Sdsu Live - Ed larson interview

Hello, I'm Lorena Nava Ruggero and you are watching SDSU Live, a live video program of San Diego State University. Today, I am speaking with Pulitzer Prize winner Ed Larson. Larson has written a number of books on science and evolution and is speaking later today as part of the university's year-long celebration of Darwin's 200th birthday. Ed, thank you so much for joining me today. Oh, it's great to be here. It's a beautiful day to be here in San Diego. It is. It is. So, in terms of your lecture here later today, what are you going to be talking about? Well, I am sort of going to deal with one aspect. There are lots of issues that come up with the history of evolution and the debates of evolution. But one of the debates that has stayed with us is: what has the debate over evolution told us about human nature, the human soul. That was right when Darwin came out. The objections were not so much to the fact of evolution. People pretty quickly accepted the human body could evolve, animals evolve, plants evolve. But there was this reluctance that something special about humans. The human soul, or altruistic behavior or human higher consciousness -- focus it in different ways. And, maybe that's what's different. That's what couldn't have evolved. Darwin is the co-discoverer of natural selection. Alfred Russel Wallace, you can't say he was a Darwinist -- we could say a Wallathite. From the beginning, (he was) a very strong believer in natural selection. It's a source of evolutionary change he still maintained that the higher human consciousnesness, the great mind, must have been created by a higher intelligence. And imposed in an advanced form of an ape or evolved ape. Now this is the position that many Catholics came to early. A lot of Catholic scientists from the late 1800s thought about this, began thinking of it in this way. This is what the Catholic Church, too, gradually gravitated toward. So, this has been an ongoing debate, and now with the recent development, in neurobiology and also the debates going on over socio-biology in evolutionary psychology. This debate, which was alive then, continues on today. So I am going to be talking a little bit about the history, focusing on the earlier periods as sort of background to what is coming up today. Well, it's interesting that you mentioned intelligent design. It seems that folks use that as a compromise between creationism versus evolution. Do you think there is any validity to that? Why or why not? And, why does it continue to be the answer for so many people? I think, personally, for my work in the area, there's a lot of confusion over what intelligent design means. But, there uses to be the same sort of confusion, and I think there still is over what creationism means. Let's go back to the root of the terms. You can just mean by saying, "I'm a creationist," is that God, somehow, created everything. And, therefore, this creation could be creating the laws of evolutionary development. Isn't it wonderful to have a God that can work by wholesale rather than one who has to work by retail designing every individual kind. And there's a long tradition, going back 150 years, ever since the time Darwin came out. In fact, Darwin kicked that off. If you look to the Origin of Species, the last line, the very last line, it says, "Isn't this amazing." Isn't it miraculous that life was breathed into a few beings from which everything else evolved. Well that, right there in Darwin, right there in Origin of Species, 150 years ago, suggests an intelligent designer at the very beginning. So, is that what you mean by creationism? Or, do you mean by creationism, the ideas of Henry Morris and the Institute of Creation Research, that God created, specifically in a very biblical way, in six literal days, within the last 10,000 years, each kind of animal, and all the land animals on the sixth day. Because that's what the Bible describes. Well what do you mean by creationism? And the same debate happens about intelligent design. Do you mean the anthropic principle? Do you mean that behind everything, that everything out there in the universe looks too orderly to be totally random. Is there an intelligent designer behind the laws of physics that then kicks out evolutionary development Or, are we talking about the capital "I" and capital "D" modern intelligent design movement means? And then you have to look at these people who are the proponents of this, and it's usually capitalized, "Intelligent Design," what they're talking about. And there, we talking about typically, God coming in specifically designing things through history. Not the laws initially. The anthropic principle that there are orderly laws. But, rather, God intervening. Many proponents of intelligent design while they generally accept the long Earth history, though not all do, that is the Earth is very old, that God created each basic kind, seems to be the dominant view within intelligent design. So people, I think, when they hear these terms, many people, most Americans, ninety percent of Americans believe God is behind the process. There was an intelligent designer behind the process. And, so when they heard terms like, sure I am a creationist