Ballistics, Darwinism and Christian Thought

Zygon®, 2011

In Science and Spirituality, Michael Ruse attempts to reconcile traditional Christianity and modern science by arguing that Christianity addresses questions that lie beyond the domain of science. I argue that Ruse's solution raises a number of problems that render it unsatisfactory for both the scientist and believer. First, despite his objections to "God of the gaps" arguments, his own strategy for identifying those questions that are beyond the limits of science seems to raise the problem in a new form. Second, what Ruse offers as evidence for the limits of science is better construed as evidence for deep disagreements among scientists and as such does not support his claims about the limits of science. Third, in aiming to establish their independence, Ruse subordinates religion to science. Finally, his support of traditional theology as a mode of religious understanding might cause concern for those who believe that certain kinds of theological reflection are at odds with scientific thinking.

Horizons, 2011

Understanding Religion and Science : Introducing the Debate

Isis, 1987

Zygon, 2016

who has to his credit a long list of publications in interdisciplinary studies at the crossroads of science, philosophy, and theology. As a philosopher, Clark reflects about these matters today in the interreligious setting of the Kaufman Interfaith Institute of his university. The interreligious context also figures in this most recent work, but only in marginal ways by occasional references (pp. 64, 106, 178, 205) and by appending one chapter on "Judaism and Evolution" and one on "Islam and Evolution" (pp. 207-43). These chapters, however, are merely tokens, because they are far too sketchy and too random to advance the argument significantly. Nevertheless, they show that similar discourses on creation and evolution are pursued within Judaism and Islam as in Christianity. The main line of Clark's reasoning unfolds in the preceding twelve conveniently subdivided and systematically arranged chapters, which, except for two, all have a summarizing "Conclusion." Although this arrangement indicates didactical skill, the author's sometimes very casual style testifies to a rhetorical gift that works with "catchy hook[s]" (p. 223) in order to attract as broad and general audience as possible. However, the same rhetoric every now and then tends to obscure and trivialize the matters discussed. The book opens with a broad general recount of the science-religion debate in Western culture with a special focus on the statement by one prominent representative of the so-called New Atheism, Richard Dawkins, that the "existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other" (p. 5). Passionately repudiating this assertion on grounds of the incommensurability of scientific and "metaphysical explanation" (p. 6), Clark wants to show that "theism" does not contradict science, demonstrating his point by discussing those topics which "have received the most attention in the past century" (p. 7) in the said dispute, namely cosmology and evolution. Before delving into the subject matter, the author attempts to define "science" and "religion" so as to lay a proper foundation for what follows. Although he succeeds in explaining "science," he fails to do so regarding "religion." For him it is simply "impossible to define 'religion' in a handy, single, useful, and comprehensive way" (p. 23). Yet despite this lacuna he is eager to advance the dialogue by concentrating on "specific scientific claims. .. and their relationship to specific Christian beliefs" (p. 24). Convinced that "the myth of continual and irreconcilable differences" between science and religion "needs to be put to its well-deserved final rest" (p. 25), the author pleads for the application of an "integration model" in this dialogue, which "encourages a healthy give and take between science and religion" (p. 28) of which the present publication gives a neat demonstration.

The Person and the Challenges. The Journal of Theology, Education, Canon Law and Social Studies Inspired by Pope John Paul II, 2016

This paper deals with the conflict between faith and science. Since the issue is extensive, only selected aspects of this question are discussed. At first, the origin of the problem is outlined-it is argued, that the fundamental difference between the language and the method of science on one hand and of theology understood as a rational reflection on the truths of faith on the other is responsible for the conflict. Afterwards, two aspects of the conflict are presented-the first one concerns inconsistencies which appear on the plane of content-when some scientific statements or theorems seem to deny some theological claims; the second one involves differences in mentality and in worldview which appear on the plane of attitude. It is argued, that the content discrepancies can be eliminated with the help of two methods: of separation and of catharsis. But the differences in mentality which appear on the plane of attitude cannot be so easily eliminated. So finally the characteristics of these two different attitudes-of faith and of science-is discussed. It is argued, that a fundamental dissimilarity between the character of scientific knowledge (especially its empiricism) and of religious faith is a basic source of mutual estrangement and alienation.

Science & Education, 2012

Michael Ruse has written an insightful and accessible book belonging to the genre of rapprochements between science and religion. Ruse is not only a leading philosopher of science but also an exemplary popular writer whose style is sophisticated and lucid, but not dry. His book is not a technical work for specialists, but one with wide appeal that is informed by the best science and philosophy. The considerable virtues of the book from this point of view are not diminished by the fact that there are grounds for strong reservations about its arguments. Ruse explains the theme of his book: I am far from thinking that science is all there is in life, and it is this belief that motivates me here. I want to ask about the nature of science and about its limits. I want to see if indeed science is truly so antithetical to religious thinking. I want to see if, rather, one can be both a scientist or lover of science and, with integrity, a person of religion … (p. 7) In particular, Ruse wants to show ''the basic, most important claims of the Christian religion lie beyond the scope of science. They do not and could not conflict with science, for they live in realms where science does not go'' (p. 234). This is a widely held and obviously appealing line to adopt for those, like Ruse, who are committed to the scientific enterprise and its claims. However, I will suggest that, despite its appearance of open-minded ecumenicalism, the posture faces insuperable intellectual difficulties. In wishing to leave room beyond ''the allowable scope of science'' (p. 235), Ruse is effectively endorsing a traditional demarcation between science and metaphysics in order to restore respectability to some claims in the latter category. However, this recidivist project does not properly address the hegemonic nature of the scientific enterprise. This conception is expressed in the final remarks of Bertrand Russell's (1935) book Religion and Science. Aside from questions of value that lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood, Russell says:

Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2003

During the last 150 years, evolutionary theory has become the standard theoretical explanation for the origins of life and the center of a new cosmology that other sciences dogmatically assume when developing research methods and interpretations of reality. Christian theology, as a scientific enterprise, is no exception to this rule. Evolution dismisses divine creation as nonscientific myth. To avoid this charge, theologians have proposed various versions of theistic evolution and harmonization. Thus, the challenge theologians must contend with is whether the only choices available to them are mythological faith or scientific truth. Further, it is necessary to consider whether a belief in creation necessarily entails a sacrifice of the intellect. The creation-evolution debate, including the theological attempt at harmonization, generally takes place at the level of conclusion without taking into account the nature of the processes through which theologians and scientists arrive at t...

Andrews University Seminary Studies, 2003

The aim of this paper is to analyze the implications flowing from adopting methodological naturalism in science, with special emphasis on the relation between science and religion. Methodological naturalism, denying supernatural and teleological explanations, influences the content of scientific theories, and in practice leads to vision of science as compatible with ontological naturalism and in opposition to theism. Ontological naturalism in turn justifies the acceptance of methodological naturalism as the best method to know the reality. If we accept realistic interpretation of scientific theories, then methodological naturalism conflicts science with religion. Theistic evolution does not seem to be a proper way to reconcile Darwinism and methodological naturalism with theism. Many of such propositions are boiled down to deism. Although evolution can be interpreted theistically, it is not the way in which majority of modern scientists and respectable scientific institutions understand it. KEY WORDS: methodological naturalism, ontological naturalism, evolutionary theory, theistic evolution, teleology, randomness.