Monthly Archives: February 2009

Darwin’s 200th: What evolution can teach Christianity

Posted on by

ResearchBlogging.org
Today is the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, and 150 years since he published his groundbreaking book, The Origin of Species. The Origin provided the first widely-accepted explanation for the evolution of life on Earth, and, although Darwin was wrong on some points (if only he had known about genes!), a century and a half of scientific work has shown that he was right about more.

That century and a half has not diffused the perception, especially in the United States and other highly religious countries, that acceptance of a scientific account for the history of life is antithetical to religion. As a Darwinian and a Christian, this is a topic with which I struggle, and about which I’ve written a great deal here. Although I’m not sure that science can coexist with a real belief in the supernatural, I do hold that science is both compatible with the moral questions at the heart of religion and essential to answering them.


Photo by rmcnicholas.

For Darwin’s 200th, then, I’d like to briefly present three examples of evolutionary insights that complement the Christian moral perspective. I focus on Christianity here (and elsewhere in this blog) not because I think it has an exclusive hold on the truth, but because it is the tradition in which I was raised, and the one that shapes my own moral perspective. I think the following points are easily applicable to just about any other moral system, religious or non.

Our evolutionary past shapes us today.

Christianity (and, indeed, most other religions) starts from the fundamental problem of human behavior: We do things that we know are hurtful to those around us, often because we enjoy doing them. As the apostle wrote, “For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing.” (Romans 7:19)

The Christian tradition calls this original sin; the evolutionary perspective points to its origin in the remnants of past adaptations. We have two bones in each forearm because we evolved from ancestors with those two bones in their pectoral fins [$-a]; we may be hostile to outsiders because that parochialism helped early humans to form closer-knit societies [$-a]. Far from giving us an excuse to do whatever we feel like, these results can help us figure out how to overcome evolved behaviors that hurt others.

Christ calls us to transcend our past.

Just as it shapes our hurtful impulses, our evolutionary past has a hand in the better angels of our nature. We may care for our children and close relatives, for instance, in part because they carry many of our genes – so helping them helps our own evolutionary fitness [$-a]. Similarly, the need to live peacefully with our immediate neighbors may have shaped deep emotional aversions to murder [PDF].

In the Sermon on the Mount, though, Jesus lays out a moral model that calls us beyond what comes naturally:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder,’ … But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” (Matt. 5:21-2)

And:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you … If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? (Matt. 5:43-6)

Evolutionary thinking can help us realize Christ’s call.

When we understand the deep causes of hurtful behavior, we can figure out better how to overcome them. To pick just one example: Jesus proposes a moral solution to the problem of hostility to strangers mentioned above in the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) when he redefines the concept of “neighbor” to mean something bigger than “people of the same race/religion.” But how do we overcome deep-seated biases against people who don’t look like us? One new study suggests hacking the mental habits that create those biases in the first place, by making the effort to become familiar with people of other races – Caucasian volunteers trained to better differentiate between African American faces showed reduced evidence of bias against African Americans.

Like the Christian moral model, the evolutionary perspective understands that humans are imperfect – but suggests ways we can do better. This is why it pains me to hear other Christians dismiss evolutionary science out of hand (apart from my nerdy compulsions to correct factual error): Understanding evolution can help us in our ongoing struggle to live together, if only we’re open to the data science provides. The current advances in our understanding of human behavior are only possible because today’s researchers stand on the shoulders of a giant: Charles Darwin.

References

J.-K. Choi, S. Bowles (2007). The coevolution of parochial altruism and war Science, 318 (5850), 636-40 DOI: 10.1126/science.1144237

K. Foster, T. Wenseleers, F. Ratnieks (2006). Kin selection is the key to altruism Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21 (2), 57-60 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.11.020

J.D. Greene (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment Science, 293 (5537), 2105-8 DOI: 10.1126/science.1062872

S. Lebrecht, L.J. Pierce, M.J. Tarr, J.W. Tanaka (2009). Perceptual other-race training reduces implicit racial bias PLoS ONE, 4 (1) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004215

T. Lewens. (2007). Darwin. New York: Routledge. Amazon.com.

M. Ruse. (2000). Can a Darwinian be a Christian? Cambridge University Press. Amazon.com.

N.H. Shubin, E.B. Daeschler, F.A. Jenkins (2006). The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb Nature, 440 (7085), 764-71 DOI: 10.1038/nature04637

Funding creative science

Posted on by

Stephen Quake laments the grant-approval process of most U.S. federal funding agencies, and suggests making room for risky proposals:

I wonder if this should also be the time to rethink the basic foundations of how science is funded. Could we stimulate more discovery and creativity if more scientists had the security of their own salary and a long-term commitment to a minimal level of research support? Would this encourage risk-taking and lead to an overall improvement in the quality of science?

The NIH model Quake describes – which sets aside specific funding sources for out-of-the-box proposals – seems sensible, given additional funds for such use.

Reflective Christianity

Posted on by

Slacktivist Fred Clark(!), “a Baptist in the evangelical tradition” reacts to his inclusion on a list of the top Atheist/Agnostic/Skeptic blogs with a meditation on faith, certainty, and the value of listening to – and interacting with – opposing viewpoints:

Like most humans, I’m bound to be wrong about many things, and the things I’m likeliest to be wrong about are those things I’m least aware I might be wrong about. So it seems not just prudent, but necessary, to engage as many disparate views as possible.

