The Gospel According to Darwin

Dr. Frank Press, at one time president of the National Academy of Sciences, objected to the idea that there is "an irreconcilable conflict between religion and science." He further observed, "A great many religious leaders accept evolution on scientific grounds without relinquishing their belief in religious principles. As stated in a resolution by the Council of the National Academy of Sciences in 1981, however, 'Religion and science are separate and mutually exclusive realms of human thought whose presentation in the same context leads to misunderstanding of both scientific theory and religious belief.'"

Stephen Jay Gould, late champion of evolutionary biology and its great interpreter to the lay public, thought that there could be no conflict between science and religion because there is no intersection between them, properly conceived. "Science can no more answer the question of how we ought to live than religion can decree the age of the earth. Honorable and discerning scientists (most of us, I trust) have always understood that the limits to what science can answer also describe the power of its methods in their proper domain. Darwin himself exclaimed that science couldn't touch the problem of evil and similar moral conundrums: 'A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.'"

Were these men being disingenous, or did they really think they were accurately describing how materialistic naturalists view the respective value of science and religion? After all, as we have clearly seen, the one is equated with rationality and the other with irrationality. William Provine of Cornell University, an historian of science and an avowed atheist, is quite emphatic that the conflict between religion and science is inescapable. He considered Press's statement "politic but intellectually dishonest." In other words, Provine thought Press was telling us poor benighted believers in religion what we want to hear even though Press knew better.

Scientific naturalists do not accord science and religion equal status. The former is objective and based on fact and the latter is subjective and a matter of personal opinion, or so goes the mindset. The two are in separate realms, and to this point Dr. Gould was refreshingly honest. A rational person will, of course, always prefer what is real and objective to what is subjective whenever possible. Therefore there will be no ultimate conflict between science and religion, for science will always win out. What rational person would ever want to be thought irrational?