SPRING 1982 VOL. 2 NO. 2 $3.50
A Call for the Critical Examination of the Interview with Bible and Religion Isaac Asimov We are confronted today with a situa- tion of imbalance. Tens of millions of people are exposed daily to exhorta- On Science and the Bible tions about religion and the Bible. Fundamentalist preachers and mission- aries claim that the Bible's teachings are L. Sprague de Camp literally true, divinely inspired, and the ultimate source of human salvation. In this, the centenary year of the The Continuing death of Charles Darwin, the issue of whether scientific inquiry or biblical revelation should serve as the basis of Monkey War knowledge and of political and ethical conduct is as controversial and relevant as it was in Darwin's day. Countless millions of individuals in Leo Pfeffer modern society are largely indifferent to the claims of the fundamentalists. They reject the claims of biblical The Supreme Court religion as superstituous and irrelevant to their interests. They believe in the and Secular Humanism secularization of society and the use of scientific methods of inquiry. Commit- ted to tolerance, they hold that religion should be a private matter rather than a public one and that one can live an Antony Flew ethical life without being a devout believer. The Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish sects that abound in America The Erosion of Evolution have deep ethnic roots. Supported by ties of kinship and tradition, in- dividuals born into these religions often accept them without much thought. It is often a question of birth, Neo-Puritanism" by not conviction; of ceremony, not com- "Norman Podhoretz's mitment. Lee Nisbet, "Nativity Legends" by Randel Religious extremists are not con- tent to leave the rest of us alone. They Helms, and "Reds" reviewed by Hal Crow- feel compelled to save souls and they condemn unbelievers as "sinners." For- ther. Also Vern Bullough, Corliss Lamont, merly this message was heard only from Dora Russell, Tibor Machan, and Bette the pulpits of private churches. Today the situation is radically altered: Elec- Chambers. (continued on back cover)
ISSN 0272-0701 SPRING 1982 VOL. 2 NO. 2
Contents About This Issue
EDITORIAL This issue of FREE INQUIRY commemor- 1 A Call for the Critical Examination of the Bible and Religion ates the centennial of the death of Charles 3 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Darwin (April 19, 1882). Darwin was one On Creationism Bette Chambers, Bart Clennon of the world's greatest scientists and a major . figure in biology. He, more than ARTICLES anyone, advanced the universal recogni- 6 An Interview with Isaac Asimov on Science and the Bible tion of evolution. Although we can 12 The Continuing Monkey War L. Sprague de Camp disagree with Darwin about how evolu- 17 Three Cheers for the Creationists! A.J. Mattill, Jr. tion occurred—and science has gone 19 The Erosion of Evolution: A Treason beyond Darwin's explanation of the of the Intellectuals Amont' Flew mechanisms—this does not deny the 24 The Religion of Secular Humanism: A Judicial Myth .... Leo Pfeffer preponderance of evidence now available 27 Humanism as an American Heritage Nicholas F. Gier in favor of the evolutionary hypothesis. 30 The Nativity Legends Randel Helms To mark Darwin's death, FREE IN- 37 A Commentary on Norman Podhoretz's QUIRY will sponsor a symposium on
Neo-Puritanism Lee Nisbet "Science, the Bible, and Darwin" at the POETRY State University of New York at Buffalo on April 16-17. The purpose of the 23 The Stranger, the Beloved M.L. Rosenthal conference is not only to discuss Darwin's COUNTERPOINT influence but also to stress the need for 42 Teen-age Pregnancy Vern Bullough wider dissemination of the results of 43 My Attitude Toward the Soviet Union Corliss Lamont scholarly and scientific examination of BOOKS biblical doctrine. The interview with 40 Marxist Humanism George V. Tomashevich Isaac Asimov in this issue and the articles FILM by L. Sprague de Camp, Antony Flew, 41 "Reds" Hal Crowther Rande! Helms, and A.J. Matill, Jr., are 45 CLASSIFIED related to this general theme. 46 ON THE BARRICADES Also of special interest in this issue is "The Religion of Secular Humanism: A Judicial Myth" by Leo Pfeffer, the noted attorney specializing in issues concerning the separation of church and state.—E D.
