Dispatches from the religious left

by Frederick Clarkson

  DR. PETER M. J. HESS

  The casual observer of American public life might be excused for concluding that the armies of science are locked in mortal combat with the armies of religion. That is largely because there are many who are heavily invested in the so-called "warfare thesis" that portrays Christianity (and especially the Catholic Church) as having doggedly stood in the way of scientific progress for centuries. This thesis is, however, based on profoundly mistaken assumptions.

  As a theologian, I work with both scientists and members of religious communities to show that there is no inherent conflict between faith and reason; between and religion and science. My position at the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California focuses on issues related to evolution and religion. I especially enjoy working with Christians who unwittingly regard "evolution or creation" as a dichotomy, and who are attracted to Intelligent Design Creationism or Young Earth Creationism. Most are unaware that there is a sound alternative that is respectful of scientific principles and faithful to traditional religious practice and belief in God. It is called "theistic evolution."

  I'd like to offer a few points for a prospective Religious Left to consider as it approaches these matters in politics and public policy. Before proceeding, however, we should acknowledge that there exists a very real culture war, characterized by skirmishes both within and between churches, political parties, and academic and civic institutions. Let's take a quick look at a few recent flash points.

  The creationist organization "Answers in Genesis" opened a museum in 2007 in northern Kentucky complete with elaborate dioramas demonstrating that humans peacefully coexisted with vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rexes, and even saddled and rode some dinosaurs a few thousand years ago. A 2008 film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, claims that "intelligent design" has been unjustly expelled from academe; alleges that the theory of evolution leads to atheism; and charges that Darwinism provided the moral justification for Hitler's Nazi concentration camps.

  In sharp reaction to such attacks on science, a number of authors representing the so-called "new atheism"-including Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins-have mounted a vigorous assault not only on the various forms of scientific creationism, but on religious belief itself.

  As "evolutionists" and "creationists" parry and thrust in pulpit and classroom, in print and in courthouse, a number of questions demand attention. Are the practices of religion and science in some fundamental way opposed? Must scientific and religious interpretations of reality be regarded as mutually exclusive? Since our religiously plural society is unambiguously established upon the separation of church and state, how can we resolve the perennial disputes about how science and religion should be addressed in public schools?

  AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL HOUSE CLEANING

  Any prospective Religious Left that seeks to protect the integrity of both science and religion will need to begin with a good epistemological house-cleaning. Properly speaking, science and religion oc cupy different spheres of knowledge. Science asks "how" questions: What is it? How does it happen? By what processes? Meanwhile, religion asks "why" questions: What is life's meaning? What is my purpose? Is the world of value? These are complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. Einstein's somewhat overstated epigram is helpful in highlighting how this is so: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Each should respect the autonomy of the other, and when they don't, trouble is afoot.

  I am often asked, "Do you believe in creation or in evolution?" Framed this way, I am forced to choose between an apparently atheistic evolutionary worldview and scientifically naive creationism. I often respond that this question rests upon a category mistake and sets up a false opposition. To illustrate this I hold up an orange and ask my students, "is this fruit orange or spherical?" Usually at least one student will recognize that "orange" and "spherical" are not contradictory but complementary descriptions of the fruit.

  I then ask them whether the disjunctive question "do you believe in creation or evolution?" is meaningful. As in the case of the orange, "creation" and "evolution" are not in competing categories, but rather are complementary ways of looking at the universe. To oppose them is to commit a category mistake. "Creation" is in the category of a metaphysical concept; it is the philosophical belief that the universe is not self-subsistent, but that it depends for its existence upon something or some being outside itself An empirically untestable belief in its most general form, "creation" makes no claims about how or when the world came to be, or even whether creation was an "act" or an event. It is a philosophical tenet compatible with the theological doctrines of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and other monotheistic religions. A contrary (and equally untestable) metaphysical assertion would be that the universe is uncreated, or self-subsistent.

  By contrast, "evolution" is in a scientific category-a biologi cal theory that all life is related through descent with modification from common ancestors. It is physical, not metaphysical. Like gravitation, atomic structure, plate tectonics and other theories, evolution makes no claims about God's existence or non-existence, and in fact is compatible with theism, atheism, and agnosticism. The Religious Right, however, generally differs with just about everyone else over the definitions of science and religion. Science may be defined as "a process of explaining phenomena by testing explanations against the natural world," with the important element being testing, rather than the simple acceptance of an explanation based on authority or personal preference. This is followed by operation within the framework of methodological naturalism. But the Religious Right generally asserts that science does not merely limit itself to natural causes in its methodology, but that it promotes the idea that "God had nothing to do with it," in order to develop and push a purely naturalist philosophy. As a result, they fear that an all-encompassing atheistic worldview antithetical to every value they hold dear is being foisted upon the public.

