E.O Wilson, the venerable Harvard evolutionary biologist, award-winning author, and defender of biodiversity, has decided to dive into the debate of science vs. religion.
And he’s critical of the debate. Earlier this evening in Harvard Square, he was plugging his new book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth, which argues that rather than taking one side (anti-religion) or the other (anti-science), the two camps need to call a truce and work together towards the common goal of saving the planet.
He criticized the warring factions, calling the likes of Richard Dawkins (the Oxford scientist who fiercely attacks religion) “warriors” and people like Francis Collins (the NIH scientist who is religious and argues that it’s possible to be a religious scientist) “wimps.”
Instead, Wilson is choosing to take a more pragmatic approach to bridging the divide between science and religion. “Let’s stop fussing about where it [life on Earth] came from. It’s there. Let’s save it.” Rather than attack the evangelicals, he says the better way is to engage them in an inviting manner, with “a friendly voice,” he said. Only then might it be possible to convince some to move away from extreme fundamentalism, he said.
At least one person at the microphone was skeptical about whether this could happen, but Wilson seems optimistic. If he can talk as passionately about reaching out to the religious community as he does about biodiversity and conservation, he might have a shot.
I will definitely read his book.
Along these lines I heard an excellent set of talks which are part of the longnow foundation. One of them by Sam Harris ( author of the end of Faith) has an interesting view on the ill-effects of religion and also on people with strong views and religious moderates. Sam Harris believes that moderates are doing more harm than strict conservatives. His talk makes a fervent appeal at a new world order not based on faith.
The talks organized by the Longnow foundation feature other prominent scientists like Jared Diamond and Stephen Lansing and urge a longterm perspective to life and living with a view to saving the planet.
Engage evangelicals with a friendly voice? Great idea, Ed- that will totally work.
Yeah, ok, sure, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Wilson’s approach. He did say that he had lots of positive responses from the evangelical community to his book…but whether that convinces them start conserving biodiversity instead of trying to sneak intelligent design into science classes is another matter.
But Wilson, I thought, made a good point when challenged by a questioner at the microphone. If one were to go on an all-out attack of religion (like Dawkins does in his new book The God Delusion, where he calls God a “bully” and a “control freak”), then you’re simply perpetuating this ongoing battle between science and religion, which gets us nowhere in the end. Maybe it’s worth trying to find some common ground?
Sorry about the late post…
I agree, straight out attack from either side will only provoke a defense reflex from the other without the chance of agreement.
But I wonder if the goal should be to find common ground and reach agreement at all. I doubt that there can be “peace” between the “warriors” and the “wimps”. BUT, would it not be much more useful to attempt to resolve this issue by taking a long term approach.
The biggest problem that I see, is that the intelligent design idea is able to recruit more and more followers and the science community seems to care relatively little about it. Of course, there are plenty of books, publications, etc. about the topic, but would it not be much more effective if the science community were to explain and describe the evolutionary theory in a way the EVERYBODY can understand and access. The statement of the scientific community up until now has always been: “we are right, we can prove it, but we write and publish in places that only a selected few can access and understand”. Because of that I don’t think it is surprising that intelligent design preachers can easily recruit new followers because they care to express themselves in a way everybody can follow and understand.
So instead of finding common ground, I think it would be more beneficial, if the science community would get off their high horse and attach the problem head on. Not by writing more highly sophisticated papers about it, but by explaining evolutionary theory in a way and in a medium that everybody can understand. Then people have a chance to chose, and the intelligent design lobby will be robbed of support.
Individual people are very smart and chose very wisely when given the appropriate information, so let’s give it to them.