FREE INQUIRY (ISSN 0272-0701) is pub- lished by The Council for Democratic Editor: Paul Kurtz and Secular Humanism (CODESH, Inc.), a non-profit corporation, 1203 Kensington Associate Editors: Gordon Stein; Lee Nisbet Avenue, Buffalo, N.Y. 14215. Phone (716) Contributing Editors: 834-2921. Lionel Abel, author, critic, SUNY at Buffalo; Paul Beattie, president, Fellowship of Religious Postmaster: Permission to mail at second- Humanists; Jo-Ann Boydston, director, Dewey Center; Laurence Briskman, lecturer, Edinburgh class postage rates is pending at Buffalo, University, Scotland; Hal Crowther, film reviewer; Albert Ellis, director, Institute for Rational N.Y. Copyright ® 1982 by The Council for Living; Roy P. Fairfield, social scientist, Union Graduate School; Joseph Fletcher, theologian, Democratic and Secular Humanism. University of Virginia Medical School; Antony Flew, philosopher, Reading University, England; Subscription rates: $14.00 for one year, Sally M. Gall, critic and independent scholar; Sidney Hook, professor emeritus of philosophy, NYU; $25.00 for two years, $32.00 for three Marvin Kohl, philosopher, State University College at Fredonia; Jean Kotkin, executive director, years, $3.50 for single copies. Address American Ethical Union; Ernest Nagel, professor emeritus of philosophy, Columbia University; subscription orders, change of addresses, Cable Neuhaus, correspondent; Howard Radest, director, Ethical Culture Schools; Robert Rimmer, and advertising to: FREE INQUIRY, Box author; M.L. Rosenthal, professor of English, New York University; William Ryan, free-lance 5, Central Park Station, Buffalo, N.Y. reporter, novelist; Svetozar Stojanovic, professor of philosophy, University of Belgrade; Thomas 14215. Szasz, psychiatrist, Upstate Medical Center, Syracuse; V.M. Tarkunde, Supreme Court Judge, Manuscripts, letters, and editorial inquiries India; Richard Taylor, professor of philosophy, University of Rochester; Sherwin Wine, founder, should be addressed to: The Editor, FREE Society for Humanistic Judaism INQUIRY, Box 5, Central Park Station, Buffalo, N.Y. 14215. All manuscripts Editorial Associates: H. James Birx; Marvin Bloom; Vern Bullough; James Martin; Steven L. should be accompanied by three additional Mitchell; George Tomashevich; Marvin Zimmerman copies and a SASE. (Poems should be submitted in duplicate to the Poetry Executive Director (CODESH): Jean Millholland; Managing Editor: Richard Seymour; Copy Editor, with a SASE for return). 0pinions Editor: Doris Doyle; Editorial Staff: Victor Gulotta; Barry Karr; Marianne Karr; J. Quentin Koren; expressed do not necessarily reflect the Lynette Nisbet; Art Director: Gregory Lyde Vigrass views of the editors or publisher. 1
2 Basic Humanist Beliefs LETTERS TO THE EDITOR There are many reasons for the fact that there are millions of Americans who hold humanist values while those who call themselves humanists can be numbered only in the thousands. But two of these reasons, I believe, are that humanists are often asso- A Message from Andrei Sakharov people like Quinsenberry and his "clients"? ciated with an indifference to fundamental moral principles and with a propensity for We are deeply grateful to everyone who Richard Taylor unthinking liberalism on all political issues. supported us in these hard times—to the University of Rochester You are therefore to be commended for statesmen, to the religious leaders and public Rochester, New York publishing the articles by Konstantin Ko- personalities, to the scientists and journal- lenda and Paul H. Beattie (Winter 1980-81). ists, to our dear ones and friends, to those Kolenda argues convincingly that "the whom we know and to those whom we do Dearth of Scholarly inherently problematic nature" of moral not know. There were so many—it is Bible Criticism questions does not mean that the answers impossible to name them all. are subjective or relative, but only that It was a struggle not only for the life and Let me first congratulate Randel Helms on moral decisions must take into account "all happiness of our children, not only for my his penetrating article on the doctrine of the existing moral claims." The weakness of honor and dignity, but also for the right of resurrection of Jesus (Fall 1981). A col- traditional moralists is not that their deci- every human being to be free and happy, for league of mine currently teaching a course sions are absolute but that they are partial, the right to live in accordance with one's on Western religions found it quite accurate insofar as the a priori rules often fail to take ideals and beliefs, and in the final count—it and scholarly (although a bit too polite into account all of the relevant conditons. was a struggle for all prisoners of conscience. about Matthew's motivation). To the extent that humanists do so, their It is quite a relief from the unscholarly, moral decisions are stronger—that is, their Andrei Sakharov narrow, and unimaginative ones winning the decisions can hold up in real situations— Gorky Hospital minds and hearts of the unwary, the than the dogmatic decisions that are based U.S. S. R. uneducated, and the gullible. Many modern on a priori rules and are often inadequate to Christian devotees long since have given up the complexities of human experience. "Truth" on the "700 Club" any attempt to justify their beliefs by Beattie's article is equally important recourse to the traditional arguments of because it distinguishes the basic humanist At first I could not believe that Larry theologians (the ontological, c9smological, beliefs from those about which humanists Quinsenberry's letter (Winter 1981-82) says and even the design arguments). Instead, will inevitably differ. It is only the basic what it does. It seemed to be saying that they look to the Bible itself to "prove" their commitments, including "the scientific since truth is not falsehood, then let us, in the basic religious beliefs. They use the "evi- method and ... the democratic process" of name of truth, assert the false, then praise it dences" from miracles, from personal testi- arriving at truth that humanists should as truth! But I read it again and found that monies (so prevalent on TV), from the advocate. Political commitments, issues this is, astonishingly, what it says! continued existence of the Faith (despite the about which humanists may very well differ, Quisenberry says he knew that his opposition from science and humanism), should be pursued in political organizations. documentary on humanism was a tissue of but mostly from prophecies that have been I agree with Beattie (as well as with distortions but justifies this on the ground verified either from New Testament writings Kolenda) not because our political commit- that he was paid to "produce a product in or from contemporary world events. The ments are less important than our general accordance with the client's request," the credulity of the uncritical and committed religious or philosophical principles (the client