“EVOLUTION AND THE INTERDEPENDENCE PRINCIPLE”

A Sermon by the Rev. Bruce Clear

“Evolution Sunday”

February 15, 2009

All Souls Unitarian Church

Indianapolis, Indiana

God’s gift to sermon writers is anniversaries on the calendar. I recall 1992, it was the 400^th anniversary of Columbus’ voyage to America, and a sermon topic was waiting to be addressed. All Souls was a hundred years old in 2003, and that was fodder for quite a series of sermons. And I had the distinct privilege of living through the Mother of All Anniversaries in the year 2000 – not just a change centuries, but of millennia.

Yes, anniversaries are God’s gift to sermon writers who otherwise might have trouble thinking of a topic. But it seems God overdid it this week. One hundred years ago last Thursday, on February 12, 1809, two of the greatest figures in the history of the world were born on that same day and same year. In America: Abraham Lincoln. In England: Charles Darwin. Boy, the stars must have been lined up something special on that day. But it complicates sermon writing. Whom do I choose? Lincoln or Darwin? Actually, I’ve devoted whole sermons to each of them in the past. But today, it is no contest. Charles Darwin wins.

Why does Darwin win? Well, for very some unjustifiable reasons, it seems that some religious groups find the theory of evolution to be a threat and Darwin, the theory’s discoverer, to be teaching atheism. All this is false, of course. There is nothing incompatible between the theory of evolution and belief in God. It is only a small but vocal group of religious fundamentalists that see evolution as some diabolical plot against God. But this group seems to be heard above so many other reasonable religious groups.

To remedy this, a movement began about five years ago to encourage ministers and rabbis to devote a Sunday in February, around Darwin’s birthday, for the purpose of showing how evolution and religion can not only co-exist, but be mutually supportive. This has become known as The Clergy Letter Project, because it includes open letters signed by ministers and rabbis affirming the religious significance of the scientific theory of evolution. These letters are directed primarily to local school board districts around the country which are being pressured by fundamentalists to teach religious doctrine of creationism in science classes along with evolution. There are three versions of letters – Christian, Jewish, and Unitarian Universalist. When the project began in 2004, there were 200 who signed the letters. Now in 2009, nearly 18,000 clergy have signed on. You are listening to one of them.

Welcome to Evolution Sunday.

I want to talk about Darwin, I want to talk about evolution, and I want to talk about our Unitarian Universalist principles. The name “Charles Darwin” has in fact become almost synonymous with the theory of evolution, so I’ll begin with a point I’ve tried to make before and put to rest the rumor that is sometimes heard that Darwin was a Unitarian. That claim comes, no doubt, from both those who wish to slander him as well as those who wish to praise him.

To set the record straight: Charles Darwin was not a Unitarian, though his Unitarian ties were strong and positive. His mother's family, the Wedgewoods (who were and still are famous for their ceramics) was Unitarian, and she took him as a young child to a Unitarian church. He married a Wedgewood cousin who was Unitarian. But Darwin himself was baptized in the Church of England, and in fact studied for the Anglican ministry before becoming a naturalist on board the expeditions of the ship 'Beagle'. Thereafter, he remained at least a nominal Anglican. He went through times of doubt and skepticism, but he always felt that evolution did not deny the basics of a mature Christian message.

Harvard Biologist and evolutionary scientist Stephen Jay Gould gave a personal description of Darwin this way:

"Had Darwin been a cold fish, or a nasty exploitative man, we might be less attracted to him, though we would still admire the power of his thought. Yet he was a person whose basic kindness and decency defy the numerous attempts of detractors to demean or defame him....

"Darwin died April, 1882. He wished to be buried in his beloved village, but the sentiment of educated people demanded a place in Westminster Abby beside Isaac Newton. As his coffin entered the vast building, the choir sang an anthem composed for the occasion. Its text, from the Book of Proverbs, may stand as the most fitting testimony to Darwin's greatness: 'Happy is the one that findeth wisdom, and getteth understanding. This is more precious than rubies...'

"Darwin was not an atheist. He probably retained a belief in some kind of personal god -- but he did not grant his deity a directly and continuously interested role in the evolutionary process. Many have viewed this message as pessimistic or even nihilistic. I have always understood it as positive and exhilarating. It teaches us that the meaning of our lives cannot be read passively from the works of nature, but that we must struggle, think, and construct that meaning for ourselves. Moreover, Darwin maintained deep humility before the difficulty of such a task. He understood the limits of science."

