Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
by saying that humans evolved from apes through natural selection, but to
wholly give these categories of inquiry over to science is also to deny, tacitly
at least, theology's fundamental premise of supernatural causation.
Perhaps it was not Hess' intention to cede this ground to science; per-
haps this ambiguity arises only because he has tried to communicate a
difficult philosophical distinction in the everyday language of the typical
web user. But our concern is with effects, not motives. By asserting that all
questions of being and process belong to science, Hess has done more to
open the door to evolutionism than to open the religious reader's mind to
evolutionary science. Those who buy into the supposition that religion only
asks questions about purpose, meaning, and value, but never about being,
means, and process, will have also surrendered to science much of what
theologians have traditionally held. If questions about what “is” can only
have scientific answers, then not only creationism will have to be thrown
out; the doctrine of creation (the most central theological answer to the
“What is it?” question) will have to go as well.
The informal positivism that this message passes along may be ren-
dered invisible by the fact that it comes from a theologian. General readers
recognizing a religion-friendly voice in Hess will not be on the lookout for
such encroachments. It is only when we step outside the confines of the
NCSE's public relations efforts that we are likely to realize that this atten-
dant philosophical baggage does not appear by accident. The professional
decorum of the NCSE website's messages and its science education orien-
tation draw attention away from these implications, but this guard comes
down in different contexts of communication. When not speaking directly
to the broader public that the NCSE seeks to reach, even its executive direc-
tor, Eugenie Scott, does not shy away from the symbols of evolutionism. A
decade ago, her letter asking supporters to renew their NCSE memberships
offered a “Darwin fish” refrigerator magnet as a bonus for those contribut-
ing fifty dollars or more (figure 7).
Scott later defended this in a
Firing Line
debate with Phillip Johnson
by calling it an “ecumenical” symbol that signals the organization's official
profession of making peace between science and religion. However, it seems
odd to say that an object that so clearly parodies a traditional religious sym-
bol should be thought to signal rapprochement.
45
Symbols can be made to
mean different things, of course, but my own survey research on the mean-
ings intended by those who display the Darwin fish emblem belies Scott's
claim. Users typically explained it as a symbol displayed (playfully for some,
more aggressively for others) to mock religious people—a Darwinian version