in that sense, And intelligent design just means there is an intelligent designer behind the laws of physics, that leads to evolution, or do they mean creation science? Or intelligent design, in the sense that basically God created the different kinds, either over a long Earth history or a short Earth history. So, in that sense, intelligent design is not really, if it's with the doctrinal term, that the intelligent designer, as based in the Discovery Institute, it's really not a compromise position. But, if you are talking about design in nature, many believe that is true. In fact, many leading evolutionists, Francis Collins, the head of the Human Genome Project; Ken Miller, who writes by far the most popular biology textbook, and is a very prominent evolutionary biologist at Brown, he believes in the anthropic principle that there is design, that there is a God behind the process Just not in intelligent design. So, that's where I think people get confused over what the term means. And, when you divide it out, it can either be a sense of, sure, theistic evolution and God behind it is a compromise position. But not the intelligent design. So, with the introduction of intelligent design, we're seeing it in the school system, do you think that lessens science education in the U.S? There continues to be this debate about evolution, despite that it has been around, at least with Darwin and the Origin of Species, for 150 years. Is it to our children's detriment that we're teaching intelligent design? Well, I don't think we are teaching intelligent design very much. So far, whenever there's been an attempt to introduce intelligent design concepts, such as in Pennsylvania a couple of years ago it's been beaten back by the courts. It was defeated there, where they tried to work in pandas in people, which was purported to be intelligent design text, but the court found it was more creation science. It was defeated by the courts. And, so, there certainly are individual teachers teaching certain elements of this, but it's it's not part of the stae curriculum. There are debates in Texas, there are debates in Ohio there's debates in Louisiana about this. But, so far, the courts have all come out saying intelligent design, and again we're talking about now capital "I" and capital "D," this doctrinal concept, not the idea of an order behind nature. That's been ruled unconstituional because you're teaching a religious doctrine as science. And that, the courts have said, you can't do. Now, that said, I do think, that a good science teachercan use creation science, intelligent design, whatever, as long as their pedilogical principle, their goal, what they're trying to do is teach people how to understand how science works, you can take things like intelligent design, which is really more of a philisophical position than it is an articulated body of science. In fact, even its lead proponent, Phillip Johnson, in a recent interview, admitted, that there isn't any body of evidence, scientific evidence for intelligent design. It's not a science, yet. But it is a philisophical position. That God is continuously involved in nature. Well, you could use that to help people in a classroom to help people understand the difference between religion and science. That is, the goal of science is to find an explanation for physical phenomenon. Now, there may be other explanations for physical phenomenon, but the goal of science is to give the naturalistic ones. And then you can see how science is fundamentally different than intelligint design. If you could use that in a classroom, only because many students are from their home and from their church and from other activities, are very familiar with the ideas of of intelligent design or with creation science than familiar with the alternatives. Well the way to get students interested class, is to, rather than just blindly teach some facts, create some tension, create some difference, create create some explanations. You can see what science is by seeing how it differs from other ways of thought. So, I think, you could use intelligent design depending on what your goals are. If your goals are to proselytize for a religious idea, the Supreme Court says you can't do that. But, if your goals are to teach good science, I could see how you could bring in other ideas. Just like, the best way to learn about American culture is to learn about global culture. The best way to learn about capitalism is to learn about other economic systems, a mix of economic systems. And that can work also in science. So using it as part of a spectrum of things you might teach in a classroom environment? And, with a clear understanding, that the goal is to teach science. And, what science is, is naturalistic answers for physical phenomenon. That doesn't mean it's the only answer. Take, for example, to make a leap, take for example medical school. Now many people believe many Americans believe, when they get sick, or when their grandmother gets sick, or when their wife gets sick, or when their children get sick, they pray and they believe that prayer has some kind of effect. But that doesn't mean that you want it taught in medical school. You still often go to a doctor. Now, some