It is also true that the scientific legacy of Darwin found a welcome home among Unitarians. Historians of religion agree that the Unitarians were probably the earliest and most enthusiastic supporters of Darwinism in America. With the publication of "Origin of Species' in 1859, the Unitarians found what seemed to be scientific confirmation for their devotion to nature, reason, and human progress. The most receptive audience was the transcendentalist Unitarians, including Ralph Waldo Emerson. If Darwin was the evolutionary scientist, Emerson, a Unitarian minister, was the evolutionary poet. A full ten years before Darwin's "Origin of Species", Emerson began his essay on 'Nature' with the following verse:

A subtle chain of countless rings

The next unto the farthest brings...

And, striving to be man, the worm

Mounts through all spires of form.

Unitarian ministers were probably the first ministers to have spoken out in favor of Darwinism from the pulpit. In fact, I have found three different Unitarian ministers who each claimed to have done so first. Be that as it may, it is clear that the Unitarians were strongly receptive of not only Darwinian scientific evolution, but evolution as a metaphor itself, as a way of understanding life. Let me quote at some length from one example of this. In 1913, Unitarian minister John C. Kimball wrote a book called "The Romance of Evolution" in which he said,

"The Darwinian theory of creation, recognizing only one great tree of life rooted far down amid the rocks of the geologic ages, growing upwards for myriads of years and sending out of itself all the world has ever known of being, thought, and civilization, a theory full of mystery, full of romance, aye, and in spite of all the Church has said against it, full of religion too.... What is it but a new and grander form of the mystic tree of life, bearing the natives on its branches and having memory and hope, having all history and philosophy and literature in the whisper of its leaves.

"Science unpoetic, science filling the world only with dreary facts! Why, under its magic touch what is the whole universe but a mighty romance whose characters are stars and planets and the elements, not less than human beings; whose chapters the geologic ages, and scenery the glorious heavens and vastness of stellar space; a romance of most startling interest whose far beginning we have read and some new page is published from day to day, but whose plot, so intricate and wonderful, no human skill can unravel, and whose denouement in the eternity to come science alone, science without the subtler sight of faith, must try in vain to tell."

This heavily romantic view of evolution is familiar to many of us, and it is strongly imbedded with the liberal tradition. But it is not, I suggest, the Darwinian view of evolution. It is not the science of evolution. This romantic view of evolution does not conflict with Darwin, but it is not, essentially, what Darwin had to say. Evolutionary views permeate our culture today to the extent that we apply evolution to everything, to every area of study. We have evolutionary views of ethics, we talk about the evolution of society, the evolution of religion, the evolution of government, and so forth. Darwin addressed none of this.

It is my reading that today we have essentially two kinds of evolutionary theories. There is evolutionary science, which derives from Darwin's study of the origin of species; and there is a larger evolutionary metaphor or model which we use to understand all aspects of human history and behavior. Both the evolutionary science, and the evolutionary metaphor are useful, but they should not be confused with each other. I would like to look a little more closely at each – first at the science, and then at the metaphor.

Phillip Appleman reminds us that during the nineteenth century there was a well-known epigram which proposed that it is the fate of all great scientific discoveries to pass through three stages: in the first stage, people say, "It's absurd"; in the second, "It's contrary to the Bible"; and in the third, "Oh, we've known 'that' all along!" The scientific theory of evolution has passed through all three stages, even during Darwin's lifetime.

In a very real sense, the "metaphor" of evolution does go back much further than Darwin, though it took Darwin to give it scientific grounding. Plato and Aristotle were both fond of using evolutionary models. A generation before Darwin, the Frenchman, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck, offered a theory of evolution, as did Darwin's own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. We already saw that Emerson discovered evolution through poetry before Darwin found it in the laboratory. But it took Darwin to give evolution scientific credibility.

Darwin is credited today with saying far more than he ever said about evolution. His view of evolution was narrow -- so narrow, in fact, that he did not even speak of evolution. He preferred not to use that word. Instead he spoke of "descent with modification." The key to Darwin's genius was not really evolution at all; it was his discovery of the process of "natural selection" which shattered the prejudices of both science and religion.

Natural selection as I understand it, works something like this: Nature experiences changes in a somewhat random fashion. Animals experience quite random and very slight differences from one generation to the next. This is called "random variation," and is sometimes referred to as "mutation." There is no rhyme or reason for the genetic change.

