Who would you invite over?

I am always pulled in by articles about the "divide" between science and religion. So these letters to Science caught my attention. They are in response to a story they had done about a paleontologist who had struggled with this issue and ultimately surrendered or gave up his faithful beliefs. As you read them I'd like you to think about which of these two men you would prefer to have over for dinner one night.

Here is the first one:

Evolution and Faith: Empathy Is Misplaced

I found the News Focus story "Crossing the divide" (J. Couzin, 22 February, p. 1034) to be particularly disturbing and unworthy of publication in Science. Three full pages were dedicated to paleontologist Stephen Godfrey, who (finally) rejected creationism and embraced evolution and "is still recovering from the traumatic journey." Give me a break! Had Science magazine been around during the 17th century, would we have seen such consolatory text for those "traumatized" by the fact that the Sun does not revolve around the Earth? Or earlier, would we have seen such gentle treatment of those "devastated" by the realization that the Earth is not flat? While Dr. Godfrey's escape from the ignorant shroud of Biblical literalists is praiseworthy, Science magazine is not the place to give even a hint of respectability to those who would deny the fundamental fact of evolution. There is too much at stake, for our children and our society, to give any credence to those promoting unscientific nonsense (creationism or intelligent design) and justifying irrational beliefs under the guise of religion.

Craig W. Stevens
Department of Pharmacology and Physiology
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences
Tulsa, OK 74107, USA

And the second:

Evolution and Faith: Empathy Is Crucial

The News Focus story by J. Couzin, "Crossing the divide" (22 February, p. 1034) accurately and respectfully describes the crux of the challenge that our scientific understanding presents to members of faith communities. With more than 20 years of experience in teaching biology to evangelical undergraduates, I can state with a high degree of confidence that the situation within evangelicalism is to a great extent just as Couzin presented. The worldview in which so many conservative Christians are raised and trained gives them but two stark choices: Either there is a God, the world is a few thousand years old, and therefore evolution cannot have occurred, or the scientific community is correct, evolution occurred, and there is no God. The heart of the matter revolves around meaning in life, not around scientific knowledge. If we can understand the tremendous cognitive and spiritual stress this presents to the faith community, then we as truth-seeking scientists should be willing to listen to the concerns of those holding such positions.

We within the scientific community must continue to present the demonstrable evidence from the physical realm and clearly express how that evidence supports our current interpretations. This effort is not served well at all by dogmatic pronouncements such as "Evolution is fact," even if such statements are accurate. Furthermore, for members of the scientific community to make theological statements in the name of science is philosophically illegitimate, and destructive in our truth-seeking efforts. In this short essay, Science has published the only example I have read in the leading scientific literature that takes the time and effort to understand and express what really drives the concerns of the majority of evangelicals, and does so in a manner that respects the integrity of both the scientific endeavor and the integrity of the faith commitments within the evangelical community.

Allow me to suggest that this serves as a call to us in the sciences to be more humble as we interact with the faith community. We as scientists ought to be those most keenly aware of the tenuous and ever-changing nature of human knowledge, even as we build on that which has stood the test of time. We ought to behave as though the faith community poses no threat to the integrity of science, just as the faith community ought to behave as though science poses no threat to the integrity of faith. That is the challenge to us brought forth so eloquently in this piece, and is a major focus of organizations such as The American Scientific Affiliation. Let us all humbly seek for truth as we respect one another's efforts to do so.

Andrew Whipple
Department of Biology
Taylor University
Upland, IN 46989, USA

So who would you invite over? Now if you can, try removing all talk of religion and science and replace it with any other issue you like. Do you still invite the same person over or would you now change your mind?

I think that this illustrates that maybe what is "wrong" is not evolution or religion (or any other issue or debate for that matter), but perhaps the way in which we discuss it. I imagine that this is further seen in almost any opinion section of any newspaper, magazine, or internet forum. I think that one of these men understands this. Can you guess which one?

Both of these letters were printed in the May 9, 2008 issue of Science. Volume 320. Number 5877. Pages 745-746.