Socks for Christmas: Dr. Ayala’s Gift to Wabash
Francisco Ayala is a dream for religious individuals who want to be able to believe in both God and science, and especially evolution. He graduated from a Catholic seminary, went on to graduate from Columbia University, and now teaches biology at the University of California, Irvine. He is touted as a religious man who can champion evolution without batting an eyelash. But as one student remarked after listening to Ayala speak during his visit to campus in March, the biologist’s faith is in God but his religion is science.
In his most recent book, Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion, Ayala eloquently illustrates his position on evolution and science. He says, “the theory of evolution… is consistent with a religious belief in God.” He is a staunch believer in Darwin’s theories and is very well versed in evolutionary science. The man’s credentials are staggering: he served as an expert witness in the court case concerning teaching evolution and creationist science in public schools, Mclean v. Arkansas, and he is a renowned speaker on issues concerning religion and science.
Darwin’s Gift begins with a complete course in evolutionary science and the process of natural selection. Ayala really butters the reader up for his argument about evolution’s relationship to religion. In fact, it takes him eight chapters to even get to the argument for religion. All of his science is in line with the current teachings on evolution. He is not proclaiming new outrageous truths or presenting new research.
But the truth is that Ayala’s argument, while credible, well founded and strong, lacks something. The fault that most weakens his argument that science and religion are not opposed, is his lack of a religious stance. Ayala’s exposition of Darwin’s gift to science is incredibly thorough, but he does not, however, present a fruitful argument for why Darwin’s theory of natural selection is a gift to religion. To reiterate, he dedicates eight chapters in order to prove evolution and refute intelligent design but only gives one chapter to why Darwin also included religion on his Christmas list.
After reading his book and spending around three hours listening to the man speak, I must say that I was incredibly disappointed. Now, let me clarify that my disappointment does not come from his stance on evolution, and this article is in no way trying to present an argument for or against evolution. For the record, I agree with his proclamations.
His speech given on campus was no different than his book, in content or focus. He talked for an hour about why evolution is true, and then, noticing that he was short on time, squeezed in a few ideas about intelligent design. He did not even genuinely begin to develop his argument for Darwin’s gift to religion.
It is blatantly obvious that Ayala is more scientist than theologian, and he even admitted his theological knowledge was limited, over and over and over. This statement was indeed his answer to all the religious questions that he was asked. Again and again the audience was let down by his answer of “I do my best not to practice theology without a license.”
At first his responses drew laughter from the crowd, but after being repeatedly let down, they must have begun to second-guess the man- I know I did. Again, this is not an argument against his evolutionary science, but rather to question his authority on science and religion. Interestingly, Ayala was introduced as having been “educated” in a Catholic seminary; so then, why so many diversions from religious questions?
Although his arguments for evolution were strong, I was completely let down. As a Catholic, I was very excited to read his book, listen to his speech and to receive some “gifts” supporting my religious convictions. But I must say, the only emotion I experienced was similar to receiving socks on Christmas morning. I am disappointed not because he contributed anything extraordinarily controversial to the argument, but rather because he contributed nothing new or profound. Advertisements about his lecture teased my mind into believing that he was a theologian with religious arguments for evolution. Frankly, as he said, he is not a theologian, and thus, he should not present himself as one in order to bring validity to his arguments.
Related posts:
