copyright © 2010 by John Jagger. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.