ACROSS MY CAREER AS A SCIENTIST (FROM DROSOPHILA TO biological conceptions of race), I have been consistently involved in work addressing the acceptance of evolution in American society. This topic has always had great significance for me, as the African American family and community in which I was raised were devout Christians. I also understood that to make any real headway toward increasing the number of URM in the field of evolutionary biology, one would need a coherent argument explaining why being an evolutionary scientist does not mean you have to turn your back on your faith and community. Yet I am a member of the community of professional evolutionary scientists, most of whom are white and atheist. An almost comic example of this mismatch was illustrated at a talk my colleague Michael Rose gave on evolution in a high school in Irvine. He was asked a question about God and evolution. Michael responded with the statement “God is dead and Darwin killed him.” I turned to Michael’s girlfriend, who was sitting next to me, and said, “You go start your car, pull it up to the school entrance, and I’ll get Michael out of here!” Michael was speaking metaphorically, but many in the audience didn’t take it that way. So I decided it was time to end the question-and-answer period and hustled him out of the auditorium and into his girlfriend’s running car.

Despite Michael’s metaphor, the supernatural either exists or it doesn’t. Accepting the existence of the supernatural doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the existence of a supreme being (God). Most of the world’s religious or spiritual traditions do not subscribe to the idea that there is one supreme being. Many of the Yoruba-speaking people in western Africa, Hindus in India and Nepal, and those who accept the so-called three teachings (Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism) in East Asian cultures practice spiritual beliefs that do not have a single supreme being.¹ Indeed, the Hebrew Bible (that is, the Old Testament) can be read as if Yahweh, Jehovah, or Elohim was god only for the Hebrews. Other cultures had other gods. One can reasonably argue that monotheism has generally been rare in human history as well as in the contemporary world. There are currently over nine hundred million people in India and Nepal who subscribe to a diverse set of religious beliefs and practices that can be united under the title of Hinduism and who do not believe that there is one supreme being.²

In the Western world the core of the dispute concerning evolutionary science and religion is associated with the three Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. In the United States the main antagonism toward evolutionary science has come from Christianity. It wasn’t always this way. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a Catholic scholar. He began his scientific career as an “essentialist.” Essentialism held that species were specially created and were fixed and unchanging. However, by 1809 Lamarck held that the fossil record made it clear that as individual members of a species changed from generation to generation over a long succession of generations, what had once been one species had transformed into another.³ Lamarck held that the supreme being had imbued all organisms with an internal drive for improvement. Lamarck’s mechanism for this was the inheritance of acquired characteristics. That is, an organism was capable of passing on its acquired characteristics to its offspring. In his scheme, giraffes had longer necks because their parental generations had stretched their necks to get at food higher in the trees. Today we know that this mechanism is in the main incorrect, as the primary features of organisms are determined by their genetic codes. These codes change across time through natural selection. Despite the incorrectness of Lamarck’s ideas, they did produce a testable hypothesis about what pattern we should observe in the history of life relative to the number of species. In Lamarck’s scheme, the number of species should have remained constant across geological epochs. That is, though an individual species might go extinct, its lineage would persist with a new species taking its place in the assemblage of life. So Lamarckian evolution, which was popular in eighteenth-century France, did not come into fundamental conflict with Christian belief. Some Christians felt that extinction was inconsistent with God’s omnipotence and omniscience; others felt that God had caused great extinctions via the great catastrophes (such as the Noachian Flood).⁴ But at the end of the day, in this period one could easily accept Lamarckian evolution. This viewpoint might have roiled the church orthodoxy, but it was in no way a fundamental challenge to the existence of God.

A century or so later (during the 1850s), Darwin agonized about the impact his ideas on the “transmutation” of species by the means of natural selection would have on the English clergy. However, the clerical explosion he expected against his ideas did not immediately occur. Early reviews, including some written by clergy, praised his book On the Origin of Species.⁵ Twenty years after its publication, there were only two special creationists working as professionals in American universities. The situation was even worse for special creationists in England, where the ideas of evolution by natural selection were becoming even more popular with the clergy.⁶ In actuality, it wasn’t Darwin’s ideas that were the greatest threat to conservative theology at this time; instead, it was the development of a new form of biblical scholarship called the higher criticism.⁷ The higher criticism was developed in German universities, and it challenged the very pillars of orthodox theology. The views of orthodox Protestant scholars in America were well summarized in an 1873 work entitled Systematic Theology.⁸ The book was authored by Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary, and it defined the orthodox doctrine as the position that the scriptures (Old and New Testaments) were the word of God. Hodge stated that they were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and were therefore infallible. They were the divine authority in all things pertaining to faith and practice and consequently were free from all error, whether of doctrine, fact, or precept. Hodge went further, contending that the Bible’s truth was not confined to moral and religious truths but also extended to its statements of facts, whether scientific, historical, or geographical. By contrast, the higher criticism held that the Bible was not infallible, could be studied as literature, and had evolved naturally across time. One can immediately see how both Darwin’s natural selection and the higher criticism would be attractive to theological minds growing uncomfortable with the orthodoxy that was embodied in late nineteenth-century Western society.

MY VIEW OF THE SCRIPTURES FALLS INTO THE CAMP OF THE higher criticism. I didn’t start with this position, as I was raised in the tradition of the National Baptist Convention, who in general believe that the Bible can be read literally. However, I now believe that the scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not in the simplistic, determinist way that would have made Hodge comfortable. The difficulty arises when the perfection of the Holy Spirit interacts with the corruptible and all-too-fallible minds of human beings (entities evolved by natural selection). If we accept that humans are corruptible and fallible, we are at once called to deal with the theological issue of theodicy, which addresses whether God is good given the fact that there is human suffering and evil in the world. Another way of posing this conundrum is this: If God is omniscient, then God must have known that human “free will” would result in the terrible world we now occupy. Therefore, if God is omnipotent, then why does God not just step in and end all the injustice and suffering? This problem has led many to claim that either God is not omnipotent, is not all powerful, or just doesn’t care (like the character Chuck in the CW Television Network series Supernatural.)⁹ However, an alternative view of God’s action in the world can account for this apparent discrepancy. John Haught presented a view in which we recognize that it is not necessary to deny God’s power if we acknowledge the divine participation in the world’s suffering.¹⁰ This view is based on the Trinitarian idea that God is tripartite: God, son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit.

With such a worldview it is easier to accept God’s role in the evolution of life on this planet (or in the rest of the universe). It is also easier to accept that biologically flawed human beings capable of making their own decisions wouldn’t always behave in ways consistent with God’s intent for our species. This is well illustrated in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The higher criticism claims that these books (called the books of Moses or the Pentateuch) were written over a span of about four hundred years by at least four different sources:

J source (calls God Jehovah)—most ancient source

E source (calls God Elohim)—also ancient, and was combined with the J source

D source (the writer of Deuteronomy and the second telling of Exodus)

P source (priestly code, primarily seen in Leviticus).¹¹

The differences between J and E are notable in the order of creation given in Genesis 1 and 2.¹² J gives the order of creation in Genesis 1 as plants, animals, man and woman; E gives the order in Genesis 2 as man, plants, animals, woman. Both accounts cannot be true; so either J is true and E is false, J is false and E is true, or both J and E are false. Scientifically we know both J and E are false; however, it is interesting to note the implications of the J and E versions of the story for human social structure. In J’s version, man and woman are created together, and even though I most humbly admit to not knowing the mind of God, I can’t imagine that a supreme being would have first created animals to be the man’s helper and then created human females as an afterthought. The E writer’s version of creation is quite consistent with the patriarchy of those societies. That patriarchy also viewed God as a gendered entity, which is also something I cannot imagine. Indeed, many archaeologists argue that Yahweh (one of the first names for the Hebrew God) and his wife Asherah were originally a joint deity.¹³ However, Asherah’s role was diminished, and Yahweh became the sole supreme being of the Hebrew people.

