Science and religion are two different ways of knowing, or modes of inquiry about existence. Science attempts to explain the processes which govern the natural world and so provides a mechanistic explanation of reality. Religion attempts to provide meaning to existence in terms of a faith experience which binds its practitioners together with a common set of values and directs their lives in accord with a transcendent view of reality. Conflict between Science and Religion Whenever the words "science" and "religion" appear together one inevitably thinks of conflict. Galileo's censure by the Church, the burning of Bruno as a heretic because he proclaimed that the universe was infinitely large, the Huxley-Wilberforce debates over Darwin's On the Origin of Species, the Scopes trial, and the current conflict between evolutionists and scientific creationists all bear witness to the confrontation between science and religion. Such conflict, however, only occurs when the two disciplines treat the same material with their differing methodological styles. Science provides insight into reality by using the scientific method. The empirical or descriptive aspect of science reveals patterns in nature which the theoretical aspect of science attempts to explain through mechanistic process. Scientific explanations are in the form of falsifiable hypotheses which describe the processes that produce patterns and these hypotheses are always tested against the description of nature provided by empiricists. When hypothesis and empirical fact conflict, fact wins out. Religion provides insight into nature from divine revelation as recorded in sacred books, e.g., the Bible and Koran, or passed on as interpretive tradition, e.g., the Talmud and teachings (dogma) of the Catholic Church. Although these sources may treat subject matter studied by science, e.g., the origin of species, their real domain is in providing understanding of meaning and value - a domain that lies completely outside the purview of science. Conflict is generated when the two fields overlap in subject matter, but such conflict is superficial because most theologians recognize the fact that sacred scripture is not, and never was, intended to be a textbook on science. The worldview described in the sacred texts reflects the cultural paradigms of the sacred writers and not divine revelation about how the physical world operates. Any apparent conflict between science and religion can be reconciled despite their differing interpretations as long as each discipline respects the integrity and intent of the other. A case in point is how each explains the origin of species. Evolution and Creationism The problem of origin of species offers an opportunity to examine the intersection between what many consider to be two forms of revelation: science and the Bible. The empirical basis for this problem is the observation of current species diversity and the fossil record, especially the vertebrate fossil record. The conflict between science and religion over this issue is the nature of the process that produced organic diversity. The current scientific explanation of this phenomenon is based on modern evolutionary theory which views contemporary species as the end product of a process of change over time which resulted in "descent with modification" of existing species from ancestral species. This process explanation is based entirely on empirical evidence which supports a mechanistic theory totally devoid of any reference to a creator or divine force. There exist a number of religious explanations of this phenomenon, all of which have in common the role of a creator in the process. A creationist version clearly at odds with the scientific interpretation holds that the Earth is very young and all species were created at the same time. This is biblical creationism which forms the basis of the scientific creationist movement. These creationists explain the vertebrate fossil record as a consequence of the Great Flood and use the biblical account in Genesis as their guideline for interpreting nature. By denying empirical evidence based on radiometric dating techniques, these fundamentalists come into direct conflict with scientists. A version of biblical creationism which admits of some form of evolution (microevolution) maintains that the creator produced over time a limited number of forms (kinds) capable of "degenerative" evolution, i.e., specialization within the general archetype originally created. For example, God would have created a generalized cat which contained in its form the capacity to specialize through microevolutionary process and thus produce tigers, lions, leopards, cougars, jaguars, etc. Many scientific creationists subscribe to this view which still holds that the archetypes were created as described in the Book of Genesis. A creationist explanation compatible with the patterns observed in the present and past holds that species were created successively, not all at once as described by the story in Genesis. This successive creation model would not deny the chronology of the fossil record but offers no mechanism of creation which could be learned from a study of contemporary species. Since these acts of creation happened in the past leaving no vestige of process operating in the present, this explanation cannot be falsified, and so is nonscientific despite being consistent with the pattern of species diversity seen in the fossil record. Theistic evolution is a creationist explanation of the origin of organic diversity which does not deny the process explanation of evolutionary science and so can easily be reconciled with science. There are two versions of theistic evolution which depend upon the role of the creator. The indirect version views the creator as the author of the universe itself and of the laws governing natural process. Dobzhansky's comment that evolution is the mechanism of creation bears testament to this approach. The direct version holds that God directs the evolutionary process by influencing the factors known to be responsible for evolution. Thus, the evolutionary process appears to be opportunistic to the scientist, but actually is not due to the