——
(!) In the original version of this post, I inexplicably confused Fred Clark, a thoughtful, humane, and progressive Christian – whose blog I follow regularly – with Fred Phelps, a fundamentalist troglodyte. This mistake would, no doubt, have massively offended both of them, should either have seen it. My deepest, sincerest apologies to Clark.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Evolutionary merchandising, just in time for Darwin Day

Posted on by

I’ve never quite found a t-shirt design that speaks to me as a bio-nerd. Sure, there are tees out there that promote evolution (usually in opposition to creationism), or science in general, and some are pretty awesome. But where’s the evolutionary biology equivalent of the infinite in-jokes for computer programmers, say? I haven’t seen ’em.

Here, then, are my first attempts to fill this minuscule hole in the market, two designs capturing the twin evolutionary forces of natural selection and genetic drift. Design by me, printing by Spreadshirt. I’ve ordered my own copies of the two pictured here, and they’re great – stylish, comfortable American Apparel tees with clean, bright printing. More options are at my new Spreadshirt store Denim & Tees, or you can work up your own in Spreadshirt’s nifty online designer.

Natural selection and speciation, 150 years later

Posted on by

ResearchBlogging.orgScience kicks off the week of Darwin’s 200th with a special section devoted to the latest on speciation [$-a], the literal origin of species. It includes a new review by Dolph Schluter, discussing the role of natural selection speciation [$-a], which suggests a new way to think about selection creating reproductive isolation.

Schluter contrasts ecological speciation, in which reproductive isolation arises in the course of adaptation to different environments, “mutation-order” speciation – isolation arising by the accumulation of different genetic and morphological changes in the course of adaptation to the same (or the same kind of) environment. That is, natural selection can cause a population to split into two species if different parts of population are “solving” different ecological problems, or if they arrive at different “answers” to the same problem.

The mutation-order scenario makes sense, though it’s new to me. As an example, Schluter cites a recent study in Mimulus in which a mutation of the mitochondrial DNA in one population creates sterile males in hybridization with other populations [$-a]. He proposes that much mutation-order speciation occurs because of conflict between different levels of natural selection, as when “selfish genes” create reproductive incompatibilities in the course of spreading through a host population. This is a departure from what biologists usually consider speciation by natural selection, but Schluter makes an interesting point.

References

A.L. Case, J.H. Willis (2008). Hybrid male sterility in Mimulus (Phrymaceae) is associated with a geographically restricted mitochondrial rearrangement Evolution, 62 (5), 1026-39 DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00360.x

D. Schluter (2009). Evidence for ecological speciation and its alternative Science, 323 (5915), 737-41 DOI: 10.1126/science.1160006

A. Sugden, C. Ash, B. Hanson, L. Zahn (2009). Happy birthday, Mr. Darwin Science, 323 (5915) DOI: 10.1126/science.323.5915.727

A limerick for Darwin’s 200th

Posted on by

Thursday is, of course, the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth. To kick off a week of commemorations, symposia, and nerdy parties, I humbly submit a limerick:

The vicar, one Quite Reverend Darwin
Considered, whilst penning each sermon,
How he might have advanced,
Had he taken that chance
To go with the Beagle a-voyagin’.

(It is widely considered that Darwin, had he not taken an interest in natural history, would’ve ended up as a clergyman; see David Quamman’s excellent pocket biography, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin.)

Dear Senator

Posted on by

Sheesh. Of course science is the first thing they try to cut from the pending stimulus bill. Text free for the taking to anyone who wants to pester their congresscritters – which you should, if you care about science in the U.S.

OK, so it gets a little melodramatic at the end there, but I’m trying for impact. Edit as you see fit – individualized letters are more likely to have an impact.

Dear Senator,

I’m a graduate student in biology at the University of Idaho, and I’m writing to ask that you support President Obama’s stimulus plan, with full funding for basic scientific research.

Science and technology – the fruits of basic scientific research funded by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and other government scientific agencies – are responsible for half of all U.S. economic growth since World War II. Yet today, after years of virtually no increases in basic research funding, laboratories across the country are at risk of shutting down, with untold consequences for our long-term competitiveness in the global economy.

Basic research makes economic sense over the short term, too – with the increase in funding proposed in the stimulus bill, granting agencies would immediately be able to fund more of the grant requests they’re considering right now. That’s money to pay lab staff, and buy reagents and equipment – most often from American companies like Thermo Fisher and Qiagen.

For these reasons, the stimulus bill before the Senate originally contained vital increases in basic scientific research funding. Now, however, a group of senators, including Susan Collins and Ben Nelson, are proposing cuts to the stimulus bill that would eliminate much – and in the case of NSF, all – funding for science. Considering what a tiny portion of the bill’s proposed spending was already devoted to science funding, and the immediate and long-term value it would have brought our economy, this is a shortsighted idea at best.

So I hope you will give full support to President Obama’s stimulus bill, and reject the Collins-Nelson cuts in science funding. The scientific and economic future of our nation depend on this.

regards,
Jeremy B. Yoder

[I should also note that the talking points above come from an email sent out by Shawn Otto over the ScienceDebate2008 e-mail list; I can’t find coverage of this issue on the SD2008 site, however.]