don't. Christian Scientists don't. But you still go to a doctor and you want allopathic medicine for treatments. But you'll also go to spiritual healing. You use herbs and cures. You use prayer. And, which element cures your child or your grandparents? Was it the prayer or was it the chemotherapy? Which fails to do it? Which works? so we can hold different ideas. Now, then to understand how allopathic medicine works, you can explain how faith healing works. That doesn't mean you are teaching faith healing as a scientific alternative. Because, it's not a scientific alternative. It's a religious alternative. I think that's what I'm talking about. That you can take intelligent design and you can say how this is a philosophy. It's a way of thinking about things. It may even be true. But that's not what the debate is. The debate is, what is science? And, how is the different from science? I think, in that way, it's not a range of alternatives. It's a different way of approaching an issue. And, if we understand these things, that can be a benefit in understanding science. But also in understanding people. And understanding religion and understanding society. And that's really the goal of education. So, I think, teaching today is an enormous challenge. And, it's only getting tougher, with kids moving around because their homes are being forclosed and budgets being cut. And anything that can make education work better to foster critical thought. To foster people thinking and working through curriculum. We've got to try eveything. Because (managing) our schools is a tremendous challenge. And, American society, in my opinion, and K-12 teachers, we need them. Definitely. Well, you have a passion for science and have written so many books on science and on evolution, in particular, why do these topics continue to hold your interest? Was it a K-12 teacher? I've always been fascinated by history and I've always been fascinated by science. And, in so many ways, it's interesting to me to see the importance that modern society places on science. The authority that science has -- it's not totally uniform. It's somewhat limited, yet, more than any time in our history, more than any time in world history, we look to scientists for answers. Now, we also question them. We also challenge them. And, so I've been interested in that cutting edge between what is the authority of science? What is the place for science? Where do we get our values? What do we decide what is true is important? At a time in world history, religion was the source of authority. It still is for many people. But science is a sort of competing source of authority. They battle in the United States for authority. In other countries, religion is far stronger than science, such as in Latin America for example. In other places, such as in Western Europe, science is far stronger than religion. Religion has very little authority. Those are the sorts of questions, the sort of mundane, boring, intellectual history that I have always been fascinated with. And, I have worked in areas of physics. And I have worked in other areas of history of science. But there is nothing that plays it out more, in the last 150 years, than evolution. And, so, that's why I have focused more on that topic playing out its cultural, social, scientific importance. Those questions of authority, of epistemology, interest me. And religion, more than the Big *** theory, more than plate tectonics, more than quantum mechanics -- all those interest me -- but it's played out more in the biological sciences. It's probablly played out more, first, because the sciences are more understandable to people than physics, which is so far beyond that people just roll their eyes and they don't know what relativity or quantum mechanics is. They can sort of get their hands around evolution. But, also, it involves people. And, we're pretty anthropocentric. We pretty much care more about ourselves than anyone else. And, more than about the stars or whatever. So we care about ourselves and our evolutionary biology and socio biology and evolutionary psychology -- they try and help us explain who we are. Well, so does religion. And you get the tensions there more. And I get drawn in to writing on that topic. Writing different books that deal with different aspects of that issue. And, so, I don't think I am writing the same book at all, all the time. I am writing very different books. One on eugenics, say for example. One on the science of the Galapagos Islands. Another one, sort of on the broad history of evolution. One on, just narrowly, on the Scopes trial. You work them all together and they are different angles at looking at the same -- I would say different facets of the same diamond for me. Something that interests me. Well, thank you so much foryour time, professor Larson. If you'd like to hear more about this tension between between religion and evolution, and everything else Ed will have to say later today, be sure to attend his lecture at 4:30 p.m. today in Montezuma Hall. The event is free and open to the public. Thank you for joining us on SDSU Live. We hope you tune in again. And, thank you, Ed, so much for your time. I really do appreciate it. Well thank you for having me.