DRAFT    DRAFT    DRAFT    DRAFT    DRAFT    DRAFT    DRAFT    DRAFT    DRAFT

Kristine Larsen, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Central Connecticut State University

Comments are most welcome (larsen@ccsu.edu).

"There's certainly enough evidence that there is intelligence in the universe. There's creativity in the universe. There are emergent properties that come out of quantum leaps that the universe has a field of possibilities; that somehow -- there is something called observer effect, that, you know, conscious beings have the ability to influence the behavior of the universe; there's something called teleology in biology, which is purpose-driven process or purpose- driven evolution" [King 2005]. So went New Age author Deepak Chopra’s well-intentioned, yet muddled explanation of the ongoing debate over "Intelligent Design" on a recent interview on CNN’s Larry King Live. He later lamented on his blog "It is disturbing to see that the current debate over evolution has become Us-versus-Them. To say that Nature displays intelligence doesn't make you a Christian fundamentalist" [Chopra 2005]. Despite Chopra’s claim that so-called "Intelligent Design" (ID) and Christian Fundamentalism are not synonymous, in its current manifestation the former derives from latter, in a historical, if not also philosophical, context. It is also true that ID is increasingly becoming a threat which scientists as a community can no longer brush aside as merely pseudoscience propagated by a fringe movement.

The ID movement has long capitalized on the anti-evolutionary sentiment of certain Republican politicians, beginning with Ronald Reagan. At a August 22, 1980 speech before 10,000 Fundamentalist Christians in Dallas, he voiced his concerns with evolution:

It is a theory, it is a scientific theory only. And in recent years it has been challenged in the world of science and is not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was. I think that recent discoveries down through the years have pointed up great flaws in it. [Hughes 1982, 26]

The former President’s comments reflect several disconcerting and wide-spread misconceptions about science as a process, but more importantly lend perceived credibility to anti-evolutionary pseudosciences such as "Scientific Creationism" and ID through the importance of his office. In 2001 representatives of the ID movement held a briefing for Congress members, explaining that ID was "a better scientific theory" than evolution, that Darwinism "subverts morality by promoting materialism that denies the existence of God," and concluded that as an "intellectually and morally superior" theory it should be taught in public schools [Arnhart 2001, 46]. President George W. Bush lent his support to that proposition in August 2005 comments to Texas newspaper reporters, when he affirmed that ID should be discussed alongside evolution in the public classroom. In his words, "Both sides ought to be properly taught… so people can understand what the debate is about" [Swank, Jr. 2005]. Not long after, possible 2008 Republican Presidential candidate and Senate Majority Leader Dr. Bill Frist echoed that support, explaining that "a pluralistic society should have access to a broad range of fact, of science, including faith…" [Associated Press 2005]. Senator John McCain, another possible Republican Presidential candidate in 2008, joined the chorus, urging that "all points of view" concerning the origin of life be reflected in the classroom [Brooks 2005]. Connecticut Representative Christopher Shays, also a Republican, appears the lone voice of reason in the avalanche of "me too" statements: "while Rome’s burning, we’re eating grapes. I mean, the thought that we would have a debate in the Senate about creationism and scientific evolution, and that we would focus on this issue blows me away" [King 2005].

So it is that nearly a century and a half after its publication, Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species is fueling a modern debate on the relationship between science and religion, a debate which has spilled out of philosophical circles and threatens science education at all levels. Although nowhere is this clearer than in the fight to include ID in biology classrooms, more than just biology education is in jeopardy, and more than the Republican party or the "Religious Right" is to blame. This paper will explore the ways in which scientists (specifically astronomers and cosmologists) have unwittingly aided and abetted the ID cause, and suggest means by which scientists might begin to win the battle, especially in the college classroom.

Any discussion of science and religion should begin with fundamental definitions. Putting aside philosophical debates, at its most basic level science is a process by which observations are made of the natural world and in response hypotheses are generated and continually tested. The so-called scientific method is based on the assumptions that "A naturalistic explanation is sufficient to account for the functioning of the universe" and "The universe can be understood through logic and rational thinking" [Pigliucci 2002, 129]. As University of California, Santa Barbara theoretical physicist Joseph Polchinski puts it, "our job is to figure out the way nature is, not to tell it how to behave" [Nadis 2005, 30]. Religion involves supernatural explanations for the world, usually involving a deity or deities[1]. Certain basic tenets (dogma) are accepted by all adherents, and are generally considered to be absolutely true. In contrast, the current "tenets" of science, or theories, are always subject to revision and even falsification by future observations and experiments. The scientific process is therefore open-ended, and although particular scientists can be "dogmatic or closed-minded" about some issues, "the peer review system tends to keep such narrow-mindedness in check" [Bobrowsky 2005].

