Physics, I have long thought, was the great science of the 20th century; biology would assume the mantle in the 21st. This supposition has lately been confirmed for me by two important participants. In October, 2006, I heard E. O Wilson; in December, it was Freeman Dyson. Biologist and physicist, their conclusions were nearly identical: Biology lies at the crossroads of every endeavor of life, from the chemical to the ethical. Further, our future, whatever it is to be, in enmeshed with, and dependent upon, every manner of biological imperative.

Both scientists, by the way, also make good cases for the tolerance, or even, in some cases (that is, for the sake of the planet’s future), outright espousal of the type of religion that Richard Dawkins finds so hideously offensive (see The God Delusion). For what it’s worth, my own feeling about Dawkins and his campaign is that he is attempting to use the same atomic weaponry as his apparent opponents, to eradicate (at worst) a minor cancer by obliterating all life—a mad neurosurgeon, using a chain saw to repair a brain that might not be all that sick. (At least Dennett, in Breaking the Spell, says he wants to examine the presumed ailment in detail first.)

Here are my notes after the Wilson talk:

It’s been an interesting week. I’ve become increasingly convinced that biology is emerging as the most important science of this century, if for no other reason than the fact that life, both as a concept and in implementation, is under a lot of stress--at least, insofar as humans are concerned. So, tonight, we heard E. O. Wilson talk about his new book (The Creation), wherein he attempts to enlist the assistance of, specifically, evangelical Christians. The thesis is that, “yes, I would like you to see things as a secular-humanist scientist, and, yes, I know you would love to re-convert me [Wilson was, by up-bringing, one of Them], but, hey, let’s forget about our tribal differences for now, to concentrate on what we have in common: the need to save the planet.”

This is a tall order, considering that the two “tribes” have been sworn enemies for years. But, if anyone can pull it off, to engage the political clout of 30 million evangelicals in America alone, it won’t be done through Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett, but, rather, through “gentlemen” agents such as Wilson and Freeman Dyson (Dyson’s book is a set of retrospective essays:  The Scientist as Rebel.)

.Peter Singer wrote about “expanding the circle”. Will it stretch that much? Many of tonight’s audience were of university age—a time when you can afford to be realistic, and when you need to invest heavily in the earth’s future—though there was a smattering of geezer-class citizens, including myself. Well. Just the idea of tribal elders being held in such high esteem is, in this time of so much depressing news, encouraging to me….