- Email: [email protected]
Review: Darwin's Garden by Michael Boulter
Commentary
THEA BRINE
Mindfields A. C. Grayling
Don’t accept this tainted money THERE ought to be a debate about whether this or any other science magazine should accept advertisements from the Templeton Foundation. This institution, which aims to promote a connection between religion and science, spends large sums of money supporting research in theoretical physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and social science. It acknowledges that its interests are as much religious as scientific; its publicly stated core themes include “new concepts of God”, “prayer and meditation”, “spiritual capital”, “spiritual transformation”, “unconditional love” and “worship”. Empirical inquiry into why people hold beliefs about such matters or engage in such practices might be desirable, but spiritual capital and the rest are subjects of a quite different kind from particle physics or biochemistry. Mixing them is surely an attempt to give religion some of the respectability of science and to challenge the boundaries between them. One can put the point more robustly by asking whether it 48 | NewScientist | 12 July 2008
would be acceptable to publish ads from bodies wishing to promote astrology or tarot readings. The single difference between religion (which may be defined as faithbased credence in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe) and astrology or tarot divination is that religion has been institutionalised, and as
“It is not in science’s interests to run ads from the Templeton Foundation” such has been greatly influential in most societies and still retains its hold in many. The evidential base for beliefs in the existence of supernatural agencies is little different from that for astral influences or the effectiveness of divination. Their hold on credence is historical, not empirical; they are not subject to experimental test; and they require the suspension rather than the support of rational consideration. Sceptics might regard the foundation’s ample funding as a
Bookends form of inducement, tempting some who do not subscribe to religion to temporise, so that what they say can be construed as leaving the door ajar for “new concepts of God”, “spiritual transformation” and other aspects of the Templeton agenda. That reflects the foundation’s primary aim: to maintain a space for religious considerations to be raised in scientific contexts. Let us look at an even more questionable effort to keep religious belief alive in the face of scientific progress, this time not by efforts to forge connections but by outright opposition. In the US and elsewhere the Discovery Institute seeks to combat evolutionary biology, partly by propaganda (“creation museums” have vegetarian tyrannosauruses playing peacefully with children in Eden) and partly by trying to get equal time for intelligent-design creationism in school curricula. This endeavour has found fertile ground in Louisiana (see page 8). Previous attempts to insert creationist teaching into classrooms having failed, the Discovery Institute-backed lobby has persuaded the state to adopt a bill authorising use of unspecified “supplementary materials” in biology classes, allowing science teachers to hold discussions that challenge traditional theories, including evolution, cloning and global warming. New Scientist would not take advertising from the Discovery Institute; it refuses ads from any organisation that says “God is the answer”. But the magazine argues that taking money from the Templeton Foundation is different because it aims only to promote discussion between science and religion. I agree that the Templeton Foundation is more moderate than the Discovery Institute, but it shares a goal with it: to keep religion in science. Is this in the interests of science and science education? I think not, and I would question whether to run its advertisements in these pages. ●
Domestic origins Darwin’s Garden by Michael Boulter, Constable, £16.99, ISBN 9781845295998 Reviewed by Henry Nicholls
IN DARWIN’S day, the garden at Down House – his home from 1842 until his death in 1882 – was a hub of scientific activity. With experiments on pollination, hybridisation and dispersal of plants, and findings that paved the way for modern genetics and studies of food chains and biodiversity, it’s not surprising to find strong connections between this quiet spot and today’s biological sciences. Boulter gives a standard history of Darwin’s life and times, before going in search of these connections. The result is a useful primer for anyone wanting an overview of the man and his legacy.