influence of the creator. The position of theistic evolution offers the same process explanation as that of science, and so illustrates how science and religion can be reconciled. Note, however, that all of the above-mentioned creationist positions regarding the origin of species place God's activity in the past. An alternative viewpoint holds that existence itself requires the continued creative act of God (in much the same way that a thought requires a thinker) and so the act of creation is ongoing and involves all physical reality, not just the origin of species. The Roman Catholic Church subscribes to the dualism inherent in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and so allows evolutionary thinking regarding biological attributes. Catholic philosophy insists, however, that the human soul, which is eternal and distinguishes us from all other species, is formed by an act of special creation. It is through the soul that we are made "in God's own image" and can enter a personal relationship with God. This dualistic philosophy offers yet another way to reconcile religion and science so that the two disciplines need not be in conflict. Roman Catholic theology has its underpinnings in Aristotelian philosophy due to the contribution of St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) in his monumental treatise, Summa Theologica. Consequently, it draws heavily on a static worldview to provide ultimate meaning to existence. The human soul, like Plato's Eidos or world of forms, is eternal and immutable and so can participate in God's eternal, albeit perfect, nature. Human spiritual nature exists in the world of the timeless and so neither changes nor varies among individual humans. Change exists only with time (which afterall is but a measure of change; without change, time does not exist). Variation is the product of change and so it also does not exist in eternity. Our biological nature, however, exists in the world of the timely characterized by both change and variation. Complementariness of Science and Religion The current controversy between evolution and scientific creationism is based on a belief in the unerring accuracy of the Bible as interpreted literally - a belief which has long been abandoned by all but a handful of Christian sects. As we have seen, science and religion need not be in direct conflict; but, there is much more to the relationship between science and religion than the mere avoidance of conflict. Each has its strengths and limitations in explaining reality and used together they can complement one another. James Burke, a British historian, suggests that both scientific and religious perspectives serve the same function, namely, to make sense out of the universe. We in the Western world invoke science to understand the physical world in which we live. As a mode of inquiry, science is the product of human ingenuity born out of Western culture whose roots can be traced to the ancient, pre-Socratic, or natural Greek philosophers. Science reveals to us that the world is dynamic and Western society is dynamic because our perception of the world is constantly changing. Not all societies, however, are driven by change. Burke cites the Buddhist tradition of Nepal as an example of a static culture based on mysticism, which denies physical reality, rather than on scientific knowledge, which deals only with physical reality. Both the cyclical, nonchanging view of Eastern Buddhism and the directional, dynamic view of Western science serve to inform members of their respective societies about the nature of the universe and their position in the universe. Burke claims that both views are functionally equivalent; hence, neither is better than the other. The timely vs. the timeless While Burke sees cultural differences in religious and scientific worldviews as equal in function, within any one culture the two can complement one another. The timeless is the province of religion; the timely the domain of science. As the evolutionary philosopher, Fr. Raymond Nogar, O.P., has pointed out, neither by themselves is capable of providing an adequate description of the human condition, but together they can complement one another and place our species within a perspective which balances the eternity of the spirit and the ephemeral appearance of the physical universe. Only religion can provide meaning and value; only science can provide an adequate picture of the history of our existence and an understanding of the forces which shaped that history. Science has little to contribute to our understanding of the divine and to our search for meaning and value. Science describes "what is" and how it came to be. Meaning and value, contributed by religion and philosophy, are based on "what ought to be" as determined by revelation and a probing of the human spirit. Neither science nor religion is sufficient by itself to explain the full dimension of human nature and existence, but together they can succeed as long as each respects and does not distort the contributions of the other. From an evolutionary perspective, there is no such thing as a single human nature. Humans vary both within and across time. Nevertheless, despite the obvious differences that exist between individuals, races and cultures, it is also obvious that we all belong to the same species and have the same evolutionary history which can be traced back to our hunter-gatherer ancestors. Concern for the well-being of others, an aesthetic sense, ability to plan for the future, ability for rational thought, the capacity for making moral choices, and inherited thought patterns or tendencies to accept as unquestioned certain basic principles, such as do good and avoid evil, are but a few of the characteristics which unite us all despite our differences. Love, faith and hope bind us together in the timeless dimension of the human spirit explored by religious insight. As Julian Huxley, an atheistic evolutionist, once said, "religions are the organs of psychosocial man concerned with human destiny and with experiences of sacredness and transcendence." What Huxley failed to admit, as Fr. Nogar was quick to note, is that this transcendence concerns