in this case being some self-styled mind to these irrational kinds of evidence political may be more important at any group of "Christians"(his quotation marks). and arguments is almost unbelievable. particular moment) but because humanism Okay—we are accustomed to that kind Those of us teaching in the areas of makes its appeal as a religion or as an of cynicism from pitchmen and hucksters. philosophy and/ or religion should, perhaps, alternative to traditional religions, not as an But then he turns around and endorses that spend more time studying and analyzing the umbrella group for assorted liberal causes. kind of cynicism as "truth," now to be arguments used today to convince Chris- One of the serious faults of some of the equated with "the Bible and the teachings of tians (and non-Christians as well)' of the fundamental Christian groups, such as the Jesus." I wonder whether he has ever heard truth of their faith. Moral Majority, is that they act as a political the expression, "You shall know the truth, I have been spending much time group in the name of religion. Humanists and the truth shall set you free," or whether reading through some of this Christian should not be guilty of the same kind of he knows who said that. Or will he, like his literature but—apart from Helms's article— confusions. clients, pull plain falsehoods and distortions I have not been able to find very many from thin air and baptise these as "truth"? careful and scholarly articles attacking this Lawrence W. Hyman It is one thing to fabricate distortions. new mode of Christian apologetics. Brooklyn College-CUNY But when someone does this and admits it, Brooklyn, New York has he any business talking about "truth"? Paul O. Ricci Would not Jesus, whom this cynical huck- Cypress College (Letters continued on page 4) ster pretends to follow, sweep the floor with Cypress, California
Spring 1982 3 (Letters continued, from page 3) discover how two creationist organizations classify themselves on U.S. Post Office Form 3624. In order to acquire a special nonprofit On Creationism bulk third-class mailing permit an applicant organization must identify what type of organization it is. It is given eight choices— religious, educational, scientific, etc. One of the creationist groups 1 chose is the grandaddy of creationist propaganda Creationists' Credentials "D.R.E." He claims he received his M.A. units, the Moody Institute of Science from "Sequoia University" in 1972. 1 was located in Whittier, Calif., which oddly "Scientific creationists," or "creation unable to locate a Sequoia University chooses to classify itself on Form 3624 as a scientists," are often assumed to have anywhere, but did find a Sequoia College in religious organization rather than as a scientific degrees. However, few creationists Visalia, California. This is a two-year scientific one. One would think that a have advanced scientific training in biology, college, offering only associate degrees, with scientific organization would classify itself and, so far, I have been unable to find a no record of ever having a student by the as a scientific organization. single one trained extensively in evolution- name of Kelly Segraves. In Who's Who in The other group I chose for examina- ary biology or paleontology. Moreover, at the West, Segraves claims his D.Sc. is tion is the Creation Science Research Center least three persons in leadership positions in honorary, granted by Christian University of San Diego. It plays the semantic new- prominent creationist groups have question- in 1972. An extensive computer search speak very well by calling itself a research able academic credentials. showed only one university with this name— organization engaged in scientific creation- Dr. Richard Bliss, on the staff of the in Jakarta, Indonesia. Segraves' D.R.E. has ism. However, its Postmaster communicates Institute for Creation Research(ICR) in San not been extensively explored, since having to me that it holds a bulk third-class mailing Diego, by far the most influential creationist a doctorate in religious education would not permit as a religious organization. Alas, for organization, claims a doctorate in educa- justify the claim of being a scientist. the creationists ignorance is knowledge and tion. He wrote his doctoral thesis on the However, a computer search produced no religion is science. But what can you expect "two-model" teaching of origins to high- doctoral dissertation listed for Segraves. from people who think man's first and worst school biology students in Racine, Wiscon- Finally, another creationist luminary, sin was knowledge. sin. Bliss claims that his degree was granted Dr. Clifford Burdick, also of CSRC, claims Enclosed are copies of the replies from by the University of Sarasota, Sarasota, to have a Ph.D. from the University of the Postmasters of Whittier and San Diego. Florida. This is a nonaccredited institution, Physical Sciences, Phoenix, Arizona. The noted by the Atlanta Journal, April 27, State of Arizona Board of Regents never Bart Clennon 1979, to be "a school founded in 1974... The heard of such an institution, nor is such a Brindisi University is not accredited, has no campus, school listed in any Phoenix telephone A.P.O., New York and specializes in graduate degrees. The only directory, going back to 1975. A computer time students spend at the school is during search for Burdick's dissertation availed vacations from their regular jobs." Lovejoy 's nothing. He claims to be a geologist .. . Dear Mr. Clennon: In compliance with your request dated College Catalog, 1981, corroborates this. ICR and CSRC publish many texts that This is particularly significant considering August 26, 1981, the following informa- would be mandated upon public school tion is provided: Creation Science Re- Bliss's co-authorship of an updated version science departments should a creationist bill search Center, 6709 Convoy Court, San of Origins—Two Models—Evolution/ be passed and meet the test of constitution- Diego, California 82111, holds a bulk Creation, a book approved for use in public ality. third-class rates permit at this office and is schools in districts where creationism is authorized to mail at the special rates as a required when evolution is taught. Bette Chambers Religious organization. Curiously, it was Dr. Henry Morris (a Executive Director Sincerely, hydraulics engineer), the director of ICR, American Humanist Association Margaret Sellers who attacked "Dr." Kelly Segraves, the Amherst, New York MSC Manager/ Postmaster director of the Creation Science Research Center of San Diego: "Mr. Segraves does Creation-Science Groups Dear Mr. Clennon, not have a bona fide scientific degree, has Identified as Religious I have received approval this date from our Regional Counsel to provide you copies of done no scientific research, and published the enclosed forms regarding Moody no scientific papers. However, he lectures During the past few years I have been Institute of