Atheism and Theism 11from inorganic matter, but there are hints that the problem at least is not
as hopeless as Kelvin thought.^13
Is There a Conflict between Science and Religion?Why then is it commonly said that conflict between science and religion
is a thing of the past? At least the outlook is bleak for those who see a
‘God of the gaps’. Certainly the ‘New Physics’ makes us see the universe as
very different from what untutored common sense tells us. Moreover the
more physicists discover and the more they are able to unify their theories
(e.g. of the four fundamental forces) the more wonderful the universe
seems to be, and a religious type of emotion is liable to be aroused. On the
other hand developments in biology can go the other way. As I suggested
earlier, biology has become increasingly mechanistic. It is true that a sort
of wonder is also appropriate, since it is hard imaginatively to grasp the
amazing adaptations that have occurred by means of natural selection. Con-
sider the complexity of the human immune system, or the extraordinarily
subtle and complex sonar system of the bat. However, I think that this
wonder is different from that to which physics has led us. We have difficulty
in grasping the biological complexity mainly because we fail imagina-
tively to grasp the vast periods of time in which this complexity developed
as a result of mutation, recombination and natural selection. We can also
forget the highly opportunistic ways^14 in which earlier structures have been
adapted to different functions, as in the evolution of the mammalian eye
and ear. Sometimes also the theory of evolution can explain maladaptation.
Consider the human sinuses, in which the ‘sump hole’ is at the top, thus
predisposing us to infections, inflammation, catarrh and pain. This is because
we evolved from four-legged mammals, whose heads were held down-
wards, and in their case the ‘sump holes’ were well positioned. It should
be observed that if we have a plausible general idea of how something could
have occurred in accordance with known scientific principles, then it is
reasonable to hold that it did occur in this natural way or in some other
such way, and to reject supernatural explanations. It is interesting that (so
my observation in talking to them goes) biologists are more frequently hard
boiled in metaphysics. They are forced to look at human beings mechanistically
and have it deeply impressed on their minds that we are mammals – ‘poor
forked creatures’ – rather than partly spiritual beings, little lower than the
angels. Moreover the medical and agricultural applications of theories of
immunology, genetics, and so on, make it hard to take seriously the view
fashionable among many literary and sociological academics that scientific
theories are merely useful myths, and are destined to be overturned and
replaced by others.