This page is an archive from the previous version of The Row Boat, which is why it doesn't look and work the same as the current version. However, these archives are fully functional and integrated with the new system.

Why does this site permit advertising?
Click here to discuss.

The Row Boat

"Had we but world enough, and time..." *

The Magesterium of Dover

12/20/2005 18:56:42

This morning (believe me, I was waiting by my computer) the verdict on the Dover intelligent design case was released. As it happens, a striking victory for the evolutionist plaintiffs. The judge did just about all he could do to boot ID out of town just the way the voters did the school board last month. Not only was the board in particular guilty of trying to teach religion in school, but ID itself is not properly scientific.

In many ways the decision is beautiful, and all the more so for we who are not eager to have William Dembski taught in science class. It is beautiful in its absolute convinced-ness, and reads as if it could have been written by the plaintiffs' counsel. The school board members are made to be false prophets, toppled, and the scientists are salvific in their honesty and priesthood.

Now this is what strikes me as significant- presiding Judge John Jones III takes his theological assurance from the scientists about the religious consequences, not even theologian John Haught who testified for the plaintiffs (no theologians testified for the defense). Jones (according to the Washington Post, a Republican and churchgoer) writes in his opinion:

"Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." (Opinion, p. 136)

Certainly Dawkins and Gould and Provine, whose atheism they say depends on evolution, would disagree.

But for the rest of us who are eager to make a constructive theology, to know God as best as we can know God and to avoid lying while at the same time professing our ignorance, this opinion is a comfort and a rock, an assurance that such a project may be true to blind justice.

Odd, though, that we the assurance of a judge to do it. But I think, at least in this odd country, that we do.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re: The Magesterium of Dover - 12/21/2005 10:23:51
Posted by B Spitzer

Just a note-- Gould certainly was *not* of the opinion that the theory of evolution conflicts with or denies the existence of a divine creator. I'm puzzled by this comment because the title of your piece, "The Magesterium of Dover", seems to allude to Gould's idea of "nonoverlapping magesteria", which demarcates separate territory for science and religion.

It's true that some religious folks would argue that Gould marks out a boundary for religion that is a little too small, but your statement still misrepresents Gould's position.

It's possible that even Dawkins might not fully agree with your statement... not that he would speak out against it either. Of the three, Provine is the only one who I'm confident would agree with you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

re: The Magesterium of Dover - 12/28/2005 01:22:06
Posted by nathan

Thank you for your comment -

I have found Gould's position very hard to place. His "Nonoverlapping Magesteria" essay certainly locates him on the side of separation. But in the way he talks more casually about his personal beliefs it seems more clear to me that his metaphysics (at least on an intuitive level) rely on evolution. And that is precisely why, I think, the creationists are so unwilling to accept his magesteria proposal - on an intuitive level for people, the "wall of separation" does not fit. At a gut level (for some, not for all, and for instance not for me), evolution rules out the divine. See R. L. Numbers' account of his own dual conversion to evolutionism and atheism in the introduction to The Creationists, which sounds familiar when I read some of the things Gould says.

In general, though, i think you are right - I should rephrase. Their atheism does not necessarily depend on evolution. But evolution, in Dawkins' famous words, "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." I think this rings pretty true for all three, which is significant considering each's formidable intellect that would need satisfying.

Satisfaction here is the key, and it is so personal. To some, the stories of faith and science make one or the other unsatisfying. To others they fit more or less alongside one another or in parallel or somesuch. I do not argue that Gould weighed the logical options and decided, based on his best reasoning, that his science ruled out religion. According to his magesteria essay, quite the opposite. But rather more importantly (for my considerations), he decided personally, for himself, that the two accounts are incompatible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Printer-friendly version

The Row Boat basks under a liberating Creative Commons license