Science. widely as 'Dr.' Segraves, and is believed by reading and listening to the claims of various The form marked #1 is the application many people to be an authentic scientist. creation-science groups who loudly state made by the Moody Institute of Science in The potential in this situation for bringing that they are in fact science organizations January, 1966. They received approval on the entire creationist movement into disre- and not religious organizations. Everyone January 13, 1966 to mail as a non-profit pute is a matter of grave concern [italics knows this is a semantic sham to cover the organization, "Religious". added]" (undated memorandum, with a legislative lobbying of these pressure groups. Sincerely, cover-letter dated July-August 1975). The true nature of the creationists is Benny R. Broussard Postmaster In 1975, Segraves listed himself on easily determined without dealing with their Whittier, CA 90605 CSRC letterhead as "M.A., D.Sc."In 1981, anemic sophistry and semantic obfuscation. he dropped the "D.Sc." and now lists I used the Freedom of Information Act to (Letters continued on page 5)
4 (Letters continued from page 4) lying intellect) come from statements of private individual as an autonomous, inde- certain human feelings. pendent, and freely choosing being, by Thinking and Feeling That extraordinary living organism, the means of the coercive expropriation of all human being, who has somehow evolved, privately held property and means of My attention has been drawn to a comment comprises all the faculties of intellect, production, as a necessary feature of a by Sidney Hook in (FI, Summer 1981) on my imagination, and feeling within itself, inter- mature, emancipated human community. alleged support for Stalin. I am not, nor acting constantly with the environment. One might, of course, foolishly wish to have I ever been, a defender of Stalin, nor, in Behaviorists are nothing more than mech- square circles and have both liberty and fact, were very large numbers of the Russian anists, seeking to train people as they would universal state-control over property, but it people themselves. If I had believed in any circus animals. Observation shows that just won't wash. Which is exactly why dictatorship, I should not have signed the birds and animals (within their capacity of Nielsen's point about socialism and demo= Secular Humanist Declaration. But, like brain, or otherwise) also show signs of cracy is off the wall. most thoughtful people in the West, I did conscious thought. When Kai Nielsen speaks about the consider that our statesmen were foolish and The true mystery is life, the energy that USSR, he speaks of "societies that call short-sighted in their refusal in 1917 to animates all things living. In time we shall themselves 'socialistic.' " But with no recognize revolutionary Russia. By that understand better its origins and achieve- hesitation Nielsen identifies South Africa folly they sowed the wind, of which now the ments, whether existent or potential. and Chile as capitalist. Yet even by Marx's whole world reaps the whirlwind. What I ask of humanism is something own characterization these latter societies May I, though with no pretensions to more than intellectual scientific statements; fail to be capitalist because the freedom of being a philosopher, comment on the I want people to believe in the dignity of men the individual in the bourgeois sense of that correspondence between Skinner and Pop- and women and their independence of gods, term is not legally honored there. No doubt, per in the same issue. To me it resembles the to see the actions of individuals and societies in some societies—Chile, Yugoslavia, Hung- dilemma of the medieval schoolmen who as essentially creative, not, as they have ary, South Africa—the rulers possess the were puzzled as to whether an "idea" or a been, destructive of the abundant life of the legal authority to confiscate all property but concept was as "real" as the blocks of stone planet that we share. Above all, our first choose not to do so. This is merely to put the with which, aided by Greek geometry concern should be the survival of our citizenry on a longer leash, as it were, not to manuals, they were building their cathe- species, that it may not destroy itself but offer them anything like individual freedom drals. increase, not in numbers, but in knowledge, or the official protection of their capitalistic, For us, during the past three centuries, beauty, and wisdom so that it may take good bourgeois human rights. (The United States Cartesian dualism has been the major care of the rest. isn't much different.) influence. Skinner looks at material bodies A closer look at Nielsen's writings and infers purpose, and plans, as physical Dora Russell shows that he is trying to discredit capitalism states; Popper, from within, reasons and Cornwall, England and put socialism in the best possible light, deliberates and then acts upon the material one that omits all of its real horrors. I ask, world. But why does he find it so hard to Dora Russell is the widow of Bertrand then, Is Antony Flew's characterization of interpret the action of the mind upon matter, Russell. She was one of the "witnesses" in Nielsen as someone who, logically speaking, an action that seems to me one of the most Warren Beatty's. film "Reds, " reviewed in must take the Muscovite Communist line disastrous features of our mechanical in- this issue.—E D. really so off the wall? As someone who grew dustrial epoch. up in Stalinist Hungary during the Korean The impact of values is more complex War and other East-West conflicts, I can and subtle, in that it involves feeling rather Comment on the testify to finding in Nielsen's words a very than a clear-cut intellectual purpose or Flew-Nielsen Exchange familiar line. Perhaps•he does not desire any decision. of the horrors that are implicit in pure The Greek intellect invented, in Professor Kai Nielsen has managed to write socialism as a distinctive political alterna- mathematics, one of the most powerful a letter (FI, Fall 1981) in which he condemns tive; nevertheless the words he speaks carry a instruments and languages of modern sci- Antony Flew for Red-baiting, anoints meaning that is inescapable. And I think ence, but I do not consider that they Noam Chomsky as a "libertarian" socialist, Antony Flew did not wish to assume that dissociated it from matter. The trouble arose and asserts, without even a hint at the Nielsen does not understand what he is from a confusion of the intellect with the evidence, that "there is no good reason why saying. Surely we must mean what we say. soul, and of the mathematicians' definition socialist societies cannot be democratic."