[1] Yesterday was the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.

It is a hallmark of the culture in which we live that this particular scientific theory so offends the majority.

Darwin’s theory of evolution through variation and natural selection has been controversial among some religious groups since its introduction. To some, it represents a mortal challenge to a literal reading of Genesis — but then, so does the standard cosmology of modern physics, the theory of plate tectonics, and indeed much of the unified structure of modern science. A more serious threat is that, by fully integrating homo sapiens with the rest of the living world, it could be interpreted as undermining any worldview that gives special precedence to humanity.

I am not a subject matter expert when it comes to evolutionary biology. However, I am a scientist. The defective products that emerge from places like the [2] Institute for Creation Research and the [3] Discovery Institute bears so little resemblance to actual science that I find it baffling that any schooled person could be fooled. Conversely, I have read [4] On the Origin of Species and found it awe-inspiring.

But for me, the crux is the method.  The scientific method has proven its effectiveness countless times. It is not a democratic method. It is one where reason and evidence prevail over tradition and faith. Conversely, the legalistic and political strategies pursued by the creationist camp are obscurantist and sterile.

The scientific method is naturalistic. It is inconceivable that a Physical Review Letter will ever conclude “God is Responsible for Superconductivity in Laminar Cuprates”. To creationists, this appears to be a “chink in the armor”, their reasoning being that if science assumes there is no deity, then science’s reasoning about the non-existence of deities is circular. Some scientists try to compromise, and say that the hypothesis of the existence of God is testable. Good luck getting that past peer review. I am perfectly comfortable accepting that science has literally no contribution to the discussion of the supernatural, other than to provide explanations for phenomena that otherwise might tempt us to resort to superstition and religion. If there are supernatural phenomena that require explanation, I’m happy to let the shamans deal with it.

Steven Jay Gould popularized the notion that science and religion are “[5] non-overlapping magisteria“,  a view he dubbed NOMA. I can’t quite purchase this epistemology. Science has inarguably invaded mindspace once occupied by priests and shamans, and seems poised to continue to do so. I think science will continue to generate new knowledge at an exponentially growing rate, but that it will be a long, long time before it can adequately address the questions of human individual and social behavior that are the bastion and bailiwick of religion, tradition, and superstition. We have only recently become equipped to explain the composition and interactions of atomic nuclei. Biology has only in the last generation become organized enough to support mathematical analysis. But even the idea that the practice of medicine should be based on evidence, and not anecdote, does not have universal support. And social sciences are struggling for legitimacy and a place of respect in the scientific community. I doubt this will come in my lifetime.

So, to all the creationists out there, I’m really not interested in your speculations on why God designed the eye so that we become [6] presbyopic, or your criticisms of Darwin’s understanding of the mechanism of heritability. Your sin is the undermining of the method, and until you stop trying to legislate your results and start learning how to do real science, no one is going to take you seriously.

[h/t [7] Rand Simberg]