Adhering to biblical analysis like higher criticism allowed one to understand the texts in historical and cultural context, and also allowed for an easier path to read scripture as symbolic text and not literal truth of natural history. From this perspective, I argue that religion-versus-science debates about nature are an unnecessary antagonism that does more harm than good to science and religion.¹⁴ There is no satisfactory argument or method within science (despite the claims of people like Richard Dawkins) to prove that God doesn’t exist.¹⁵ Immanuel Kant was one of many philosophers who understood this.¹⁶ Some of you are going to think this is a strange claim to be made by a scientist. Others will immediately discount my scientific credentials because I believe God exists. Conversely, people in various faith communities will reject my theology, particularly the idea that although God exists, accepting that as fact does not provide any additional power to explain how biological systems work. Indeed, as Christian scripture cannot be read literally and was not designed to be a textbook to teach the ancients about science or natural history, adhering to scripture as a means to understand nature leads to so many misconceptions it is not worth taking the time to recount them all. Thus, many religions (and their various denominations) have wasted far too much of their time arguing against the reality of evolution because they mistakenly see it as a fundamental challenge to their faith beliefs. On the other hand, many scientists have mistakenly challenged religion in an attempt to demonstrate the superiority of their way of thinking about the world.

In my youth I was one of those scientists who, mistakenly, thought championing science meant attacking religion. This position was born out of conflict with biblical literalism and out of recognition of the despicable historical role the Christian church played in persecuting the Jews in Europe, in warring against Islam to seize Islamic nations’ territories, and in justifying slavery, colonialism, and modern racism. However, it became clear to me that all the cultural institutions of European society (including the scientific enterprise) were engaged in these atrocities, so there was no reason to single out Christianity or the church. I also went through events that rekindled a spiritual awakening within me, including the deaths of my brother and mother, and I suffered ongoing struggles with depression. In 2010 I began to feel called back to take up a mission within the church. I scanned the web pages of church communities in Greensboro, North Carolina, where I lived at the time, to find one whose principles I could agree with. When I came to one church, a powerful voice in the back of my head said to me, “This is where you will go.” I know that many of you reading this will not believe that it was the voice of God I heard. I hardly believe it myself. The voice could just as well have been a deeply seated subconscious urge that responded to the picture of that church. I share this narrative not to convince anyone of the divine but to explain how I decided to join the Episcopal Church.

I did not join the church blindly. I read academic treatments of its history. It was formed out of the Anglican Church, which in turn was brought into being because Henry VIII of England wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn—not a good start. It became the Episcopal Church after the American Revolution because Americans could no longer swear allegiance to George III of England. During the Revolutionary War, many of its clergy were Tories (lay members tended to support the Revolution). After independence, it never took a position in opposition to slavery. Most other Christian denominations split organizationally over the abolition issue. Samuel Morton, a polygenist (polygeny held that the human races were not really races at all but, instead, separate species) was an Episcopalian, as were many prominent Confederate leaders, including Robert E. Lee.

Yet in the twentieth century the church made some important movements toward social justice, including declaring racism a sin (although declaring racism a sin does not prevent people from continuing to believe in biological races).¹⁷ It has also affirmed that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have equal rights to the church’s offices, sacraments, and rites (including marriage). As I know many LGBTQ people, the last position was a requirement for any church I would join. In addition, I was confirmed into the church by the Bishop Michael Curry of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina. Soon afterward he became the first African American to be elected presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church. You might know him as the clergyman who performed the wedding of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Bishop Curry is one of the most godly men and most genuine human beings I have ever had the honor to meet. I feel the same way about my current bishops, the Reverend Sam Rodman and the Reverend Anne Hodges-Copple, and about my local clergy.