... of infinity with the mystic's concept of Nielsen confuses a philosophically ser- Tibor R. Machan eternity. The true culprits were, in fact, the ious ad hominem charge like "Your views Senior Fellow religious ascetics. They turned their backs support horrid political measures" with a The Reason Foundation on organic life when they taught that the gratuitous smear like "You are a Commie." Santa Barbara, California natural world and its promptings were evil. It is the former that Antony Flew produced, Their split between the soul and the body has not the latter. Next, Nielsen produces a flat- The "Big Bang" been emulated by the intellectuals in their out contradiction in terms—i.e., "libertarian separation of reason and the passions. socialist"—to make possible accepting I'm sorry to hear that Robert Jastrow has Hence men are always inclined to consider Noam Chomsky's escape from the fact of his been failing to live up to his responsibilities that what they think is superior to what they political incoherencies. A libertarian holds as a scientist ("Jastrow and Genesis," FI, may feel. The Secular Humanist Declara- individual liberty from the coercion of Winter 1981-82), because one of his astron- tion, based as it is on scientific intellect, is others and their groups as the highest social omy texts is probably the best I've seen. deficient in contributions that (even under- value. A socialist holds the destruction of the (Letters continued on page 44)
Spring 1982 5 Isaac Asimov is the author of more than two hundred books. A noted skeptic, he was the first subscriber to FREE INQUIRY. Asimov was interviewed by Paul Kurtz in his penthouse apartment overlooking Manhattan.—EDS. An Interview with Isaac Asimov On Science and the Bible
Kurtz: In your view is the Bible widely known and intelligently have taken the Bible seriously and have submitted it to critical read today? analysis. Would you agree that, although free inquiry concern- Asimov: It is undoubtedly widely known. It is probably ing the Bible goes on in scholarly journals, and perhaps in owned by more people than any other book. As to how widely university classes and in some books, the public hears mostly it is read one cannot be certain. I suppose it is read very widely pro-religious propaganda—such as from the pulpits of the in the sense that people just look at the words and read it electronic church, from religious publications, and from the mechanically. How many people actually think about the daily press—and very rarely any kind of questioning or probing words they read, I'm not at all certain. They can go to a house of of biblical claims? worship and hear verses read without thinking about what the Asimov: I imagine that the large majority of the popula- words mean. Undoubtedly millions of people do. tion, in the United States at least, either accepts every word of Kurtz: There used to be something called the Higher the Bible as it is written or gives it very little thought and would Biblical Criticism. What has happened to that? be shocked to hear anyone doubt that the Bible is correct in Asimov: I am constantly hearing, from people who accept every way. So when someone says something that sounds as the Bible more or less literally, that the Higher Criticism has though he assumes that the Bible was written by human been outmoded and discredited, but I don't believe that at all. beings—fallible human beings who were wrong in this respect This is just something that people say who insist on clinging to or that—he can rely on being vilified by large numbers of the literal truth of the Bible. The Higher Criticism, which in the people who are essentially ignorant of the facts, and not many nineteenth century, for example, tried to show that the first few people care to subject themselves to this. books of the Bible contained several strains that could be Kurtz: Do you take the Bible primarily as a human identified and separated, I think is as valid today as it ever was. document or do you think it was divinely inspired? Fundamentally, there is a J-document and a P-document in the Asimov: The Bible is a human document. Much of it is early chapters of Genesis and an E-document later on. 1 have great poetry, and much of it consists of the earliest reasonable no doubt that as one continues to investigate these things one history that survives. Samuel I and II antedate Herodotus by constantly learns and raises new questions. several centuries. A great deal of the Bible may contain Kurtz: But by and large the public does not know much successful ethical teachings, but the rest is at best allegory and about this skeptical, critical interpretation of the Bible. Would at worst myth and legend. Frankly, I don't think that anything you say that is so? is divinely inspired. I think everything that human beings Asimov: Yes. Just as by and large the public doesn't know possess of intelligent origin is humanly inspired, with no about any of the disputes that there have been about quantum exceptions. theory. The public knows only what it reads in the newspapers Kurtz: Earlier you said that the Bible contained fallible and sees on television, and this is all extremely superficial. writings. What would some of these be? Kurtz: One thing that I am struck by is that today in Asimov: In my opinion, the biblical account of the America we really don't have a free market of ideas in regard to creation of the universe and of the earth and humanity is wrong religion and the Bible. You are an outstanding exception. You in almost every respect. I believe that those cases where it can be
6 p od Ígf Bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning, whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day. Kurtz: Yes, so they have it backwards. Asimov: They have that backwards, and they have plant life being created before the sun. All the evidence we have indicates that this is not so. The Bible says that every plant, and every animal, was created after its own kind, which would indicate that species have been as they are now from the very beginning and have never changed. Despite what the creation- ists say, the fossil record, as well 'as very subtle biochemical evidence, geological evidence, and all sorts of other evidence, indicates that species have changed, that there has been a long evolutionary process that has lasted over three billion years. Kurtz: It's not simply biology that they are questioning, but geology, astronomy, and the whole basis of the physical sciences. Asimov: If we insist on the Bible's being literally true, then we must abandon the scientific method totally and completely. There's no way that we can at the same time try to discover the truth by means of observation and reason and also accept the Bible as true. So what is at stake in this debate between evolution Photo by J.R. Martin Kurtz: and creationism is not simply the principle of evolution in "The Bible is a human document ... Frankly, I don't regard to living things but the whole status of the sciences think that anything is divinely inspired. I think themselves? everything that human beings possess of intelligent Asimov: That is what I believe. But I have letters from origin is humanly inspired, with no exceptions." creationists who say that they don't deny the scientific method, that they are just trying to examine the inconsistencies in the argued that the Bible is not wrong are, if not trivial, then evidence presented by the evolutionists. However, that is not coincidental. And I think that the account of a worldwide what should be the chief job of the creationists.' What they flood, as opposed, say, to a flood limited to the Tigris- should do is present positive evidence in favor of creationism, Euphrates region, is certainly wrong. which is something they never do. They confine themselves to Kurtz: The creationists think that there is evidence for the pointing out inconsistencies in the evolutionary view, not Noachian flood. hesitating to create those inconsistencies by distortion and, in Asimov: The creationists think there is evidence for every my opinion, in some cases by outright fraud. Then they say that word in the Bible. 