  The Religious Right and the culture of the Left have as divergent understandings of religion as they do of science. Religion may be reasonably defined as "a system of beliefs and practices directed to interpreting and responding to the perceived sacred dimension of the universe" This fairly describes both theistic and non-theistic religious systems, tested as they are by their coherence and their responsiveness to the lived experience of the believing community. For the Religious Right, however, religion is usually understood to be the cornerstone of American society and its freedoms, the foundation of societal values, and the final arbiter of truth. For Christian fundamentalists, this usually also requires accepting Biblical inerrancy, a hermeneutical principle even more foundational than a literalist reading of scripture, and with as weighty implications for science.

  Although the religious and political Left is far more varied in the range of its positions, most embrace traditional approaches to freedom of religious expression and separation of church and state. But some have, unfortunately, adopted the fervent anti-religionism of the "new atheism," as epitomized by Richard Dawkins. "The universe we observe," he wrote in River Out ofEden:,4 Darwinian View ofLife (1995), "has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Such views have led many to see Dawkins and other scientists who write about religion as having stepped outside the bounds of legitimate methodological naturalism into a metaphysical naturalist creed that represents not science, but scientism. In so doing, they become as much a caricature of "science" as the Religious Right is a caricature of "religion."

  CREATIONISM, INTELLIGENT DESIGN AND THE WAR ON SCIENCE

  Historically, creationists have employed three main strategies in their fight against evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial. One is to claim-with no scientific foundation_that evolution is a "theory in crisis," proclaiming that evolution is "theory, not fact." This claim confuses the everyday definition of "theory" as "guess" with the well-established definition that a scientific theory is
a well-tested, systematic explanation of observed facts. The theory of evolution is among the most important, well-tested theories in all of science; and yet it is singled out for attack with this slogan.

  A second tactic has been to represent evolution and religion as mutually contradictory, despite the fact that most mainline churches and countless theologians have assimilated the evolutionary perspective into their theologies (see http://www.issr.org.uk/id- statement.asp). Yet a third approach has been to push for equal time for creationist and evolutionary ideas in science classrooms. "Creation science" is a political movement based on the idea that a biblical literalist view of creation is supported by science. "Creation" is the ancient and theologically appropriate doctrine that the world is dependent for its being on God, believed by Christians, Muslims and religiously observant Jews. The term was hijacked by Protestant Fundamentalists early in the twentieth century and has come to be applied almost exclusively to a worldview characterized by a scientifically naive belief in a geologically young Earth and a global Noachian Flood.

  When the Supreme Court ruled in 1987 (Edwards v. Aguillard) that "creation science" is religion rather than science, the movement adapted. Creation science continues to be strong in some segments of the culture, but one branch, led by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute since the 1990s, evolved into the "Intelligent Design" movement. Intelligent Design (ID) advocates falsely portray evolution as being challenged in the world of science, and seek to insert ID into public school curricula under the slogan "teach the controversy." Although there are lively debates about the details of evolution, there is no controversy among biologists about the validity of the theory itself. In 2005 a federal judge declared that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district's policy of teaching ID was unconstitutional because it "is not science and cannot be judged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community."The most recent threat from ID is making an end run around the Dover decision by encouraging science teachers to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution.

  How SHOULD WE ENGAGE THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT?

  The National Center for Science Education is a national clearing house for information about evolution and creationism, textbook and science standards policy, and creationist strategies (www.nc- seweb.org/). When engaging the Religious Right on evolution and creationism our extensive experience suggests:

  1. Begin by defending the integrity of both science and religion, and their autonomy to operate within their own respective spheres of competence.

  (a) Science can only operate within a framework of methodological naturalism. When it introduces super-naturalistic principles (such as an intelligent designer) into the explanation, it ceases to be science. Likewise, when a person in a position of scientific authority proclaims that science logically leads to metaphysical naturalism, atheism, or theism, he or she has stepped outside the bounds of science. Scientists when speaking as scientists should not proclaim that science compels any metaphysical position.

  (b) Religion and theology similarly are constrained to remain within their sphere of competence, which is to practice, lead, profess, exhort about, and expound upon the spiritual dimension of human life. In their professional capacity, religious professionals may legitimately weigh in on ethical issues raised by science, such as stem cell research and cloning. But theologians and religious leaders are in no position to dictate the terms of scientific methodology.

  2. Reinforce that the United States was established upon the principle of the separation of church and state; thus sectarian views like Creationism should not be advocated in the classroom.

  3. Make it clear that the content of science classes should reflect the consensus view of science as determined by scientists, not politicians.

  4. Advocate exposure to the diverse religious traditions that comprise our pluralistic culture, as part of basic cultural literacy. The legitimate place in public education for teaching about creation stories is social studies classes, where stories will be described but never advocated, nor offered as an alternate scientific theory.