As an Episcopalian I work to help bridge the gap between the religious and scientific communities. I have worked within the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina as part of its Racial Justice and Reconciliation committee and on the COVID Vaccination Task Force in 2020 and 2021. In 2020 I began working with the Science for Seminaries program of the AAAS Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion (DOSER). I am currently the science curriculum adviser for the Chicago Theological Seminary, the Methodist Theological School in Ohio, and the New Brunswick Theological Seminary. In June 2020, I did two podcasts for BioLogos,¹⁸ an organization founded by Francis Collins, one of the leaders of the human genome project and former director of the NIH. I have known him for over twenty years, and he (like me) journeyed from atheism to a profound faith in God.¹⁹ The goal of all these activities was to dispel the special creationist notions of race (and racial hierarchy) still prevalent in American Christian communities.

SEVERAL TIMES I HAVE BEEN CALLED ON TO ADDRESS THE ONGOING attacks by special creationists on the teaching of evolution in the public schools. In August 1999, the Kansas Board of Education voted to remove evolution from the state K–12 curriculum.²⁰ The decision made national news, but creationists’ preceding failures to achieve this aim were less well-known.²¹ In the summer of 1998 an attempt to remove evolution from the Arizona Science Standards failed. My work in helping defeat this effort are not well-known. Indeed, it could be argued that my role in defeating the effort was intentionally swept under the rug.

I first learned of the attempt to eliminate evolution from the Arizona standards via a phone call from a high school science teacher in Camp Verde, Arizona. As I recall, it was a normal day; I had just finished checking on the fly cultures in my laboratory. Soon after I returned to my office the phone rang. The teacher (who shall remain nameless) chose me to call because the Arizona State University West course catalog listed me as one of the instructors for the undergraduate evolution course. In the call, the teacher informed me that a state science curriculum committee had voted to remove evolution from the state science standards. Creationists on the school board had orchestrated a sham committee to make recommendations concerning the biology curriculum. The committee did not include any high school– or university-level biology teachers. Of course, that was the only way such a resolution could have passed, as all professional biologists understand that evolution is a core unifying principle of modern biology. Even a committee made up entirely of high school biology teachers would have been obligated to include evolution in the curriculum, because high school teachers are tasked with teaching the state of the science in their field.²² On the other hand, professional biologists view the removal of evolution from the science standards as criminal negligence of students’ science instruction. It would be tantamount to attempting to teach engineers how to build bridges but leaving out the basics of structural mechanics.

The committee’s resolution was not binding and required a public hearing before the Arizona State Board of Education (BOE). I met with the concerned teacher. We charted out a strategy to defeat the resolution. We agreed that the best plan included starting a petition supporting the teaching of evolution. It was to be signed by as many biologists and other scientists in the state’s three research universities as possible (Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University, and the University of Arizona). I called all the instructors of evolution or department chairs I could find at those institutions. In addition, we reached out to high school biology teachers across the state to recruit them to the cause of retaining evolution in the state standards. Finally, the key to defeating the resolution was to enlist Arizona’s faith community in our efforts. This was achieved through direct outreach to the Arizona Ecumenical Council, which included faith leaders from a variety of traditions (Christian, Jewish, and Islamic).²³

The hearing concerning the resolution was held in Prescott, Arizona, a little more than a two-hour drive north of Phoenix. The hearing was packed with people from across the state. The creationists were there in force. I remember that those of us standing on the side of science were in the distinct minority, and I was the only African American there. The standard creationist tropes were unleashed during the public commentary: “my grandmother was not an ape,” and so on. During the portion of the meeting reserved for public comments, one speaker gave a startling demonstration of creationist logic. The speaker took out a bag filled with a glass bottle, smashed it against the podium, and declared that evolutionists believed that if enough time passed, the glass shards would spontaneously reassemble themselves into a bottle. In contrast to that, my testimony revolved around the difference between science and faith. This is an important distinction because under the Constitution of the United States you can teach science in science classrooms, and “creation science” does not qualify as science.²⁴ I explained to the audience that I did not “believe” in evolution; rather, I accepted the evidence supporting the fact of it. I explained that evolutionary biology was the cornerstone of modern biology. I talked about the irrevocable damage that would be done to the education of Arizona children if the science standards were diluted. I spoke as both a professional scientist and educator and as a parent of children currently in the Arizona public school system.