1 think all of the accounts of human beings they have "proved" that evolutionary theory is false, and living before the flood, such as Adam and Eve and Cain and therefore creationism is correct. Abel, are at best very dim memories of ancient Sumerian rulers; Kurtz: Of course you don't deny that how evolution occurs and even the stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob I rather is not fully or finally formulated. think are vague legends. Asimov: Certainly there are many arguments over the Kurtz: Based on oral tradition? mechanism of evolution, but our knowledge about the evolu- Asimov: Yes, and with all the distortions that oral tionary process is much greater than it was in Darwin's day. traditions sometimes undergo. The present view of evolution is far more subtle and wide- Kurtz: In your book In the Beginning, you say that ranging than Darwin's was or could have been. But it still is not creation is a myth. Why do you think it is scientifically false? firmly and finally settled. There remain many arguments over What are some of the main points? the exact mechanism of evolution, and furthermore there are Asimov: Well, all of the scientific evidence we have seems many scientists who are dissatisfied with some aspects of to indicate that the universe is billions of years old. But there is evolution that most other scientists accept. There are always no indication whatsoever of that in the Bible if it is interpreted minority views among scientists in every respect, but virtually literally rather than allegorically. Creationists insist on inter- no scientist denies the fact of evolution. It is as though we were preting it literally. According to the information we have, the all arguing about just exactly what makes a car go even though earth is billions of years younger than the universe. nobody denies that cars go. Kurtz: It is four and a half billion years old. Kurtz: What about the metaphorical interpretations? Asimov: The earth is, and the universe is possibly fifteen When I was growing up, the general view was that we should billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion accept creationism and that it is not incompatible with years before the earth, but according to the biblical description evolution but is to be interpreted metaphorically or allegori- of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all cally in terms of stages. created at the same time. As a matter of fact, according to the Asimov: There is always that temptation. I am perfectly
Spring 1982 7 Asimov: Well, if you trace the word firmament back to its original meaning, it is a thin, beaten layer of metal. It is like the top you put on a platter in a restaurant. It is like the lid of a dish. The earth is a dish and the firmament comes down upon it on all sides. It is a material object that separates things. There are waters above the firmament and waters below. In fact, in the book of Revelations, which was written about A.D. 100, centuries after Genesis was written, the writer describes the firmament as folding up like a scroll. It was still viewed as a thin metal plate. But we know as surely as we can know anything at all that there is no firmament up there—there's no thin metal layer—there's only an atmosphere, and beyond it a vacuum, an empty space, except where there are planets, stars, and other objects. The blueness of it is an illusion due to the scattering of light, and the blackness of night is due to the absence of any light that we can see, and so on. Kurtz: In a metaphorical interpretation, how would you interpret "the waters above and the waters below' Does that make any sense? Asimov: Not to me. Obviously the people who first wrote about the waters above the firmament were thinking of rain. The rain supposedly came down through the windows in the Photo br J. R. Martin firmament. There were little holes, as in a shower head, and the rain drizzled through. I don't blame them for not understand- "If we insist on the Bible's being literally true, then ing. I don't criticize the ancients for not knowing what we we must abandon the scientific method totally and know. It took centuries to work up this knowledge, and the completely." ancients contributed their share. They were every bit as intelligent as we are and every bit as much seekers after the willing, for instance, to interpret the Bible allegorically and to truth. I'm willing to admit that. But the fact is that they didn't speak of the days of creation as representing eons of indefinite know as much as we know now. length. Clarence Darrow badgered William Jennings Bryan Kurtz: They were limited by the prevailing scientific and into admitting that the days could have been very long. This philosophical views of the day. horrified Bryan's followers, as it would horrify creationsts Asimov: And by the little that had been learned up to that today. You can say that the entire first chapter of Genesis is a time. So this seemed a logical explanation of the rain. They magnificent poem representing a view of creation as transcend- didn't know the nature of the evaporation from the ocean. They ing the silly humanoid gods of the Babylonians and presenting didn't understand what the clouds really were and that is why a great abstract deity who by his word alone brings the universe they spoke of the waters above the firmament and below, but into existence. You can compare this with the big bang. You there is no reason that we should speak of it that way. can say that God said "Let there be light" and that then there Kurtz: If you take Genesis metaphorically, you can believe was the big bang; and one could then follow with all sorts of in the theory of evolution as the big bang and also that parallels and similarities if one wished. I have no objection to everything evolved, so this need not be a threat to science that. necessarily? Kurtz: But aren't the stages wrong, even if it is interpreted Asimov: No, if you are willing to say that the universe metaphorically? You said earlier that, according to the Bible, began fifteen billion years