the divine and not just the secular. It is through religious insight into our spiritual nature that we will find meaning in existence and, guided by this meaning, set values which will direct our destiny. But, we are not just spiritual beings existing in a timeless universe; we are also physical beings caught up in the changing face of a dynamic universe. By describing this universe, the forces with which we must contend as physical beings, and the historical path by which we reached the present, science can inform us as we grapple with the problem of charting the direction we must follow to reach our destiny. We cannot afford to ignore what science teaches us; to do so would be folly and set us off in the wrong direction. We are, after all, the product of nature and so our destiny must be planned within the limits set by nature. What information does science provide which will help us in determining our destiny? Although scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to change, the following lessons would appear to be of paramount importance. 1. Our universe is dynamic, not static, and with change come new challenges which must be met if we are to survive. 2. The vast majority of species which have inhabited this planet have become extinct. The odds (over 99% extinction) do not favor our survival as a species over a long period of time. 3. As a species we are part of, not set apart from, the biosphere so our continued existence requires that we learn to live in harmony with the rest of nature, both living and nonliving. We must use the limited resources of planet Earth wisely and mini- mally disturb the environment which sustains us. In a very thoughtful essay, entitled "How human is man?", Loren Eiseley, an anthropologist, noted that humans have become desensitized to nature and have lost their humanity. He blames science for this recent development. Early in evolutionary history, claims Eiseley, nature made a contract with species whose behavior was guided by programmed instinct: it (nature) would not change so fast that they couldn't adapt. Then we arrived on the evolutionary stage with a capacity not found in other species, namely, the ability to learn from past experience and to think. This new ability freed us from nature, but early on we invented culture which restrained our behavior so that we did not use our abilities for destructive purposes. During the Middle Ages this cultural restraint was dictated by the static worldview of the Church, whose focus was on eternity, not the timely. The human spirit held center stage and religious values served as absolute ideals that directed our lives and ethical conduct. We had a healthy respect for nature, the divine and other humans. Unfortunately, we struggled to free ourselves from the bondage of Church dogmatism and eventually succeeded with the discovery of the scientific method which promised great advances in coming to understand and eventually master nature. This discovery, however, shifted our attention from the inner workings of the human spirit to the outer workings of the universe. So conditioned to the outside have we become that we have ignored the development of our inner selves and those unique qualities which constitute the human spirit. We are being swept into a giant "whirlpool" of our own making and will perish unless we find direction by returning to the values held sacred in the theistic, static world of pre-science. Eiseley argues that we will not be worthy of survival as a species until we focus on the importance of the human spirit and accept personal responsibilty for our actions. Scientific knowledge has led us astray; only a rediscovered sense of personal morality and respect for the dignity of both individuals and nature will bring us back. Science can explain how the universe operates, but it cannot provide us with direction. We must heed Eiseley's advice by stopping at times to reflect on what it means to be human and then acting on the fruits of such reflection to develop a sense of direction. If we don't, we will be carried into oblivion in the limousine of technology driven by the engine of science. Unfortunately, in so doing we will drag with us our brothers and sisters who live in cultures less technologically developed and who are plodding along in their primitive carts on a course secure in meaning and value derived from religious rather than scientific insight. Through our technological discoveries we appear to have mastered nature: we have overcome our physical limitations and can thrive in environments which would exclude a less flexible species. But technology is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it enables us to offset the vagaries of our environment and so makes our lives more secure and predictable; but, on the other, it gives us the power to modify the environment on a scale never before witnessed in history and in ways which have consequences we do not fully understand. In short, technology has made us the major instrument of change on this planet, and this ability has been made possible by science - the parent of technology. We cannot afford to drift passively in our self- centered, Western culture which is changing at an accelerated pace due to advances in science and technology. Nor can we attempt to cope with such changes armed only with outdated ideals derived from a static worldview. Meaning and values change as our understanding of the human condition grows through the insights provided by science, religion and philosophy. We cannot afford to overlook the insights of any of these three sources of truth and so must learn to combine the valuable perspectives of both static and dynamic worldviews to insure our dignity as individuals and survival as a species. As hunter-gatherers we extracted the bounty of nature to meet our survival needs but did little damage to our precious environment. We lived in harmony with nature which we viewed with reverence and awe. Today's Western "civilization", however, has lost respect for nature and impacts quteoverexploitation of resources and environmental degradation. The cause and magnitude of this impact is the next topic we will examine in this course.