Science vs. Religion: the Audacious Mr. Agassiz
/
here’s nothing really new in the argument between science and religion. Likely it will never be settled. It’s too contentious. It’s way too abstract. Mostly, it feels like a pointless debate. Why bother?
The reason is because this historic standoff is absolutely pivotal in so many things that now divide us. Do you believe what nearly every scientist says--that climate change is real? Or do you think it’s just something cyclical, or that God will rectify it? Did you fully accept the science, and rush out to get your COVID vaccination as soon as you could? Or did you think that some conspiracy was afoot…or that your faith would protect you in the end? When do you mark the beginning of life—and hence, what’s your position on abortion?
And there’s one more overriding question today that’s never really spoken out loud anymore. And it’s really the core argument to everything: did God create white people as a race superior to all others? (I know, you’re cringing.) But to many, it’s still an article of faith.)
I’m not here to pretend I can settle any of these specific questions. But I do want to point out something truly remarkable. No matter which side you’re on, both sides of the modern science versus religion argument track to the same man.
To repeat: both sides. Same man.
Allow me to introduce Louis Agassiz.
Louis Agassiz was “enormously personable”--a man of great charm, energy, and persuasion. When he arrived in America from his native Switzerland in the 1840’s, he was already held in the highest regard by the scientific world. He was a biologist and geologist. Among other things, he was credited with discovering the existence of the Ice Age.
Harvard, c. 1850
He quickly applied his charm and repute to American audiences, beginning with a series of lectures at Harvard in 1846—to as many as 5,000 people a night. That became his steppingstone. He leveraged his new renown to establish something at Harvard that had never existed before anywhere in academic America—an independent school of science. The school was underwritten by a local businessman with a $50,000 donation—at that time, a true fortune. As I said, Agassiz could be persuasive.
The school’s creation was historic for several reasons:
To that point, all curricula at Harvard, and nearly every other U.S. college, needed to be taught within the confines of “orthodox Christian belief.” Agassiz changed that. In the words of author Louis Menard, “(when) theology was the academic trump card. Agassiz insisted on the independence of scientific inquiry from religious belief, and, for that matter, from government and economic beliefs, as well.”
Agassiz also decreed that there would be total reliance on hard data. Previously, there were many theories for why things happened in the natural world. But there was no requirement that actual evidence be presented to back up those theories. He insisted otherwise. He viewed the goal of his school as teaching researchers: “observer first, and construct generalizations later.”
He also “professionalized” the role of science. He ruled that the only people qualified to judge scientific findings and theories were other people working in the same field. In effect, he invented what we know as peer review.
It doesn’t seem like an overstatement to say he changed the world. What if religion still decided which science was “real”—or what findings could be reported and taught? His reputation grew enormously. He married a woman who started an advanced school for other women in her own home. Later, she became the first president of Radcliffe.
And Agassiz was respected as more than a mere scientist. Among the recognized names of intellectual powerhouses in this era were Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry Longfellow, John Greenleaf Whittier, Charles Sumner and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. They were all members of an exclusive academic salon called “The Saturday Club.” That was the name known to the outside world. But informally, they called it “Aggasiz’ Club.” He was their leader.
So, to this point, Agassiz’s position in the “science vs. religion” argument seems pretty obvious. He was the original “science guy”; in effect, you could say he invented the modern concept of science. In today’s world, he would be hailed as both an entrepreneur and a progressive icon.
But the fact is, he also created the basis for the current opposition to science—at least in one critical area.
he irony of Louis Agassiz is that he rejected his own demands for rigorous, provable research as he helped promote a religious fallacy across the southern states. It’s the one that justified racism. In the process, he destroyed his reputation.
When Harvard was considering setting up his independent school of science, they asked Agassiz if he was a Christian. He replied, “I am a deist.” That was good enough to pacify the school’s many ministers. Harvard did not want to turn away this academic superstar…or the $50,000 endowment that came with him. Thus, there was no true exploration of Agassiz’ views on religion. But those views would soon become clear.
Agassiz’ fatal step was to fall in with America’s leading anthropologist of the day, Samuel George Morton. Morton was a “skull” man. He studied skulls sent by friends and anonymous donors from around the world. Eventually, he collected 600, including ones gathered by Lewis and Clark through their explorations across the lands of Native American tribes…and from as far away and as far back as the tombs inside the pyramids in Egypt.
Morton and ‘friends’
Here were Morton’s conclusions. (You’re probably not going to like reading this.) Among races, there were five different levels of intelligence, as determined by the size of the skull. (Bigger skulls mean bigger brains.) At the top were Caucasians, especially those from northern European descent. In fourth place (next to last) were Native Americans. And at the very bottom, Negroes. He calculated that the average intelligence of a black person was equivalent to that of a seven-month-old white fetus. Furthermore, traits like intellectual ability, ambition, social niceties, laziness, and negative aggression differed between the groups. You can pretty much guess which groups he said most demonstrated each of those traits.
At this point, it’s important to also look at Morton’s findings in relation to the standards of first-hand observation and hard data that Agassiz had just established. Morton never went into the field himself; he personally gathered none of his skulls. When he received them, he made no attempt to determine how big the humans were to whom the skulls belonged. He didn’t separate by gender. He didn’t consider climate or regional effects. And he made no adjustment for the age of the specimens: some were relatively recent, some were three thousand years old. On top of that, he simply disregarded samples that didn’t fit his theory. And finally, he arbitrarily boosted his “ratings” of white skulls compared to other groups. “Scientific” he was not.
