The 'Science and Religion Movement' An Opportunity for Improved Public Understanding of Science? The "science and religion movement" of the late 1990s can help improve the climate for acceptance of science and of evolution as a valid science. The theistic science movement, however, is different; it needs monitoring, and its growth would be detrimental to science. EUGENIE C. SCOTT hat are we talking about when we talk about "science" and "religion"? Science is a way of Wknowing that attempts to explain the natural world using natural causes. It is agnostic toward the super- natural—it neither confirms nor rejects it. So science is methodologically materialistic: matter, energy, and their interactions are used to explain nature. Supernatural causes are ruled out for philosophical as well as practical reasons: science requires testing of explanations against the natural world, and testing requires that some variables be held con- stant. Supernatural forces by definition cannot be held con- stant, thus supernatural explanation is outside of what sci- ence can deal with. Mostly, methodological materialism is SKEPTICAL INQUIRER July/August 1999 29 embraced by scientists because it works so well; we have found tered to a group of scientists in 1996, researchers found no out a great deal about how the universe operates. To say "God appreciable change in the number of "believing" scientists— did it" does not lead us to greater understanding and tends to about 39 percent (Larson and Witham 1997). Many scientists discourage further research. Even conservative theologian don't see religion and science as inherently incompatible. Alvin Plantinga agrees that resorting to direct supernatural In fact, this incompatibility view is found in only one of causes to explain the natural word is a "science stopper" four ways that (Christian) religion and science historically (Plantinga 1997). have interacted. As an anthropologist, I define religion as a set of rules and 1) The "warfare" model, as illustrated in Andrew D. beliefs a people have about a nonmaterial universe and its White's 1896 classic A History of the Warfare of Science with inhabitants. These may include gods, ancestors, powerful spir- Theology in Christendom, presents religion and science as being its, and other supernatural forces. Usually religion includes incompatible. This perspective is echoed today by Phillip Johnson, Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz, Aren't scientists all secularists? and many others. Depending on which side of the issue one is on, one concludes either Apparently not. A strong core of scientists that religion trumps science, or that science are believers. trumps religion. 2) The "separate realms" model under- ideas about an afterlife, but not always. Religion often but not stands science and religion to focus on different areas of always includes rules about how people should treat one human concern, with science explaining the natural world, another (ethics and morals). Religion often but not always and religion dealing with spiritual matters. Here, science and includes explanations of the natural world. Religious beliefs religion don't conflict, because they have litde to say to one almost always include a sense of the "spiritual"—awe, wonder, another. Stephen Jay Gould is a proponent of this view. reverence, faith, and other emotions. (Most Americans are 3) The "accommodation" model, in which science and reli- Christians, and although "religion" obviously is far broader gion are more directly engaged; theological understanding is than just Christianity, my discussion must for reasons of space thought to be deepened through the understanding of science. be limited to this tradition.) Some Christians wrestling with the theological implications of It would appear that science and religion have little in com- Darwinism in the early twentieth century, for example, were mon, yet in the late 1990s there is substantial activity taking willing to reinterpret basic concepts of the Fall, Atonement, place between them. The American Association for the and Original Sin in the light of evolutionary theory. These the- Advancement of Science has an office to promote "Dialogue ologians were considering such problems as "If humans Between Science and Religion," and in November of 1997 it evolved from apes, there was no original state of grace and the hosted a major national conference in Chicago titled, "The concept of Original Sin must be reinterpreted" (Bowler 1999, Epic of Evolution." Physical, biological, and social scientists 39). The accommodation seems to be largely a one-way street, were teamed with theologians to discuss the scientific and the- with science acting as a source for theological rcinterpretation ological implications of evolution. Dozens (maybe even scores) rather than the reverse. of "science and religion" conferences have been held since 4) In the "engagement" model, science and religion inter- then, including a large "Science and the Spiritual Quest" con- act as equal partners, stimulating each other to ask different ference held on the campus of the University of California questions than they otherwise might, with the idea that the sponsored by the Berkeley-based Center for Theology and the interaction of both epistemologies will contribute to a fuller Natural Sciences (CTNS). Science, Newsweek, Time, and US understanding of both the natural and nonmaterial realms. News and World Report have also covered what has come to be This view is reflected in the quotation often attributed to called the "science and religion movement." Einstein that "Religion without science is crippled, while sci- To some, this is a puzzling development. After all, isn't reli- ence without religion is lame." Scientist and ordained minister gion supposed to be in conflict with science, and aren't scientists Robert J. Russell, of CTNS, said in his introduction to the all secularists? Apparently not. A strong core of scientists are "Science and the Spiritual Quest" (SSQ) conference: believers. In 1914, the sociologist James H. Leuba surveyed sci- For some scientists, the universe as such is the answer. It alone entists listed in American Men and Women of Science And found is our source, and science offers us sufficient meaning and pur- that 42 percent believed in a personal God—much less than in pose. For other scientists, many of whom are gathered here today, science is pan of the answer, but a truly adequate the general public, but still a substantial number. He predicted account requires language about the God whom Jews, that through lime, fewer scientists would believe in God—but Christians, and Moslems praise as the Creator of the universe when Leuba's (albeit problematic) questionnaire was readminis- and the ultimate source of meaning and purpose in our lives and world. The primary purpose of SSQ is to explore this sec- ond option. Many scholars now see theological doctrines, Eugenie Scott, a CSICOP Fellow and member of the Executive like scientific theories, not as rigid, dosed dogmas but as Council, is Executive Director of the National Center for Science hypotheses about the world which, while firmly believed to be Education, Inc., El Cerrito, Calif. She is a physical anthropologist. true, are radically subject to testing by the appropriate data. E-mail: [email protected]. For at least some of these theologians, the "data" should now 3 0 July/August 1999 SKEPTICAL INQUIRER include the theories and discoveries of the natural sciences. that evolution occurred, but deny any role for God. They also see science as infused with concepts and assump- Antievolutionism in the US and Canada is sustained by the tions whose roots, though often unacknowledged, lie in phi- idea that evolution and religion (Christianity) are incompati- losophy and, more indirectly, in Western monotheism, and which invite a critical discussion between theologians, philoso- ble; creationists such as Henry Morris demand that people phers, and scientists. (Russell 1998, 27) choose between evolution (which is equated with atheism) and Christianity. This is a false dichotomy, of course, as illustrated Most scholars in the "science and religion movement" by the many religious scientists and clergy who accept that would identify with the "accommodation" and "engagement" evolution occurred. The mainline component of the science schools, and though some arc theologically conservative, very and religion movement takes for granted that evolution few of them are from biblical literaJist Christian traditions. The occurred, and the majority endorse methodological material- mainstream science and religion conferences do not include ism rather than supernatural intervention to explain the nat- creation science proponents such as Henry Morris and Duane ural world. In my observations of the movement, I have seen Gish of the Institute for Creation Research. But even neo- no support for doctrines such as creation science. creationists like Phillip Johnson and others in the "intelligent I believe that the science and religion movement will help design" movement arc absent from these conferences. These the public understand the broader range of opinions about and other conservative Christians are found in a "parallel uni- evolution among religious individuals, and in this manner verse" such as the "Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific improve the climate for the acceptance of evolution as valid Enterprise" conference at the University of Texas-Austin in science that should be taught in public schools. The theistic