Gould, a prominent evolutionary biologist, and the US Roman Catholic Bishops each comment here on the relationship between Christianity and the theory of evolution in biology, each trying to show that there need not be a conflict between the two, if each is properly understood. As Gould says, his comments are in a way amusing, since he is not Catholic, and is in fact not even a religious person. So, Gould and the Bishops are coming at this question from very different worldviews. And yet, as Pojman suggested would be the case, they have a great deal of common ground from which to make their arguments.
Although Gould comments in an endnote that he has received favorable response from the Catholic church to the position he takes, I am suspicious that his view is actually not quite the same as the Bishops' view, when the details are considered. To tell the truth, I am suspicious that Gould is somewhat confused about what he really thinks about all this. So, perhaps it is best to start with what the Bishops have to say, and then compare that to Gould's much longer essay.
But, first, remember the reason we are looking at this topic. We are not trying to determine the truth of the theory of evolution. Rather, we are trying to understand how and why there is the potential for conflict between religion and the theory, and what that tells us about the relationship between religion and science. This is a relevant topic when considering how to evaluate the reasonability of religion, because
| IF there is an unavoidable conflict between all religious worldviews and the biological theory of evolution, |
| THEN every bit of evidence supporting the biological theory counts against all religious worldviews. |
| Since there is large amount of evidence in favor of evolution, that would make religion look weak, and if the evidence for evolution continues to mount, that might eventually force reasonable religious people to turn religion into something like secular humanism or naturalized spirituality--in other words, religion as we have defined it would be discredited. |
Therefore, there is good reason for religious people to do one of the following things:
| Give up on their religious worldview, and become naturalistic in outlook |
| Attack the theory of evolution, claiming it is bad science, while continuing to respect the rest of the scientific enterprise. |
| Find a way to harmonize their religious outlook with the theory of evolution. |
I believe all three of these options have been in fact quite popular. The Roman Catholic Church, along with almost all the mainline Protestant churches of the Western world, has so far chosen the third option, but some of the members of these groups are either unaware of the issues or would prefer the second option. Educated Jews who are religious seem to me to mostly choose the third option. Muslims around the world seem not yet to have seriously come to grips with these issues, although I am aware of one prominent Muslim intellectual in Turkey who chooses the second option. Christian fundamentalists in the US (many of whom are found in the Southern Baptist group or in independent "Bible" churches) also go for the second option. Those religious people who choose the first option of course do not form any particular organized group, but no doubt there are many educated people who are nudged away from religious commitments as they pick up on the naturalistic bent that is supported by progress in the sciences. Many millions of religious people don't know enough to know about the issues, and so haven't yet confronted these questions.
Gould and the Bishops represent the third option (except that Gould is only supporting it, not personally adopting it, since he is not religious).
Questions to write about to turn in
1. What is the point of the Bishops' remark about the poet and the botanist? (That is, how does this relate to the main question of whether the theory of evolution harmonizes with Christian thinking?)
2. Summarize in a couple of sentences the basic reason why Gould thinks there really should be no conflict between religion and the theory of evolution.