SCIENCE AND RELIGION:

HOW GREAT IS THE DIVIDE?

WARFARE THESIS:

Throughout history,

religion and science have been opposed to each other.

Further, religion has

stymied science.

According to Lawrence Principe,* “No serious historians of science or of the science-religion issue today maintain the ‘warfare thesis’.”*Professor, History of Science and Technology and Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University

How did the “warfare thesis” originate?

John William Draper wrote A History of the Conflict between Religion and Science in 1874. Though it remains readily available, the facts are twisted: “The text is actually one long, vitriolic, anti-Catholic diatribe.”

Another author, Andrew Dickson White, popularized the notion that before Columbus and Magellan, the world was thought to be flat and that the Earth’s sphericity was officially opposed by the Catholic church…likewise “baseless”.

Nonetheless, these authors’ influence has been embraced

ever since.

St. Augustine(354-430 CE)

The most important figure in

the ancient Western Church; over 5 million of his words survive

Created fundamental statements concerning the relationship between faith and reason and the correct methods of biblical interpretation

Still widely read today

St. Augustine

We cannot sweep seeming contradictions between nature and the Bible under the rug; we must resolve them intellectually

We both “hear” the word (through the Bible) and “see” the word (in nature)

It is more difficult to interpret the Bible than nature

St. Augustine

Biblical expressions were accommodated to the understandings of their original audience

Thus, some passages must be considered “conjecture”

Our interpretations of biblical passages must be informed by the current state of sure scientific knowledge

St. Augustine

Knowledge of the natural world both reveals the majesty of God’s creation and is indispensable for correct biblical interpretation

Far be it from us to negate the one faculty God gave us: reason

Simple faith without exercise of reason is condemned; “blind faith” is explicitly rejected

Later Thinking

In the 17th century, clerics (church leaders) were convinced that scientific discoveries

would provide the BEST support for religious belief

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): Used scientific discoveries to argue AGAINST atheism

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was deeply religious; he freely discussed the activities of God

Bentley argued that the structure of the Solar System was evidence of “divine design” and its continued stability as evidence of God’s continued activity

Why was Bentley’s argument problematic?

Every time science can explain a previously inexplicable phenomenon, by suggesting divine intervention theologians create an unsuitable “God of the gaps”.

Such gaps tend to close with the advance of scientific knowledge, thus putting religion in the position of constant retreat. “God” is progressively squeezed out of the picture.

However, such “retreat” depends on the choice to create and rely on “God of the gaps” arguments.

It is possible that some gaps can never be closed; but,

historically speaking, these are few in comparison to the many proposed since the 17th

century.

OTHER PROBLEMS

A watch may imply a master watchmaker, but it can also imply a company of watchmakers – far from concept of a singular Christian God

Makes God a “mechanic” (without moral force, etc.)

Raises question: Is design real or illusion? No possibility of comparing a designed vs. an undesigned universe.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

Two Basic Tenets1. Intelligent causes (i.e., “creator”) have a

crucial role in the origin and design of the universe and of life and its diversity.

2. Design is detectable in nature.

Critics identify intelligent design as a thinly veiled offensive by evangelical/

fundamentalist Christians to insert particular belief

systems into scientific and educational establishments.

The fact that Intelligent Design is argued for primarily in the courts of law and public

opinion rather than in appropriate scientific circles

seems to support this contention. Science goes

beyond the legal system or public opinion.

Are we not forever incapable of explaining “natural causes”? How

do we differentiate between what we will be able to explain and what we will never be able to?

That is, primary causation is by its very nature incomprehensible.

If there’s a creator, who created the creator?

Or, we’re left with a “miracle”.

Even medieval (5th – 16th centuries) theologians

gravitated toward “naturalism”: Natural forces

alone explain the causation of phenomena.

Intelligent Design supporters depict scientists as atheists.

Yet more than 40% of American scientists believe in a personal God and a larger

percentage in a transcendent being.

And then – there’s the controversy over evolution!

3 Important Features of Evolution

1. Common ancestry – all species in existence today originate from a single ancient organism or a very small number of organisms.

2. Species variations come about randomly.3. Natural selection is the mechanism for

speciation: Useful variations promote survival and are thus passed on to the next generations.

The Argument from “Design Perspective”

Can’t invoke “divine intervention” if species evolve through random variations and natural selection.

A nature run by violent, brutal natural selection could not witness

a merciful, benevolent God.

BOTTOM LINE

Liberal Theologians were anxious to distinguish themselves from conservatives who stuck to biblical literalism by supporting evolutionary theory.

Throughout the 20th century, there has been a tendency for less educated Protestants to assert and reinforce religious identity through opposition to evolution.

Interestingly, while public schools and textbook

publishers have shied away from addressing evolution at all, Catholic parochial schools are the most likely to teach it.

In 1996, John Paul II declared it “more than a hypothesis”.

However, contrary to much mythology, religious leaders were significantly divided in their reception of Darwin.

Both theologians and scientists were spread over

the spectrum.

Many Christians saw evolution consistent with a “divine

plan” and even as proof of a divine purpose in the world (“programmed” in by God

from the beginning).

While most Americans tend to think of the controversy over evolution as long-standing, it

is a relatively recent phenomenon. “The loudest

combatants are both extremists.”

Fundamentalists do not have the right to speak for

Christianity.

Scientists such as Hitchens and Dawkins do not have the

right to speak for science.

“Their arguments tend to harden positions and create divisions where none exist.

The perception of controversy ignores the vast field of

cooperation and intelligent conversation by the majority

in between.”

These slides summarize the work of Professor Lawrence M.

Principe, Johns Hopkins University.

“Science and Religion” is an audio series produced by The Teaching Company in 2006.