ago—the exact number of billions of God created the earth before the heavenly bodies. years is under despute—as a tiny object that expanded rapidly Asimov: Yes. Some of the stages are wrong. But you could and dropped in temperature, and all the other things that say that, when the Bible says "In the beginning God created the scientists believe happened, then you can say that God created heaven and the earth," what was really meant was the universe. it, and the laws of nature that controlled it, and that he then sat We could say that, at the time the first chapter of Genesis was back and watched it develop. I would be content to have people written, when people spoke of the earth they meant everything say that. Frankly, I don't believe it, but there's no way one can there was. But as our vision and perspective expanded we saw disprove it. that what was really meant was the universe. Thus, if necessary, Kurtz: You don't believe it? You don't think there is we can modify the words. But the creationists won't do this; sufficient evidence that there was a cosmic egg that shattered they insist on the literal interpretation of the creation story. and that God created this cosmic egg? When it says "earth" they want it to mean earth; when it says on Asimov: I believe there's enough evidence for us to think the first "day" they want it to mean a twenty-four-hour day. that a big bang took place. But there is no evidence whatsoever Kurtz: When the Bible says, "And God made the firma- to suppose that a superhuman being said, "Let it be." However, ment," what does it mean? Isn't that odd? neither is there any evidence against it; so, if a person feels
8 comfortable believing that, I am willing to have him believe it. Kurtz: As an article of faith? Asimov: Yes, as an article of faith. I have articles of faith, too. I have an article of faith that says the universe makes sense. Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there is just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense. Kurtz: The universe is intelligible because you can formu- late hypotheses and make predictions and there are regular- ities. Asimov: Yes, and my belief is that no matter how far we go we will always find that the universe makes sense. We will never get to the point where it suddenly stops making sense. But that is just an assumption on my part.
Kurtz: Religion then postulates and brings in God.
in in t
Asimov: Except it tends to retreat. At the very start you Mar
had rain gods and sun gods. You had a god for every single R.
natural phenomenon. Nothing took place without some minor J. h h
deity personally arranging it. In the Middle Ages some people to ho thought the planets revolved around the earth because there P were angels pushing them, because they didn't know about the "I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time Galilean notion that the planets didn't require a constant impetus to keep moving. Well, if people want to accept a God to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but as initiating the big bang, let them. But the creationists won't do somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to that. say one was an atheist, because it assumed Kurtz: Are you fearful that this development of a literal knowledge that one didn't have." interpretation of the Bible is anti-science and can undermine rationality in this country and in the rest of the world? study the political process all we want. We can examine the Asimov: I don't believe it can actually stop sensible people reasoning behind Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. We can from thinking sensibly, but it can create a situation whereby consider the Ku Klux Klan and what they believe. There is there are laws against allowing sensible people to think sensibly nothing that we should not be able to examine. in the open. Right now the fight is over creation and evolution. Kurtz: And your examination of the Bible indicates that it In the long run, in any fight between evolutionists and is contradicted in many places by modern science? creationists, evolution will win as long as human beings have Asimov: Yes. Now this does not automatically mean that sense. But there are laws now in Louisiana and Arkansas, and science is correct and the Bible is wrong, although I think it is. other legislatures are considering similar laws. People should examine it. One thing we cannot do is to say Kurtz: It was struck down in Arkansas. without examination that the Bible is right. Asimov: Fortunately! But wherever the law exists, school Kurtz: Isaac, how would you describe your own position? teachers must teach creationism if they mention evolution. This Agnostic, atheist, rationalist, humanist? is a dreadful precedent. In the United States a state can say: Asimov: I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long "This is scientific. This is what you must teach in science." time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but Whereas in many nations that have had an established somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one church—nations we may have looked upon as backward—they was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't nevertheless understood that within the subsystem of science it have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an is science that decides what is scientific. It is scientists who agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well make the decision. It is in the scientific marketplace that ideas as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the win or lose. If they want to teach religion, they can teach it evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly outside of science, and they can say that all of science is wicked suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. and atheistic. But to force their way into science and to dictate Kurtz: But the burden of proof is upon the person who what scientists must declare science to be destroys the meaning claims God exists. You don't believe in Santa Claus, but you of all of science. It is an absolutely impossible situation and can't disprove his existence. The burden of proof is upon those scientists should not permit it without a fight to the very end. who maintain the claim. Kurtz: I fully share your concern. What about religion Asimov: Yes. In any case, I am an atheist. itself? Should religion be a subject for free inquiry? Should Kurtz: You have no doubt reflected a good deal on this. examination of the Bible be openly discussed in American Can people live without the God myth, without religion? You society? don't need it presumably. Does man need it? Asimov: I don't see why not. I think nothing is sacred, at Asimov: Well individual human beings may. There's a least in a country that considers itself intellectually free. We can certain comfort, I suppose, in thinking that you will be with all