  In short, a coherent Religious Left approach to the teaching of science and religion in the public schools will be greatly assisted by a clear understanding of the controversy between evolution and its various creationist opponents.

  The author is grateful to Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch of the National Center for Science Education for judiciously critiquing the final draft of this essay.

  TAKE IT FROM A

  STEM CELL CATHOLIC

  FRANK COCOZZELLI

  Getting the issue of stem cell research right is vital for any prospective Religious Left. The good news, however, is that there are ways to navigate this tricky issue through the concerns of those across the religious and political spectrum.

  Most people-left, right and center-are concerned about the ethics of inventing and patenting life, but also want medical science to use every means to try and cure serious and debilitating health problems. Reflecting these conflicting attitudes, most religious institutions are not of a single mind when it comes to the issue of stem cell research. Some are in favor of all or most forms of stem cell research while others, especially my own Catholic Church, are opposed. Organizing members of various religious traditions into a coherent Religious Left in which stem cell research is part of, and not peripheral to the agenda is a key to not only advancing this promising avenue of research, but also making treatments broadly accessible, unleashing hope for those who are afflicted by conditions that could benefit from stem cell generated treatments, such as myself.

  January 21, 2008 was a good day from me. That day, researchers at the University of Texas Southwestern made a significant breakthrough in the treatment of muscular dystrophy. Using genetic manipulation techniques in mice, they were able to transform embryonic stem cells into muscle cells. Most importantly, they were able to do so without the appearance of tumors, a problem that plagues stem cell research.

  Why was this good news for me? Because I have a form of LMG muscular dystrophy. When I was first diagnosed in 1985, I walked with a slight limp. Today, my condition has deteriorated to the point where I am bound to a wheelchair, a virtual quadriplegic. Yet this disability has not kept me from living my life and continuing my work as an attorney, and, for the last seven years, fighting an uphill battle for federal funding and oversight for embryonic stem cell research.

  It was through the window of research into my illness that I first learned about the threats to religious pluralism and to liberal democracy from a small group of "intellectuals" commonly known as neoconservatives, and their religious allies.' he political power of this alliance quickly became apparent after I received the real first bit of hopeful news on my condition from the world of medical science.

  One morning during the summer of 2000, while my wife was getting me dressed for court, we heard a report on the Today Show that President Bill Clinton was going to allow for the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. In December 1998, my neurologist had told us of this then-recent discovery and how it offered so much hope not just for me, but for countless others suffering from different diseases and disabilities. He told us that the research was not a guarantee, but at least offered real hope for possible treatment.

  However, this hope was dashed by the neoconservative-influenced presidency of George W. Bush.

  KNOWING THE OPPOSITION; DEFENDING OUR FRIENDS

  Since that day in 2000, I have come to realize that the principal opposition to stem cell research, in addition to the aforementioned neoconservative movement, comes from prominent Protestant fundamentalists of the Religious Right, and, in the Catholic Church, from members of a secretive rightist group called group called Opus Dei, and leading neoconservatives. These elements see embryonic stem cell research as a symptom of liberal democracy and its progeny-modernity. To increase their power, the activities of these groups
are often coordinated through think tanks such as the Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) and the Ethics and Public Policy Center. This has been especially significant, as the IRD, whose leadership comprises all three of these groups, has, for the last quarter century, waged a well-financed campaign to disrupt, divide and destabilize the mainline Protestant denominations, some of which are strong supporters of embryonic stem cell research. This campaign has had the effect of turning the churches inward, increasing congregational in-fighting, which renders them less able to advance their progressive social witness in the world.

  What has helped me enormously, and I suggest would help to inform and empower a more politically dynamic and vastly more effective Religious Left approach to the matter of embryonic stem cell research, is learning more about the nature of our most formidable opponents. After all, how can we craft a successful political strategy without a healthy knowledge of the opposition-especially the religious opposition to some of the most hopeful medical research in modern times?

  THE NEOCONS

  Originally inspired by the teachings of philosopher Leo Strauss, many (though, not all) neoconservatives subscribe to the belief that the ancient Greek philosopher Plato had developed the perfect pattern for an orderly society. In Plato's view, while Democracy was acceptable, it was only meant for social elites, as was the case in ancient Athens. In this model, everyone had their station in life, and should accept it. Science was for the advancement of knowledge, not for the ability to harness its own lessons in order to overcome nature's hardships such as disease and disability. Suffering, whether from war or from illness, was what produced true heroism.

  Religious orthodoxy plays a central role in modern neoconservative thought. For many of the movement's disciples, it is the glue that holds society together. And for that reason, religious dissent is frowned upon.' his dovetails nicely with the similar neo-Platonist view of many ultra-orthodox Catholics, one defined by the twelfthcentury theologian Bernard of Clairvaux's statement that "faith is to be believed, not disputed." Rational inquiry is not for the masses, but for an elite philosopher class.