Some changes help the animal to adapt better to the environment; some make it more difficult to adapt. Over many generations -- usually thousands or even millions of years -- those animals whose changes are more adaptive survive and pass on their characteristics. Those animals whose changes are not well adapted do not, in the long run, survive to pass on their characteristics. This process is called "natural selection," in which certain characteristics are selected to survive and others are selected to die out. This very long history of changes and variations accounts for the existence of different species. All species trace back, eventually, to a common heritage.

The discovery of the process of natural selection threatened traditional religion in a variety of ways. First of all, it meant that the world was much older than we were led to believe by biblical accounts. At that time, the Bible was interpreted as claiming that the world was about 6000 years old. Darwin's theory required a world which was at least millions of years old (today, we believe it to be billions of years). Secondly, the theory of natural selection suggested that species were not created independently, that is, in the form in which we experience them today. This, of course, conflicted with the literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation. Thirdly, Darwin's theory offered a purely natural rather than supernatural explanation of the world. This seemed to be devastating for religion, but it wasn't the most devastating part of the theory.

The most devastating part of Darwin's theory was the realization that nature was a process, a set of laws, which didn't seem to have a purpose. In Darwin's day, religion required a belief that everything in the world worked toward some ultimate purpose, some ultimate end. For Darwin, there was no end, no purpose. There was only the process itself. It is true that the process often resulted in better adaptation, but even adaptation was not an absolute. Something which was well‑adapted in one place at one time could be ill adapted at another place or another time. The process alone was ultimate.

This was evolutionary science. It had a very narrow application. It referred only to things such as biology, botany, geology, and so forth. It did not attempt to address human behavior, or society, or politics. It was left for others to take evolutionary science and make it into a metaphor which could be applied in other areas of human experience.

The science of evolution and the metaphor of evolution are two very different things, and should not be confused with each other. Unfortunately, many people have confused the science with the metaphor and some crazy, even tragic results have followed.

Let me offer two examples of attempts to apply Darwinism to human society. On one hand, there were the capitalists of the early 20th century who believed in what was called "social Darwinism." They believed that society operated by the law of "natural selection," and that those who benefitted most, who made the most money, were the ones who were most fit to survive. The wealthy were more highly evolved in society. That, they said, is the natural way of things, the way nature works. The poor are poor because nature ordains it. John D. Rockefeller, who believed in "social Darwinism," was quoted once as saying, "God gave me my money."

On the other hand, Karl Marx believed that communism was the proper result of social evolution. All the various stages of society were analogous to the adaptive attempts of biological species, and the most adaptive stage, the highest evolutionary stage, was what Marx called "scientific socialism," or communism. Marx, in fact, wanted to dedicate his book "Das Capital" to Darwin, but Darwin declined the honor.

Both Rockefeller and Marx -- capitalism and communism -- made the mistake of believing that the evolutionary metaphor was evolutionary science.

I am suggesting, though, that there is nothing wrong with using the evolutionary metaphor, and in fact it is an extremely useful tool. But we should not confuse it with science.

A metaphor is a story or an analogy which helps us to understand something better. A metaphor is not reality, but is a story which helps us understand reality. And the evolutionary metaphor is perhaps one of the most useful metaphors for religious folk of the Unitarian persuasion.

The evolutionary metaphor is a good one for liberal religion for a number of reasons. First of all, the evolutionary metaphor emphasizes the 'process' rather than the end. Darwinian science threatened many established religions by threatening their confidence about some ultimate purpose to nature, or some inevitable end to all things. Unitarians do not generally conceive of a single inevitable end or a single ultimate purpose to all things. Rather, we are more likely to concern ourselves with the process of life itself and the direction that life is taking us.

A major tenet of liberal religion, it seems to me, is that the purpose and meaning of life is not written on stone. Purpose in life is not found in creeds or doctrines. No, for us life's purpose is to be created or discovered through the process of living. Like evolution, our lives are a drama whose script is being written and revised daily. The last act of that drama has not yet been written. I confess that it can be a scary way to live, but for many of us it is the only way to live with integrity.

John Kimball's 1913 book on the "romance of evolution" speaks to the drama of the metaphor. In the words I quoted earlier, Kimball spoke of evolution as a "mighty romance...and some new page is published from day to day, but whose plot, so intricate and wonderful, no human skill can unravel."

The evolutionary metaphor emphasizes our connectedness and our interdependence with all things and all people. This is also a major tenet of our religion. Earlier, I mentioned Darwin’s conclusion that all species trace back to a common heritage. We are, in fact, related to other species. Three is a reason that humans share with chimpanzees 97% of our genetic make-up. Our existence is inseparably linked with theirs.

