SCIENCE AND
RELIGION:
HOW GREAT IS THE
DIVIDE?
According to Lawrence
Principe,* “No serious
historians of science
or of the sciencereligion issue today
maintain the ‘warfare
thesis’.”
*Professor, History of Science and
Technology and Chemistry, Johns
Hopkins University
WARFARE
THESIS:
Throughout
history,
religion and
science have
been opposed
to each other.
Further,
religion has
stymied
science.
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, antiCatholic 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.


Created fundamental
statements concerning
the relationship
between faith and
reason and the correct
methods of biblical
interpretation
Still widely read today
St. Augustine
(354-430 CE)
The most
important figure in
the ancient
Western Church;
over 5 million of
his words survive

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
St. Augustine
Later Thinking
In the 17th century, clerics (church leaders)
were convinced that scientific discoveries
would provide the BEST support for religious
belief

Robert Boyle (16271691): 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.
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.

OTHER PROBLEMS
Two Basic Tenets
1.
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.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
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!
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.
1.
3 Important Features of Evolution
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.
The Argument from
“Design Perspective”

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.
BOTTOM LINE
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.