One can never win such a discussion with creationists, simply because their fundamentalist interpretation of scripture does not allow consideration of any evidence that contradicts their faith. However, the presence of scientists from industry and the state’s top universities in our coalition played a crucial role in undermining the resolution before the BOE. The role of ministers from the Ecumenical Council was just as crucial, as they declared that they saw no conflict between their faith and the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Shortly after testifying before the board of education, I was asked to speak on creationism and the danger to Arizona science education at the Prescott Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in October 1998.

In the end, a deal was struck within the state board to retain the teaching of evolution in Arizona’s public schools.²⁵ I was not part of the negotiation over the standards. A colleague informed me confidentially that the other side would not talk if I were a part of the negotiating team. From this I surmised that in Arizona it was okay for white scientists to talk to white creationists about evolution in the science standards, but white creationists could not tolerate a Black scientist talking to them about it. This attitude is consistent with what we know about the racial attitudes of white Christians in the United States. Despite their claim to believe in the “brotherhood” of man, their racial attitudes reveal that they are the most racist demographic in the country, distancing nonreligiously affiliated whites by twenty to thirty points on virtually every indicator of racism.²⁶ Their strong vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 and 2020 elections revealed their ongoing adherence to white supremacy.²⁷

IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ARIZONA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION controversy I agreed to face creationist Kent Hovind, a disciple of Kenneth Ham, of the Creation Research Ministries, in a debate that was televised on Fox 10 News in Arizona. The show was a popular morning radio talk show that was also aired on TV. It is notable that the Wikipedia article on Kent Hovind does not list our debate, which I am pretty sure took place at some time between 1998 and 2000.²⁸ Hovind had posted an ongoing challenge that he would pay $10,000 to anyone who could demonstrate that evolution was true. He was not prepared for his encounter with me. First, most of the scientists he debated did not know the Bible; I did. Second, instead of reacting to his attempts to discredit evolution, I treated special creation as a theory that made predictions about the history and diversity of life. In other words, if the earth was only six thousand years old and if all living things were created at once and if all the claims in the Bible were literally true (as Ham and Hovind still assert), then unmistakable patterns would be clearly observable in the history of life.²⁹ I contrasted special creationism with Lamarckian evolution and then with Darwinian evolution (evolution through natural selection). For example, I pointed out that for the earth to be only six thousand years old, one must dismiss so many facts of physics and geology that the argument rapidly becomes untenable. The energy that makes up the light we see from the sun resides within the sun for ten thousand years before it is emitted. Thus, if the sun and earth were created according to a literal reading of Genesis, not a single photon of light would have reached the earth yet. The age of the earth, as measured by the decay of radioactive elements—such as the decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87—is estimated at approximately 4.6 billion years.³⁰ That’s ample time for plenty of sunlight to have reached the earth, delivering the energy that allowed the evolution of life, including organisms that conduct oxygenic photosynthesis, which allows the accumulation of oxygen that makes complex multicellular organisms possible. The highlight of the debate was when I asked Hovind if he knew the dimensions of Noah’s ark. Hovind insisted that no animals had ever gone extinct, so dinosaurs were also on Noah’s ark. Of course, with those dimensions it would have held only one large dinosaur, leaving no room for any other animals.

A few years later, in 2001, I was called on to testify to dispute creationist claims before the Louisiana House of Representatives. I was asked to help defeat a motion sponsored by State Representative Sharon Weston Broome. Broome, an African American member of the Democratic Party, had significant ties with the creationist movement in Louisiana. Her motion declared that Charles Darwin was not only a racist but the father of all modern scientific racist ideology. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 74 stated, “The writings of Charles Darwin… promoted the justification of racism.” It urged public schools in Louisiana to address “the weaknesses of Darwinian racism.” In addition, the resolution asserted, “Adolf Hitler and others have exploited the racist views of Darwin and those he influenced.” According to newspaper accounts, Broome linked Darwinism to the Ku Klux Klan and to the 1963 church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama. On May 1, the Louisiana House of Representatives Education Committee passed HCR 74 by a 9–5 vote. However, the resolution was not truly designed to be an antiracist action; it was really an assault on the teaching of evolution.

