The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City is perhaps the finest museum of its type in the U.S. My old friend Betsy visited it during her trip to NYC with her husband to see the Rigged Dog Debate, and she sent me a picture from her visit to the Museum’s Hall of Human Origins. The photo came with this note:

I had not been to the Natural History Museum in about 15 years. They have restored the dioramas with the North American mammals, and they are spectacular. I also visited their exhibit on the origins of man. It was really interesting. I  noted their attempt to address the conflict between evolution and religion. I think it is interesting that they even broached the subject. I suppose it is an indication of the depth of the strength of the opposition. In my opinion, their attempt (and I  am attaching a photo of what they have posted) paradoxically gives the Creationists more legitimacy.

Well, I’m not sure whether what you’re about to read gives creationists more legitimacy, but what Betsy probably meant was that even addressing the issue calls attention to the creationist position. The “disclaimer” on view in the Museum is below:

First, the good part, which is the emphasis on the theory’s “scientific validity,” though I’d like a few more words on that—words like “virtually all scientists accept the existence of evolution and common ancestry, with the change driven largely by natural selection.”

Beyond that, I’m sure that there are readers—and plenty of scientists—who will think the rest of the statement is fine. I don’t.  Here’s what’s wrong with it:

1. It is a theological statement, and one that’s also intellectually dishonest. Note that at the end of the first paragraph it states that the concepts of evolution “SEEM incompatible with some people’s religious beliefs” SEEM? Really? How about saying the truth: “IS incompatible with MANY people’s religious beliefs” (and by “many”, I mean 42% of Americans, to which you can add another 31% if you include those who accept theistic evolution, a form of evolution rejected by scientists). In other words, 73% of Americans reject the scientific view of evolution.

2. It flaunts the discredited NOMA (non-overlapping magisteria) hypothesis. The disclaimer pushes the standard accommodationist line in the second paragraph (“Many today, including prominent religious leaders and scientists view the search for understanding as one that embraces both scientific explorations into the material world and a spiritual search for the meaning of human existence, with no inherent conflict between the two.”) This is intellectual dishonest on several planes, including its failure to mention that many today do NOT view the “search for understanding” as including both scientific and religious explorations. Most accomplished scientists, for example, are atheists, and have no truck with religion’s search for “meaning”. Indeed, many of us don’t think that human existence has any inherent meaning that can be “found” and generalized to all people. Meaning is a personal one, sought through one’s own aspirations and ruminations, not via some search for a divine Diktat. And, of course, many Americans simply reject evolutionary biology as a whole.

The “no inherent conflict” applies only to those religions—and there are few of them—that make no existence claims: claims about what is true in our universe. If a faith talks about Resurrection, Hell, Heaven, God’s will for us, or, indeed, the existence of a god itself, then it’s in conflict with science.  This was the one big problem with Steve Gould’s NOMA hypothesis, and he’s been criticized for it not only by people like me, but by many theologians as well, including John Haught. (I discuss all this in my upcoming book.) The other problem, of course, is the claim that religion tells us truths about the meaning and purpose of our lives, truths that can’t be discerned by secular philosophy alone. That is palpably bogus. Religion has no exclusive claim on “meanings,” “values,” or “morals,” and in fact its attempt to control these botches them up much worse than does secular philosophy.  Do we really need to refrain from nonmarital sex because God says so?

3. The controversy over evolution is not merely a “social controversy,” as the sign proclaims.  The roots of creationism, of course, lie in religion, but much of the opposition to evolution rests on claims about fact, as we can see from Intelligent Designoids who write books claiming that there is empirical support for Intelligent Design.  Those books, like the latest one by Stephen Meyer on the Cambrian “explosion,” make fact claims that have been refuted by scientists like Kenneth Miller, Charles Marshall, and Nick Matzke. Those fact claims are, of course, bogus ones, cooked up to support a religious viewpoint; but they miss the nuance (oh God, I used that word!) by arguing that the controversy is “social.” If you want to characterize the conflict accurately, just bite the bullet and call it a “religious” controversy, for that is exactly what it is.  Almost no creationists are motivated in their views and actions by anything other than religion. The failure of the disclaimer to say that opposition to evolution is motivated purely by religion is an insult to scientists.

But my main question is this: “Why do they need this sign in the first place?” The AMNH is no place for theological statements, particularly misleading ones. Pretending that there is no conflict between science and religion, and that any incompatibility is illusory, is blatant intellectual dishonesty. Instead of Lying for Jesus, the people who made this sign are Lying for Darwin. Their motivation is a good one: is to get people to accept evolution; but they do so by pretending that there is no conflict between religion and science. After all, look at all those scientists and religionists who see no conflict! (Pay no attention to the 43% of the public behind the curtain who definitely see a conflict! And ignore that 2009 poll showed that 55% of Americans perceive a conflict between science and religion.)

Signs like this one grate on me, and I have a feeling that they accomplish nothing, despite accommodationist claims that if we osculate the rump of faith, then Christians will flock to evolution like animals to the Ark. There’s no evidence for that.  The AMNH should just present the evidence for evolution and deep-six these unctuous osculations of religion. They are embarrassing, they are untrue, and they pretends that scientists are “spiritual” in a religious sense (they’re not).

p.s. One other distortion:  contra the last sentence, there are big differences between the modern theory of evolution and that presented by Darwin in 1859. Granted, many of Darwin’s premises were right (evolution, common ancestry, natural selection, sexual selection, and so on), but he got a lot of stuff wrong, notably genetics, not to mention the assumed stasis of continents. It’s no crime to admit that our understanding of evolution has moved a long ways since 1859.