Francisco Ayala, March 12, 1934-March 3, 2023, Scientist, Scholar, and Religious Defender of Science
A Great Scientist, Scholar and Gentleman, we worked together to defend the teaching of Evolution, including convincing the Catholic Church not to abandon it
I just learned a few hours ago that, sadly, National Medal of Science Winner Francisco Ayala, passed away today, one week shy of his 89th birthday. This is a loss for science, and for the world.
Francisco had a remarkable amalgam of different experiences. A former Catholic Priest, he became one of the world’s foremost evolutionary biologists, providing living proof that a belief in God did not require one forsake Darwinian evolution as the explanation for the diversity of species on Earth. Indeed, as he would have put it, the only religious belief consistent with our knowledge of the world is one in which Evolution is recognized as a centerpiece of our understanding of life.
His Wikipedia page highlights his position within the biological community:
“He is known for his research on population and evolutionary genetics, and has been called the "Renaissance Man of Evolutionary Biology". His "discoveries have opened up new approaches to the prevention and treatment of diseases that affect hundreds of millions of individuals worldwide", including demonstrating the reproduction of Trypanosoma cruzi, the agent of Chagas disease, is mostly the product of cloning, and that only a few clones account for most of this widespread, mostly untreatable South American disease that affects 16 million to 18 million people.”
I didn’t share Francisco’s religious faith, but like all reasonable people, that did not get in the way of either our friendship, or our shared love of science, and our commitment to defend the teaching of science. These shared views came to the fore in 2005 when, together with Catholic biologist Kenneth Miller, we wrote a letter to Pope Benedict in an attempt to ensure that the Catholic Church continued to stand by the statement of Pope John Paul II regarding evolution: "that scientific rationality and the church's commitment to divine purpose and meaning in the universe were not incompatible."
We were driven to write the letter following statements by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, an influential Austrian theologian, that the modern theory of evolution was incompatible with Catholic faith.
Schönborn had written essay on the Op-Ed page of The New York Times, in collaboration with a team from religious based Discovery Institute. He wrote in response an essay I had written in Science Times in May 2005 on the compatibility of religion and evolution. In his piece, Schönborn suggested the theory of evolution, as it is understood by scientists today, is not compatible with Catholic faith. He dismissed John Paul's comments on the subject in 1996 as "rather vague and unimportant."
Francisco was invaluable in writing the letter. He not only confirmed the references to Catholic theology, but also told me exactly who to send the letter to in the Church hierarchy, in addition to the Pope. I described some of the process associated with writing the letter in a 2006 interview with The Edge Foundation. There I reported the good news. Schönborn walked back his statements, and the papal newspaper produced several articles saying that evolution is compatible with the Catholic theology.
It is hard to know for certain if our letter influenced the final actions of the Church, but, given the media attention it received, it is not unreasonable to assume that was the case. If it was, it was no doubt in large part due to the influence of Ayala. Not only had he been a Catholic Priest, and an outspoken defender of the compatibility of science and religion, but he was a member of the Pontifical Academy, the group of scholars and others who advise the Pope on matters of science.
After that episode Francisco and I remained in touch and met at various events, and appeared on stage together defending Evolution. He was one of the scientists I invited to help inaugurate the Origins Project at ASU in 2008.
I felt fortunate to know Francisco, and was honored to partner with him in 2005. On every occasion where we interacted I was impressed with his kind and gentle manner, European charm, and his considerate demeanor toward everyone around him. I viewed him as the prototypical Scholar and Gentleman. His passing is a loss for those of us who knew him, for the world of science and the world in general.
Instead of celebrating defenders of science, you might consider editing that a bit to celebrating defenders of reason.
The scientific method is an effective conceptual tool which has proven it's ability to develop new knowledge beyond any doubt. It doesn't really need defending, just as a screwdriver doesn't require a defense.
The use of the scientific method can be rational or not, depending on the circumstances. Our relationship with use of the scientific method can be rational or not. To never use the scientific method would be irrational. To always pursue new knowledge no matter what is equally irrational.
When discussing science it seems helpful to make a clear distinction between the scientific method, and our relationship with science. The scientific method is rational, our use of that method may or may not be.
As to evolution, I've never understood why it is considered proof of anything in regards to god claims. Evolution may demonstrate a god is not necessary, and it can equally demonstrate an automated mechanism by which some source of higher intelligence would manage the development of life.
If evolution is correct, people who believe in a deity and have to answer the question of when and how did their God intervene in the evolution of humanity. With no intervention, god would be irrelevant.
Was God responsible for allowing homo erectus and later homo sapiens to evolve a big energy burning brain to allow humanity to evolve past stone tools and fire to modern creation of wealth from "specialization and trade"? Or was the energetic payoff of "specialization and trade" large enough to evolutionary justify a brain that burns 20% of our metabolic energy (which doesn't require a god)? Obsidian is a lot better rock for stone tools and salt preserves meat but both rock and salt are not distributed uniformly over areas.
Some primate had a stranger with a hunk of obsidian enter his area and he didn't just steal his rock, as is typical for primates, but gave him food and shells to get more females and sent him back to get more rock. Meanwhile with a source of obsidian he got more females and could provide more food with less effort.