The resolution went to the full House on May 8, 2001. My testimony and that of other scientists led the House to reject the motion. Specifically, I provided the legislature with a more accurate history of scientific racism in the Western world, particularly its basis in Christian special creationism. As already mentioned, Samuel Morton, one of the four horsemen of polygeny, was a devout Episcopalian.³¹ I demonstrated that Darwin, on the other hand, was not responsible for the birth of scientific racism and was himself an abolitionist and generally supportive of racial justice. In the end, the resolution passed as a general condemnation of racism without any mention of Charles Darwin.³² Once again, news coverage of the story failed to mention my critical role in turning the tide of the discussion about including Darwin in the resolution. However, since the defeat of that resolution, creationists have mainly dropped from their arsenal the claim that Darwin was the father of scientific racism, in part, I suggest, in response to the strength of my performance in front of the Louisiana State Legislature.

IN HINDSIGHT, THE MOST IMPORTANT OUTCOME OF MY DEBATES with creationists was that I learned how to facilitate a much sincerer dialogue between science and religion. I also came to recognize that this dialogue was a crucial tool for attracting more African Americans (and students from other faith communities) to possible careers in science. In 2009 I attended the Roundtable on Science and Religion in Oxford, England. To tell the truth, these sorts of gatherings are more scientific tourism than serious scholarly conferences, but sometimes some important work gets done. I attended with one of the faculty members in my academic division, Gary Bailey, a professor of religion. As a result of the discussions, we published a paper that addressed the possible conflict between conceptions of “authentic Christianity” and critical thinking.³³ We concluded that because of the subjective nature of denominational claims, there really could be no “authentic” Christianity beyond the most basic of its agreed upon tenets. This in turn led us to design a study to examine both knowledge about and acceptance of evolution by African American students at an HBCU. Our study was actually the first such to focus on African American students. Other studies had been conducted in general student populations, but they did not disaggregate the responses of African Americans from other socially defined racial groups in the study. Previous studies had found a positive correlation between knowledge of evolution and its acceptance. We found, by contrast, that African American students showed a negative correlation.³⁴ We also were able to show that this negative correlation was driven by the religiosity of the students. Religiosity is measured by a number of sociological scales, but it is basically the degree to which persons feel that their religious beliefs are central to their life. Thus, for our sample of students, the negative correlation between knowledge (or understanding) and acceptance was the result of their belief that accepting evolution meant they had to reject their faith. This result told us that instead of avoiding discussions of evolution and faith in our classrooms, we should be embracing them. It was crucial for African American students to understand that many Christians accept the evidence for evolution but do not reject their faith traditions. In a national study of factors associated with choosing careers in evolutionary science, we found that the faith issue, with regard to evolution, was more important for African Americans than for other groups.³⁵ As a result of instructors’ willingness to address faith issues related to evolutionary science, there has been a sea change in participation by African American students in courses in the discipline and in evolutionary research at NCATSU. In my laboratory alone, sixteen African American students have been authors on peer-reviewed papers published in evolution-themed journals since 2015. One recently completed her PhD in microbial evolution and is now a postdoctoral researcher at UCLA. As of 2021, three more members of my research group are in the final year of their PhDs working on an evolution-based project. All of these students belong to various Christian denominations.

SINCE 2011 IT HAS BEEN MY PURPOSE TO HELP THE CHURCH PLAY a more informed role in the reduction of racial ideology and the harm it causes to our society. Now our charge is to get this message out. In this regard, I have engaged in conversations with portals such as BioLogos, a Christian-based organization devoted to facilitating such discussions.³⁶ My greatest remaining task is to engage in a more widespread and in-depth conversation with the African American church on the importance of evolutionary science as a tool to address the problems we face in white supremacist society. I have always been welcome to speak at my cousins’ churches; however, I need to expand the venues where I can deliver this message. Doing so could literally make all the difference going forward.

CHAPTER NINE

Relax

Evolution Is a Fact, but It Doesn’t Tell Us Anything About the Existence of God