2 of 3

But the most serious puzzle goes deeper. Why, having started the column with that quotation from Dawkins, does Shermer say that creationists "misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions"? If in fact the universe "has precisely the qualities we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference," then creationists—and, for that matter, fellow believers who accept evolution, but not on Dawkins's terms—would hardly be mistaken in seeing a challenge to their fundamental convictions about the nature of the universe.

I thought that perhaps in the next paragraph, Shermer would take a stab at clearing up this confusion. Maybe he would employ some of the language he used at the end of How We Believe, where he explained that he finds the prospect of the "apparently meaningless universe presented by science" profoundly liberating. That still wouldn't explain why such liberation should accord with familiar notions of good and evil. In the universe as described by Dawkins, isn't it ultimately meaningless to speak of the Holocaust, say, as "evil"?

As it happens, Shermer doesn't even take note of the apparent contradiction. Rather he devotes the next paragraph to mocking the intelligent design movement, from which he segues to his concluding peroration. "To counter the nefarious influence of the ID creationists," Shermer says, "we need to employ a proactive strategy of science education and evolution explanation." What on earth does he think is going on in thousands of classrooms across the country? This is supposed to be something novel, a bold new plan? (It would be novel to go to local school boards and explain the exciting new science curriculum that offers students an uncompromising exposure to the "blind, pitiless indifference" of the universe. Someone send a memo to Eugenie Scott.)

But the topper comes with the quotation from Charles Darwin with which Shermer concludes his column:

It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science.

Did Shermer read what he had written before it went into print? Did anyone at Scientific American read it? I know the magazine has been going downhill, but this is embarrassing stuff. Remember that a moment ago Shermer was saying that creationists "misread the theory of evolution as a challenge to their deeply held religious convictions." But now, disabusing people of their Christianity and theism is the end product of the "illumination" offered by science; how to go about it is just a matter of tactics.

One final note: How does a professional skeptic, of all people, come by such a faith in "the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science"? Skeptic, heal thyself.

John Wilson is editor of Books & Culture and editor-at-large for Christianity Today.

Copyright © 2002 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Visit Books & Culture online at BooksandCulture.com or subscribe here.

Shermer's article, "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind | The advance of science, not the demotion of religion, will best counter the influence of creationism," appears in the February 2002 issue of Scientific American.

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

February (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46