Spring 1982 9 of your loved ones again after death, that death is not the end, independent religious support for moral choice? that you'll live in some kind of never-never land with great Asimov: Yes. If a group of people are living together in a happiness. Maybe some people even get a great deal of comfort community where there is a lot of lying and stealing going on, it out of knowing that all the people they don't like are going to go is an unpleasant way to live. But if everyone tells the truth and is straight to hell. These are all comforts. Personally, they don't honest and thoughtful of his neighbor, it is a good way to live. comfort me. I'm not interested in having anyone suffer You don't need to go any further than that. eternally in hell, because I don't believe that any crime is so Kurtz: Is there one value that you have always felt is the nearly infinite in magnitude as to deserve infinite punishment. I most important—one moral principle? feel that I couldn't bring myself to condemn anyone to eternal Asimov: I am scrupulously honest, financially speaking, punishment. I am opposed to punishment. but I have never really had a serious temptation to be Kurtz: The height of wickedness, is it not? otherwise. I long for a temptation so that I can prove to myself Asimov: Yes. I feel if I can't do it, then God, who that I am really scrupulously honest, you see. presumably is a much more noble being than I am, could Kurtz: I thought you were going to say that you were certainly not do it. Furthermore, I can't help but believe that committed to truth and knowledge! eternal happiness would eventually be boring. I cannot grasp Asimov: When I think of being committed to truth and the notion of eternal anything. My own way of thinking is that knowledge, that seems to be such a natural sort of thing. How after death there is nothingness. Nothingness is the only thing can anyone be anything else? I give myself no credit for that. I that I think is worth accepting. don't see how it is possible to be tempted away from it, and if Kurtz: Do you think that one can lead a moral life, that life you can't be tempted away from it then there is no point in even is meaningful, and that one can be just and noble without a considering it a virtue. It is like saying that it is a virtue to belief in God? breathe. But when I think of truth, I wonder about telling those Asimov: Well, as easily as with a belief in God. I don't feel little social lies we tell for our own convenience, such as telling that people who believe in God will automatically be noble, but someone you have another appointment when you don't want neither do I think they will automatically be wicked. I don't to go out some evening. I don't have much occasion to do that, think those who don't believe in God will be automatically but I guess I am as prone to it as almost anyone is. Although I noble or automatically wicked either. I think this is a choice for am apt to call someone up and say, "Gee, I meant to call you every human being, and frankly I think that perhaps if you yesterday but I forgot." I probably shouldn't say that. I should don't believe in God this puts a greater strain on you, in the say that I was busy all day long. sense that you have to live up to your own feelings of ethics. Kurtz: These are not great moral dilemmas. Have you But, if you do believe in God, you also believe in forgiveness. never been tested or challenged morally? You are a man of There is no one to forgive me. great courage, but perhaps you are old enough that you don't Kurtz: No escape hatch. have to worry. Asimov: That's right. If I do something wrong, I have to Asimov: There's no such thing as not having to worry. I face myself and I may not be able to figure out a way of suppose that if people wanted to make a big fuss about my forgiving myself. But, if you believe in God, there are usually atheism it could conceivably reflect itself in the sales of my rituals whereby you may express contrition and be forgiven, books so that my economic security would suffer. I figure, what and so on. So it seems to me that many people can feel free to the hell! There is a certain amount of insistence inside me to sin and repent afterwards. I don't. In my way of life, there may prevent me from bartering my feelings, opinions, or views for be repentance but it doesn't make up for the sin. the sake of a few extra dollars. Kurtz: Of course a lot of people who are humanists say Kurtz: So you have the courage of your convictions? that, if ethics is based upon either fear of God or love of God Asimov: I suppose so, or it may be just a desire to avoid the and his punishment and reward, then one is not really ethical, unpleasantness of shame! Unfortunately, many people define that ethics must grow out of human experience. wickedness not according to what a person does but according Asimov: Well, I said the same thing in an argument about to what a person believes. So an atheist who lives an upright what I called the Reagan doctrine. Early in what I already and noble life, let us say, is nevertheless considered wicked. consider his disastrous administration, Reagan said that one Indeed, a religious believer might argue that an upright and couldn't believe anything the Soviets said because they didn't noble atheist is far more wicked than an atheist who happens to believe in God. In my view, maybe you can't believe anything be a murderer or a crook. the Soviets say, but not for that reason. If you are ethical only Kurtz: Is this because the atheist lacks faith in God, and because you believe in God, you are buying your ticket to that is considered to be the ultimate "sin"? heaven or trying to tear up your ticket to hell. In either case, Asimov: Yes. The atheist who is a murderer or a crook you are just being a shrewd profiteer, nothing else. The idea of gives a bad example for atheism and persuades everyone else being ethical is to be ethical for no reason except that that is the not to be atheistic. But a noble and upright atheist, so the way to be if you want the world to run smoothly. I think that believer fears, causes people to doubt the existence of God by people who say virtue is its own reward or honesty is the best the mere fact that a person who does not believe in God can still policy have the right idea. be upright and noble. Religious believers might argue that way, Kurtz: Are you suggesting that morality is autonomous, but I think that is a horrible perversion of thought and of that you learn by living and that one doesn't need an morality. •
10 SCIENCE, THE BIBLE AND DARWIN
An International Symposium on Science, Religion, and Ethics to mark the centennial of Charles Darwin's Death
April 16-17, 1982
at the State University of New York at Buffalo (Amherst Campus) John Lord O'Brian Hall, Room 104
Friday, April 16 10:00 A.M.-12:30 P.M.: "Charles Darwin and His Influence" Philip Appleman Professor of English, Indiana University-Bloomington Sol Tax Professor of Anthropology, University of Chicago H. James Birx Professor of Anthropology, Canisius College, Buffalo