The National Museum of Natural History, part of the government’s Smithsonian Institution, has a nice traveling exhibit on human evolution called “Exploring human origins: what does it mean to be human?“. Well, the first three words would have sufficed, as I’m not sure whether the question “What does it mean to be a human?” has an answer more meaningful than the question “What does it mean to be a wombat?” Even asking that question about our species tends to conjure up some notion of human exceptionalism, sometimes verging on the numinous. The scientific answer—a list of all the traits that characterize humans and distinguish them from other species (i.e., a morphological and genetical description of H. sapiens)—is not exactly what people want. They’re looking, it seems, for some essence of our species.
That said, the Smithsonian’s exhibit looks terrific, and will have visited 19 cities between March of last year, when it began, and April 28, 2017, when it will end. The exhibits will be in libraries, so check when it comes to your town and go see it. (Better yet, go to the Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian itself, even though it was funded by David Koch and has some pretty cringeworthy accommodationist videos.)
Beyond that, I wanted to point out the exhibit’s sponsors; there are three.
Why is Templeton in there? Well, to make sure there’s discussion about the relationship of human evolution and religion. The Human Origins Initiative, of which the exhibit is a part, includes a “broader social impacts committee” that, as you might expect, consists largely of preachers and ministers. In fact, twelve of the fourteen members are preachers, with the exception of Fred Edwords, a humanist, and Dr. Joe Watkins, of unspecified affiliation.
Here’s part of what the committee deals with: the “challenges posed by evolution“:
In the vibrant scientific field of human evolution, new discoveries and research findings are regularly reported as lead stories in newspapers and other media. Despite strong public interest, however, many people find the idea of human evolution troubling when viewed from a religious perspective. While polarized public opinion on the matter is the usual focus, the diversity of contemporary religious responses to evolution is less recognized. These responses point to opportunities for a productive relationship between science and religion without assuming a conflict between the scientific evidence of human evolution and religious beliefs.
So right there you have a more or less theological viewpoint: that the conflict between evolution and religion is to be minimized, and that’s the goal of this group. For fundamentalists like Southern Baptists, there is no productive relationship between evolution and their faith. Notice how the statement above weasels around the fact that 42% of all Americans are Biblical young-earth creationists.
The statement goes on:
There are a number of different approaches to the science-religion relationship. One approach is to see science and religion as separate domains that ask different questions focusing on separate interests in human life – for example, about the natural world in science and about God in religion. This approach depends on respecting and maintaining the distinctions but can sometimes overlook the ways in which scientific interpretations may have an effect on religious beliefs. Conflict is seen to arise when efforts are made to eliminate the separation that the first approach assumes. The strongest conflicts develop when either science or religion asserts a standard of truth to which the other must adhere or otherwise be dismissed. An alternative approach sees interaction or engagement as positive. Engagement takes many forms, including personal efforts by individuals to integrate scientific and religious understandings, statements by religious organizations that affirm and even celebrate the scientific findings, and constructive interactions between theologians and scientists seeking common ground, respect, and shared insight into how the science of human evolution contributes to an awareness of what it means to be human.
Here they’re proposing Steve Gould’s “NOMA” (non-overlapping magisteria) argument, whereby the ambit of science is said to be the understanding and description of the natural world, while that of religion is descrying human meanings, morals, purposes, and values. The problem with this, as I describe in Faith Versus Fact, is that religion obstinately refuses to adhere to Gould’s claim that it says nothing about what’s “real” in the universe. Virtually all the opposition to NOMA, then, has come from thelogians who recognize that religion critically depends on certain claimed facts about the universe. To wit: scripture itself, namely 1 Corinthians 15 (King James version, my emphasis):
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
That is the fundamental, non-negotiable claim of even liberal Christians.
The Smithsonian avers that the NOMA approach can “overlook the ways in which scientific interpretations may have an effect on religious beliefs,” but that’s not the problem. The problem is that for most Abrahamic religions, the “meanings, morals, and values” depend at bottom on truth claims such as the Resurrection. And in such cases science can indeed “assert a standard of truth to which religion must adhere.” For there’s no other way to determine things like the existence of gods, of the afterlife, or of miracles except using the methods of science. Revelation or dogma won’t do it. What reliable standard of truth does religion even possess? If it had one, there wouldn’t be thousands of different faiths making thousands of different truth claims.
As for the “constructive engagement” part, fine—so long as religion adheres to scientific truth. Religious belief has nothing to add to the practice of science, but science has a lot to add to the practice of religion—mainly by falsifying its truth claims. Think of evolution, and how that’s changed liberal theology since 1859. And now that we know that all humans didn’t descend from just the two ancestor of Adam and Eve, theologians are tying themselves into knots trying to save the idea of Adam and Eve without turning the First Couple into a metaphor.
As for this:
[Engagement between religion and science takes many forms, including] constructive interactions between theologians and scientists seeking common ground, respect, and shared insight into how the science of human evolution contributes to an awareness of what it means to be human.
I’m not sure what that even means, though it sounds very nice and conciliatory. But as I said repeatedly, the question of “what it means to be human” is nebulous. If it does have any answer, the question will be framed by philosophy, not theology, and then answered by science. (For example, philosophers could tell us that “what it means to be human” means having things like rationality and language.)
But I find the whole question of “what it means to be human” tedious and unproductive. One might as well ask, “what it means to be a fruit fly.” There’s simply no objective answer to that question, and it’s time to stop raising it until we figure out what we’re really asking.
Finally, the statement, written by Rick Potts, ends with this poorly written pair of sentences:
Surveys on the public acceptance of evolution indicate that the conflict approach continues to impede public understanding of scientific methods and ongoing discoveries. Looking beyond that, however, the wider variety of perspectives suggests that there is considerable support for maintaining the integrity of religious understandings of the world while embracing the factual basis of evolution, including human evolution, at the same time.
(Rick Potts, Director of the Human Origins Program)
Yes, there is considerable support by the faithful to maintain their antiscientific fictions and unsupported beliefs. And they’re entitled to. But why should they be encouraged and supported by the Smithonian Institution, an organ of the United States government? There’s also considerable support, among believers and especially among scientists (about half of whom are atheists), to dismantle our framework of religious understandings of the world.
