Last night, I read the first chapter (of three) of the Science, Evolution and Creationism (SEC) book just published by the National Academy of Science and the Institute of Medicine. It’s a well-written document, containing a clear and non-technical discussion of evolutionary biology and the overwhelming and compelling evidence for it, along with a brief discussion of aspects of the philosophy of science (i.e., a discussion of what science is, as well as the meaning of theory and fact as these terms are used in biology).

Toward the end of the chapter, the topic of religion is finally introduced. However, it is done in a rather odd way. At the bottom of page 12, it is asserted that “science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience”. The authors then enumerate what they think are the essential elements of science and religion:

In science,

• explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world;
• conflicts between observation and explanation must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation.

Religious faith, on the other hand,

• does not depend on empirical evidence;
• is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence;
• typically involves supernatural entities that cannot be investigated by science.

Based on this characterization, it is concluded that “science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways”. If this position sounds familiar to anyone, it’s likely that you’ve come across the Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) position taken by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. (According to Gould, science and religion do not conflict because science is focused on “the empirical constitution of the universe”, while religion is involved “in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives”.)

Chapter one ends with three pages of excerpts, written by “religious leaders” and “scientists” who see no conflict between their faith and science. Direct quotes are provided from Human Genome Project Director Francis Collins, Brown University’s Kenneth Miller (who has found recent fame thanks to the Dover, PA Intelligent Design court case) and Vatican Observatory Director Emeritus George Coyne SJ.

Now, as overbearing as I find Richard Dawkins’ polemic against religion to be, his recent book The God Delusion provides at least a couple of arguments that are relevant here. Far from being separate domains, each with their own methods and sources of knowledge, Dawkins argues that science and religion directly compete for the same territory. (He can do this because his understanding of religion is quite different from that assumed in SEC.) Although I personally think that the truth lies somewhere between these two extremes, Dawkins reminds us that alternatives to NOMA have been proposed. Further, the NOMA position does not stand up particularly well to close scrutiny, especially of the historical kind. (To provide one rather recent example, the ongoing debate on the ethics of stem cell research in the US suggests that, rightly or wrongly, science and religion do tend to inhabit similar territory at times.)

In its appeal to figures of authority within the scientific community to support its case, SEC succumbs to what Dawkins has called the “argument from admired religious scientists”. Here, an appeal to authority – not a mode of argumentation that is widely encouraged within the scientific community – is used in an attempt to convince the reader that there is no conflict between their faith and science. Employing this technique bypasses the hard work of explaining what these people actually think, and then figuring out what the sources (potential and actual) of conflict may be. (Of course, an absence of conflict between science and religion does not necessarily imply that the two are indeed separate. It simply means that, in the minds of the particularly authorities to whom appeals are made, reconciliation between science and religion has taken place. Of course, this reconciliation could be based on an erroneous understanding of either science or religion – or both – which is why respectful yet open discussion and argument is required in order to determine how the two are related in the mind of the authority.)

So at the end of chapter one, I’m glad that the authors are making an effort to publicly discuss what has recently become a contentious topic. However, I can’t help thinking that we need a more nuanced and constructive discussion than that provided in SEC. This may be asking too much of a committee of scientists – and is probably well beyond the scope of what they are aiming for – but I’m looking forward to chapters two and three nonetheless.