Despite this, Morton’s work was widely accepted as scientific proof. Agassiz picked up the cause. He lectured that black people were an entirely different species…created so by God. He laid the foundation for the modern theory of “intelligent design”: he claimed these differences among races were part of, “…a fact determined by the will of the creator…a general plan.” He claimed to oppose slavery, but more vehemently warned of the dangers of mixing the races. “I shudder at the consequences,” he wrote. He predicted this would inevitably lead to, “social disorder,” and would become, “…a eugenic catastrophe.”
To make his point conclusive, he said, “we ought to beware how we give to the black people rights…which may endanger the progress of whites.” It’s not too much of a stretch to say such “scientific proof” provided a foundation of “logic” for the KKK—as well as the beliefs of millions of “normal” Americans right now.
oday, these statements make us blanch—at the very least. But it’s important to consider these “conclusions” in the context of their time. These words came in the years leading up to and right through the Civil War. The book which crystallized these thoughts sold ten different editions between 1854 and 1871. Such “scientific” conclusions were widely accepted by scientists and physicians alike. And not surprisingly, those conclusions had particular resonance in the Confederacy.
It’s widely accepted that plantation owners feared and reviled abolitionists in the North because their call to end slavery threatened the economy of the South. They vowed to defend their evil system because they saw it as determinatively necessary for survival. But among them, it must be that there were those who were troubled by owning other men. Some looked at what those other men were forced to endure. Some surely concluded, “they’re people, too.” But then Morton arrived to erase those reservations. He provided “science” that proved slaves were lesser…and if that we so, there was no reason to treat them as equals.
This theory became part of Sunday sermons across the South: God had designed blacks as lesser humans. Morton and Agassiz were frequently among those invited up to the pulpit to help spread the Good Word. There was no reason to question them. They were famous. And they were men of “science.”
very day we see and hear things that demonstrate that a “religion” of racism lives on. There was ample evidence during the January 6 Capitol attack—the confederate flags, the gallows on the mall, the “n” word hurled at black Capitol Police offers. What the hell is wrong with those people? I don’t know. Maybe Agassiz played a part.
umans learn from their elders. And remember, Agassiz and the Civil War weren’t that long ago. If you were born in 1960, your grandparents’ grandparents may have been alive then. If you were born in 1990, the war may date back only to your parents’ grandparents. It wasn’t that long ago.
For most people, cultural and religious beliefs, as well as your worldview, are handed down through the generations=—from both your parents, and your not-so-distant relatives. In the Confederacy, generations taught their youngsters that blacks were inferior. Today, many in the south and rural areas still trust that. It’s what they’ve been taught. And the basis for that teaching comes from the “proof” presented by Agassiz and Morton.
f there’s a saving grace here, it’s that humans can learn and change. Right now, some are more enlightened—and some are not. In 1975, 67% of Democrats said they believed in science “a great deal” …or “quite a lot.” Today, that number has jumped to 79%.
But over the same period, the number of Republicans responding to the same endorsement of science has dropped from 72% all the way down to 45%. That’s no typo—45%. More than half don’t buy science. The reasons aren’t entirely clear.
Typically. the media are quick to divide voters by age and race and class and gender and geography. But they shy away from this chasm of belief between science and religion. Too controversial, I guess.
o where does this leave us? Agassiz was a man who established the independent benchmark for fact-based science in America. Then he violated his own credo by accepting false facts to support a racist theory of humanity. And he used this corrupted “science” to empower churches of the South to assure slave owners that what they were doing was God’s design.
The author Menard said of Agassiz, “…the manner in which he used advanced scientific practices to reach reactionary conclusions is, in retrospect, the most interesting thing about him. (He) provided scientific ammunition to politicians of his own time—and well beyond it.”
ow is it possible today to prevent the spread of the kind of “faux science” that Agassiz practiced? How can we apply tactics to arguments over COVID and climate and “stolen elections”?
I suggest the following thoughts:
Religion is a source of comfort and guidance for billions of people around the world. But faith is a personal decision. What you believe, or don’t believe, is entirely up to you. No one can tell you you’re wrong, and no one (aside from a few missionaries and televangelists) is going to try to convince you otherwise.
Science, on the other hand, is universal. Gravity applies to everyone. Scientists work with facts, not beliefs. Their facts are provable.
Thus, these two realms should remain separate. No scientist should try to persuade you to alter your faith. And no religious leader should question the verified findings of science, or apply a religious test to them. This is doubly true if that religious leader steps directly into the realm of politics, particularly on issues that directly relate to science.
Religion and science should not overlap. As any geologist would tell you, “holy oil” and H2O don’t mix.
Footnote: Make of this what you will. The great earthquake of 1906 shook the entire Bay Area. That included the zoology building on the campus of Stanford, which featured a second-story statue of Agassiz perched on a ledge. This was the state of that Agassiz statue right after the quake:
Have a comment or thought on this? Just hit the Your Turn tab here or email us at mailbox@cascadereview.net to have your say.
