Science and Religion

I believe a fraud is being attempted.

I have followed the debate about religion and science for many years. Some 5 years ago I was instrumental in setting up a 26 week study course entitled, “Science and Religion”. It was moderated by an ordained scientist. More recently I have been a signatory to an open letter, instigated by Michael Zimmerman at Butler.edu. The letter exceeded the target of 10,000 signatures from clergy affirming that science and religion can and do exist comfortably alongside each other. 537 scientists in 28 countries act as consultants.

Ever since Darwin’s “origin of Species” was published both ‘popular’ science and ‘popular’ theology have used it to further their own prejudices. Of course, they would not use the term, ‘prejudice’.

Both science and religion seek to try to interpret the ‘data’ which they have before them. In the case of science, as I understand it, the data is gleaned from that which can be observed, from the cosmos to the soil. On the basis of that
observable data, a theory is advanced that seeks to explain the data. It does not impart meaning to the data. So when Darwin, or Einstein, for example, advanced their explanations, they were advancing theories which best fitted the data before them. Einstein was a very good example of how the process works. In one particular instance, Einstein advanced a theory based on his observations. Later in his life he revised the theory. Subsequent science suggests that he might well have been right in the first place. That is the nature of scientific endeavor. First collect the data, then observe it with great care, then put together the best explanation you have for the material. Then test it and retest it. Science, therefore, is theory under continual examination. No scientist I have ever met would object to having his theory tested and retested, for the scientist knows that that is how science is advanced, rather than fossilized. Equally, as new evidence comes to light, good science will test that against what is already known.

The theory of evolution is agreed by the vast majority of scientists worldwide to be the best explanation of the data we have before us, gleaned from observable data, from the soil to the cosmos. As theory it is constantly to be tested against new data.

The fraud that I believe is being perpetrated is in seeking to set science and religion as opposing explanations of the same phenomena. The decision of the school board in Kansas is a good example of that. The decision of the school board in Dover, Pa is the exact opposite. Currently boards in Texas and Florida are under pressure to include ‘intelligent design’ as an alternative explanation to evolution. To advance a particular interpretation of Christian scripture as if it were scientific theory is clearly fraudulent. Worse still, from my point of view, it does violence to both the nature of the scripture and science.

I hold scripture in the highest regard as the search of people, through many centuries, to enter into that dimension of life we call sacred, or holy. It is a sanctity which I understand is shared by all life, even by those with whom I disagree mostly strongly and whose world view conflicts with mine! Scripture is a way of seeing the world and a way of seeking to give it meaning. It is also a developing tradition. In the Hebrew Scriptures the idea of God, the holy, the sacred, is not static. The God of Judaism did not come shrink wrapped. God was one among many throughout the earlier books of the bible and in the Psalms. The idea of one God was developmental. I am part of that tradition and it is part of me.

That way of seeing and interpreting the world in no way conflicts with science. The goal of science is not to give something meaning, but rather to seek to interpret the phenomena which it observes. The argument of ‘intelligent design,’ (creationism in another cloak), that because the cosmos is so complex it must have an intelligence behind it, is an opinion, or even an article of faith. It is not an observable fact. It cannot be argued as scientific theory. It may be your way of seeing the world and I would defend your right to see it so. I would challenge your right to force me to see it the same way.

Complexity, variety, multiplicity, intricacy and even impenetrability speak powerfully to me of the divine, the holy and the sacred. The simple, one-dimensional God whom I can fully explain is no God at all. Equally the God which cannot stand up to rigorous examination is no God. The God who needs to be taught in schools, emblazoned in stone in a courthouse like some idol, is no God at all. That which is holy and sacred does not legislate, or bomb, or terrorize, or threaten, or exclude its way into our hearts and thus into our communities. God, the Sacred, the Holy is the Life within all life, not just some mythical creator who set it all in motion and then retired, taking just an occasional interest when the mood takes that god.. God for me is to be found deep within the heart of creation, cosmic and micro-cosmic. Deep within my heart and deep within your heart.
More info is available by typing ‘The Clergy Letter Project’ into your search engine