The principles of the Unitarian Universalist Association speak of our "respect of the interdependent web of all existence." The evolutionary metaphor offers a picture of that principle. According to Darwin, if we look back far enough into the past, all things derive from a common source. Whether that common source is primordial amino acids or God (or both, for that matter), it does not alter the fact that all things are connected. Darwin offered a scientific picture, not a religious principle, but religious principles can be, and are, derived from that picture.

Another lesson the metaphor of evolution teaches about our interdependence is the need of our species to cooperate with other life on this planet. A very rudimentary view of evolution tries to tell us life is about competition, about “survival of the fittest.” One species feeds on another, and weak species are dominated by strong ones. Those carrying weak genes are inferior to those carrying strong ones. Some even go so far to conclude that it is fair for us in our personal life to imitate the kind of dog-eat-dog behavior that is revealed through biological evolution.

While there may be truth in that image of evolution, it is a minor truth, and perhaps gravely misleading of a greater truth. The greater truth of evolution is the model of cooperation, adaptation, and living together amicably. The fact is that by far the most important factor in successful evolution of a species is its ability to adapt, to get along, to adjust to the environment and other species around it. This characteristic of cooperation is vastly more important to survival than the characteristic of competition and dominance. Another popular writer, this time in biology, is Lewis Thomas, who gave this overview of the evolutionary system:

"There is a tendency for living things to join up, establish linkages, live inside each other, return to earlier arrangements, and get along, whenever possible. This is the way the world is."

The metaphor of "creation," more often than not, includes this kind of image of cooperation. When we speak of the "whole of creation," we tend to picture a harmonious diversity of species, each providing some benefit to the greater whole. Our common image of evolution benefit by including this image that the concept of "creation" provides.

More than that, the concept of evolution is aided by some sense that everything is interrelated, interdependent and cooperative. Each piece requires the help of other pieces. The great American naturalist John Muir put it this way:

"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.... The whole wilderness is unity, and interrelation is alive and familiar."

In the 100 years since Darwin's death, most of mainstream Christianity has gradually come to agree with Darwinian evolution as an explanation of the way nature works. The Book of Genesis, they say, is not to be taken as a science text, as a literal description. It can be accepted, though, as symbolic truth, in that it provides a useful metaphor for creation by emphasizing God as the 'source' of all things. I agree that Genesis is also a very useful metaphor.

But this morning I have asked you to consider the evolution story as not only being literally true (that is, scientifically "true"), but also symbolically true, as a useful metaphor for understanding the principle of the interdependent web of existence. And we are an important part, but only a part, of that web. The Genesis story and evolution cannot both be literally true. But when they are taken as metaphors, they can both be true symbolically. The truth of the Genesis metaphor and the truth of the evolution metaphor are both helpful in understanding life.

This insight inspired the poet W.H. Carruth to write the following famous verse:

A fire‑mist and a planet,

A crystal and a cell,

A jelly‑fish and a saurian,

And caves where the cave‑men dwell;

Then a sense of law and beauty

And a face turned from the clod,

Some call it evolution,

And others call it God.

I hope it was O.K. for me to chose Darwin over Lincoln this morning. Some day I’ll return to Lincoln for important reasons, but by and large Lincoln doesn’t suffer detractors and need defenders as Darwin continues to do. Lincoln’s legacy is not tainted with religious prejudice, as Darwin’s is today. Today is Darwin’s day. He gave us a scientific grounding for the highest of all religious principles – our interdependence with nature itself.

READING:

An Open Letter from Unitarian Universalist Clergy

from “The Clergy Letter Project”

As Unitarian Universalists, we draw from many sources, including "Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life," and "Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit." While most Unitarian Universalists believe that many sacred scriptures convey timeless truths about humans and our relationship to the sacred, we stand in solidarity with our Christian and Jewish brothers and sisters who do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. We believe that religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

Fundamentalists of various traditions, who perceive the science of evolution to be in conflict with their personal religious beliefs, are seeking to influence public school boards to authorize the teaching of creationism. We see this as a breach in the separation of church and state. Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of creation are free to teach their perspective in their homes, religious institutions and parochial schools. To teach it in the public schools would be to assert a particular religious perspective in an environment which is supposed to be free of such indoctrination.

We the undersigned, Unitarian Universalist clergy, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and other scriptures may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

READING from

Albert Einstein, “Science and Religion,”

an address at the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion,

New York, 1940.

“Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has nevertheless learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed in an image: Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”