Age matters Nature’s Clocks by Doug Macdougall, University of California Press, $24.95/£14.95, ISBN 9780520249752 Reviewed by Richard A. Lovett
LESS than a century ago, it was impossible for geologists to assign accurate dates to rocks or fossils. Now, the burgeoning science of geochronology can date strata with up to 99.9 per cent precision, determine the age of meteorites to within a few hundred thousand years, and use carbon-14 to date archaeological sites from minute fragments of wood or charcoal. Rich in historical titbits, this book is a delightful study of how scientists figured out analytical techniques that revealed the history of the Earth.
www.newscientist.com
THEA BRINE
Mindfields A. C. Grayling
Don’t accept this tainted money THERE ought to be a debate about whether this or any other science magazine should accept advertisements from the Templeton Foundation. This institution, which aims to promote a connection between religion and science, spends large sums of money supporting research in theoretical physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science and social science. It acknowledges that its interests are as much religious as scientific; its publicly stated core themes include “new concepts of God”, “prayer and meditation”, “spiritual capital”, “spiritual transformation”, “unconditional love” and “worship”. Empirical inquiry into why people hold beliefs about such matters or engage in such practices might be desirable, but spiritual capital and the rest are subjects of a quite different kind from particle physics or biochemistry. Mixing them is surely an attempt to give religion some of the respectability of science and to challenge the boundaries between them. One can put the point more robustly by asking whether it 48 | NewScientist | 12 July 2008
would be acceptable to publish ads from bodies wishing to promote astrology or tarot readings. The single difference between religion (which may be defined as faithbased credence in the existence of supernatural agencies or entities in the universe) and astrology or tarot divination is that religion has been institutionalised, and as
“It is not in science’s interests to run ads from the Templeton Foundation” such has been greatly influential in most societies and still retains its hold in many. The evidential base for beliefs in the existence of supernatural agencies is little different from that for astral influences or the effectiveness of divination. Their hold on credence is historical, not empirical; they are not subject to experimental test; and they require the suspension rather than the support of rational consideration. Sceptics might regard the foundation’s ample funding as a
Bookends form of inducement, tempting some who do not subscribe to religion to temporise, so that what they say can be construed as leaving the door ajar for “new concepts of God”, “spiritual transformation” and other aspects of the Templeton agenda. That reflects the foundation’s primary aim: to maintain a space for religious considerations to be raised in scientific contexts. Let us look at an even more questionable effort to keep religious belief alive in the face of scientific progress, this time not by efforts to forge connections but by outright opposition. In the US and elsewhere the Discovery Institute seeks to combat evolutionary biology, partly by propaganda (“creation museums” have vegetarian tyrannosauruses playing peacefully with children in Eden) and partly by trying to get equal time for intelligent-design creationism in school curricula. This endeavour has found fertile ground in Louisiana (see page 8). Previous attempts to insert creationist teaching into classrooms having failed, the Discovery Institute-backed lobby has persuaded the state to adopt a bill authorising use of unspecified “supplementary materials” in biology classes, allowing science teachers to hold discussions that challenge traditional theories, including evolution, cloning and global warming. New Scientist would not take advertising from the Discovery Institute; it refuses ads from any organisation that says “God is the answer”. But the magazine argues that taking money from the Templeton Foundation is different because it aims only to promote discussion between science and religion. I agree that the Templeton Foundation is more moderate than the Discovery Institute, but it shares a goal with it: to keep religion in science. Is this in the interests of science and science education? I think not, and I would question whether to run its advertisements in these pages. ●
Domestic origins Darwin’s Garden by Michael Boulter, Constable, £16.99, ISBN 9781845295998 Reviewed by Henry Nicholls
IN DARWIN’S day, the garden at Down House – his home from 1842 until his death in 1882 – was a hub of scientific activity. With experiments on pollination, hybridisation and dispersal of plants, and findings that paved the way for modern genetics and studies of food chains and biodiversity, it’s not surprising to find strong connections between this quiet spot and today’s biological sciences. Boulter gives a standard history of Darwin’s life and times, before going in search of these connections. The result is a useful primer for anyone wanting an overview of the man and his legacy.
Age matters Nature’s Clocks by Doug Macdougall, University of California Press, $24.95/£14.95, ISBN 9780520249752 Reviewed by Richard A. Lovett
LESS than a century ago, it was impossible for geologists to assign accurate dates to rocks or fossils. Now, the burgeoning science of geochronology can date strata with up to 99.9 per cent precision, determine the age of meteorites to within a few hundred thousand years, and use carbon-14 to date archaeological sites from minute fragments of wood or charcoal. Rich in historical titbits, this book is a delightful study of how scientists figured out analytical techniques that revealed the history of the Earth.
www.newscientist.com