Conflict between science and religion exists today in areas where moral values are at stake. Reproductive freedom for women, contraception, abortion, euthanasia,umbilical cord cell research, and genetic engineering are the result of science and technology which have progressed more rapidly than social and religious acceptance. This raises the question of whether theology can or should censor scientific inquiry in the name of a higher morality. Even population growth and the limitation of family size, global warming, and depletion of natural resources are in question.
The deeper question concerns the nature of truth; are there two truths or two cultures, each claiming to be true? Once again science is concerned with empirical questions that offer explanations of the natural world and rejects supernatural causes and does not pretend to deal with the question of the existence of God or an afterlife.
But modern creationism has provided an example of the new violations of NOMA when members of one magisterium tries to impose their will upon the other domain. For years and years creationists repeatedly attempted to ban the teaching of evolution in American public schools or to force their fundamentalist belief of the Bible in its most literal sense, that God created species separately in six twenty four hour days, and the earth is only 10,000 years old. The original impetus was provided by the famous “Scopes trial” in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. John Scopes, a physics teacher in the local school, substituted for the fundamentalist biology teacher. Scopes assigned the chapter on evolution, accepting a legal challenge to test the constitutionality of a recently enacted anti-evolution law. Both the ACLU(American. Civil Liberty Union) and local fundamentalists recruited Scopes for different reasons. The trial drew two fiery and energetic lawyers, Clarence Darrow (defense) and William Jennings Bryan and was broadcast on radio. The trial itself was basically a farce and became commercialized. Scopes, of course, lost and faded into antiquity. But the stage was set for battles that seemingly ended with the Supreme Court decision of Edwards vs. Aguillard in 1987. The equal time issue (equal treatment of creationism) was dead. (Writers note: Gould says that he used the popular Moon, Mann, and Otto biology textbook, Modern Biology., in 1956, the same high school text I used and one of the first books I taught from). One final thought on a literal (word for word) translation of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. For years I have “preached”(sorry for the allegorical reference.) to those who have questioned my faith because of my remarks about evolution (especially micro-evolution) that after they read Genesis 1, they should then read Genesis 2 and explain to me which account they accept. The usual explanation is that they were penned by different writers. But which account if either is absolutely correct? Perhaps more important is the greater question of where does evolution fit in? Or perhaps–like the great discourse on infant vs. adult baptism I had with someone from my past, –does it really matter? Likewise, with immersion vs sprinkling, does it really matter? Which is more important, the method or the intent? Bryan, according to Gould, made the same mistake many lay people make concerning natural selection by asserting that it involves survival by battle and destruction of enemies. For a greater description of natural selection see Essay XX.
Darwin made frequent disclaimers about drawing lessons for the meaning of life from his radical ideas. After all, such a new worldview of nature should shed some light on the biggest questions of all: why are we here, and what does it all mean? This, of course, would have violated NOMA (a term not then yet formulated). On the subject of nature Darwin offers the following: “The facts of nature are what they are and can’t resolve religious questions of God, meaning, and morality. Nature is amoral, not immoral.” Perhaps nature conforms to our desire for warmth and fuzzy; perhaps most organisms are cute or beautiful and perhaps peaceful cooperation does usually exist OR perhaps ugly, grotesque, and savage appearances and brutally savage events are the rule, whereas in reality neither extreme dominates. Nature is indifferent to our desires.
Darwin argued that nature offers no moral instruction at all and could not resolve the existence or character of God, the ultimate meaning of life or morality. Those questions he finally concluded were too profound for the human intellect. He wrote “The lightning kills a man, whether a good one or bad one.”
Gould begins to summarize by making some analogies. For example, concerning the concept of Jesus as both fully divine and fully human “It turns out that this duality has a parallel in quantum physics. In the early years of this century (editor’s note, 20th century) physicists, discovered that entities thought of as particles, like electrons, can also act as waves. The orthodox view is that light is simultaneously, wave and particle just as is Jesus … God in human form or as really human … He was fully both.” Surprisingly, Darwin was one of the first to reunite science and religion and to supposedly have said that “God is creating all the time” and Gould; “complex carbon-based life… can exist only in a universe in which the physical constraints have been tuned just so. Take the ratio of gravity to electromagnetism (editor’s note-weak force to strong force). Were gravity a little bit stronger, we’d fall in on ourselves like failed soufflé since human life couldn’t exist if the laws of nature were just a little bit off. Then the laws must be as they are because a creating God desired our presence.
References
Gould, S. (1999) Rocks of Ages. New York; the Random House Publishing Group
Kurtz, P. (2003) Science and Religion. Amhearst, New York; Prometheus Books
I graduated from Northern Illinois University in 1966 with a Bachelor of Science degree in Education and earned a Master of Science degree in Education also from NIU in 1973. I taught in the Harlem School District (5 years), a Chicago suburb (1 year), and the Rockford, IL School District for 27 years (26 at East High School). I culminated my teaching career at Kishwaukee College (8 years) Two important events occurred in 1988: I married my wife Angie and I received a summer teacher’s research fellowship through the University of Illinois School of Medicine at Rockford. My primary responsibility was light microscopy and Scanning electron miscroscopy of rabbit renal arteries (effect of high cholesterol diet). For 14 years I was a citizen scientist for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources in their RiverWatch program (monitoring water quality) My hobbies and activities include gardening, golfing, bowling, downhill and cross country skiing, photography, including photomicroscopy and time lapse photography, spending time with my wife and our dog, and in the winter playing around in my small home biology & chemistry lab.
Beyond what I have written in past profiles, in the early 1980’s I was an EMT with the Boone Volunteer Ambulance & Rescue Squad (BVARS) which fit in nicely with my science training and teaching. I also enjoy public speaking and made frequent scholarship presentations to graduating seniors and outstanding middle school students through the former Belvidere Y’ Men’s Club. I also made power point presentations of the RiverWatch program. But I most enjoyed making presentations at my high school reunions. Thanks guys for allowing me to do this.