The word "theory" itself is at the crux of the current ID/evolution debate. As was seen in Reagan’s comments, in the common vernacular the word takes on almost a pejorative connotation, as in a hunch or guess, perhaps even a wild guess. However, in science the word has a different meaning. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a theory is a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses" [Scott 2004, 14]. Taking control of the ID/evolution debate involves, at the most basic of levels, informing the general public what a theory is and what it is not, and why various pseudosciences (including Scientific Creationism and ID) do not make the grade.

By definition, science is concerned with "naturalistic" explanations for observed phenomena in the world. The very idea of the scientific worldview itself, sometimes called "scientific naturalism," has been the source of conflict and misunderstanding between the scientific and religious communities. It is said that scientific naturalism (also called materialism) negates the possibility of a supernatural realm, and therefore is from its beginning not only atheistic but openly anti-theistic. While this is certainly true if the scientific naturalist point of view is taken to its extreme, it is also true that one can affirm that there is no scientific evidence for supernatural intervention in the world and leave open the possibility that such a realm can exist beyond it. In this case, it is possible that one could construct a worldview that is "fully religious while being fully naturalistic [scientific]" [Griffin 2000, 12]. Considering that approximately 92% of the world’s population is estimated to be religious, it is clear that a religious worldview is important to many people. Some of this belief may actually be in response to scientific discoveries. As science moves humanity farther and farther from its earlier imagined central role in the cosmos, "supernatural faith systems provide a degree of emotional security that skeptics cannot provide" [Raymo 1998, 5]. It is for this reason that the ID/evolution controversy is "not about science, but about philosophy and religion" [Pigliucci 2002, 22]. It is with this framework in mind that the ID movement should be investigated.

The term "intelligent design" was used as early as 1847, but probably found its first usage in its modern sense in Humanism by Ferdinand Canning Scott (1903): "It will not be possible to rule out the supposition that the process of evolution may be guided by an intelligent design" [Safire 2005]. It is a descendent of William Paley’s "watchmaker analogy" argument from design – just as the existence of a watch infers the existence of a watchmaker (i.e. a human being), so the design of the natural world is said to be evidence for a Grand Designer. Such an argument is nothing more than an argument from ignorance, or "God-of the gaps" model, in which current gaps in scientific knowledge are filled by a supernatural power. To paraphrase an old Sidney Harris cartoon, "then a miracle occurs here."

Although ideological differences can be found among ID adherents, a common core consists of the belief in an intelligent being that was "involved in the evolution of all living things" and the insistence that there exists empirical evidence for said being [talkdesign.org]. Scientists have been swift to reject ID as "creationism in a cheap suit" or "stealth creationism", although care should be taken to differentiate the current ID movement from the earlier Scientific Creationism. Largely gone is the Biblical literalism, including (for the majority of adherents) the demand that the Earth be thousands rather than billions of years old. Many actually admit to the reality of so-called microevolution, or changes within a species (such as dog breeding). However, there is a resistance to macroevolution, or speciation - the development of one species from another. The movement is allied with various Fundamental Christian groups, and receives much of its funding from those sources. However, the identity of the "designer" is frequently left unsaid in the literature, although tacitly assumed to be the Judeo-Christian God. What ID shares with Scientific Creationism is an almost paranoid belief in a "massive conspiracy to withhold the recognition that their insights deserve" [Young and Edis, 2004, 1].

Many excellent references exist which deconstruct ID arguments[2]; therefore this paper will only briefly highlight the main personalities involved. In 1989, the controversial ID "textbook" Of Pandas and People was published. The second edition (1993) is routinely cited today as an appropriate alternative or ancillary text for equal treatment of ID in high school science courses. Riddled with hyperbole and inaccuracies, the following quotation gives one an adequate taste:

There is a reasonable alternative explanation for life’s origin, an explanation that has scientific support. As we observe how living things function, we are impressed by the high levels of complexity and organization that are necessary…. This process is similar to the building of a house according to an architect’s plan, or the writing of a book. [Davis and Kenyon 1993, 55]

ID’s greatest modern cheerleader, lawyer Phillip Johnson, published his own assault on evolution as Darwin on Trial (1991). In 1996, the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank in Seattle, spawned the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC), whose title was later changed to the more politically correct Center for Science and Culture. The importance of the "renewal" portion of the original name was made clear in a controversial planning document, called The Wedge Strategy, which circulated around the Internet. Science and society were to be renewed, or rescued, from the "stifling dominance of the materialistic worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" [Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture 1997]. The name "Wedge" refers to the strategy of using ID as a wedge to split the "giant tree" of materialistic science – the so-called "tree of unbelief." The pictorial representation of the perceived sinful pitfalls of modern society (such as drug use, hard rock, pornography, homosexuality, and abortion) as a tree spawned by belief in evolution and the rejection of God is commonly used by Creationists [Pigliucci 2002, 159]. As a five-year goal, the CRSC sought to "see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences" and a twenty-year goal to "see intelligent design as the dominant perspective in science" [Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture 1997]. In a 2003 interview on American Family Radio, Phillip Johnson openly asserted that "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools" [Bobrowsky 2005].

In Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Lehigh University Professor of Biochemistry Michael J. Behe argued that certain biochemical structures are far too complex to have evolved via natural selection. Such structures are dubbed "irreducibly complex." As a practicing scientist, Behe gave the ID movement a sorely needed façade of credibility in certain circles; however the scientific community was not among them. Behe urged that "Design should not be overlooked simply because it’s so obvious," while mainstream scientists argued that there was nothing obvious in his argument, including his so-called irreducibly complex systems [Orr 2005, 49].

Another vocal supporter of ID has been William A. Dembski, the Carl F.H. Henry Professor of Science and Theology at Southern Seminary in Louisville. A mathematician by training, Dembski has brought equations and statistical arguments to the ID arsenal through books such as The Design Inference (1998a). Not only have Dembski’s arguments been refuted by his non-ID colleagues, but Dembski openly connects his arguments to Christianity:

As Christians we know naturalism is false. Nature is not self-sufficient, God created nature as well as any laws by which nature operates. Not only has God created the world, but also God upholds the world moment by moment…. This is a tenet of faith that brooks no controversy. Controversy arises, however, once we ask whether God’s interaction with the world is empirically detectable…. To answer this question we must look to science. [Dembski 1998b, 14-5]

This clear connection between ID "science" and religion (more specifically Christianity) is also mirrored by less-well-known advocates in their writings, such as J. Grant Swank Jr.’s editorial on theconservativevoice.com (2005):

I came from a speck somewhere sometime past? I don’t think so. Maybe you did, but I did not. God created the likes of me in the form of the First Male and First Female. From that couple came the human race. To believe that the greater came from the lesser is to believe in fairies dancing on the day lilies.

Therefore, although it is true that "Intelligent Design" is not synonymous with Fundamental Christianity, and in theory it can remain silent on the identity of the "designer," its practical connection to religion is undeniable. It is important to keep this real-world connection, agenda, and built-in audience in mind.

Although its claim to be an alternative to Darwinian evolution place ID squarely within the radar of biology, the other sciences should not complacently assume they are safe from this pseudoscience. Just as so-called "Young Earth" Creationists before them attacked physical, astronomical, and geological observations and theories, the ID movement has already openly encroached upon these disciplines. In some cases, observations and theories are again openly challenged (as in Creation Science); more disturbing still are the ways in which proponents of ID have "hijacked" certain observations and hypotheses in these other sciences and attempted to use them as proof for the validity of their point of view. This has obvious relevance to the teaching of science to non-science majors, who may come into the classroom with misconceptions fueled by their contact with ID literature. Specific examples, such as emergence theory and the anthropic principle, will be discussed in detail later in this paper.

The most well-known threats to science education from the ID movement are those which were inherited from the earlier Creation Science proponents – namely legislation to include "scientific alternatives" to evolution in the science curriculum, and disclaimers in science textbooks. From 1974-1984, Texas biology textbooks carried a disclaimer, which read in part "The presentation of the theory of evolution shall be done in a manner which is not detrimental to other theories of origin" [Scott 2004, 206]. If the same criteria were to be used in astronomy textbooks, one could argue that there could be no discussion of the cosmic background radiation, as it would be a detriment to another theory of origin – namely the now-discredited Steady State model. Similarly, a 1994 Alabama textbook disclaimer reminded students that "no one was present when life appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered as theory, not fact..." [Scott 2004, 205]. Putting aside the obvious lack of understanding of the words "theory" and "fact" as used in science, the same (il)logic would suggest that astronomy and geology textbooks would also require warning labels, as witnesses to the creation of the universe and the earth are similarly scarce. One can easily extend this argument to its absurd extreme, and envision a case for disclaimers on textbooks of anthropology and archaeology, history, and even particle physics (due to the paucity of direct observations of quarks). Such disclaimers may succeed in nothing more than confusing the students and striking fear in the hearts of textbook authors and publishers, who may feel pressured to edit their textbooks to conform with a state’s official anti-evolution viewpoint.

Legislation concerning the teaching of non-scientific viewpoints (such as ID) in the science classroom has been raised at all levels of government - local, state and national. Recently, the Dover, Pennsylvania school district’s new requirement to have all ninth-graders hear a disclaimer about ID before lessons on evolution has been brought to the forefront of the fight against pseudoscience in the science classroom. The disclaimer warns that

Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence…. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book Of Pandas and People is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view…. As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. [Wallis 2005, 27]

As in many other cases, the statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the scientific method, as well as the confusion between evolution as a process and Darwin’s natural selection as a mechanism for that process. But more disconcerting still is the suggestion that Of Pandas and People, a text which has long been discredited by the science community, is fitting ancillary reading material for a science classroom. Eleven parents, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are currently suing the school district over the policy, citing a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state in public schools.

The Dover case is certainly not the first time legislation has been used in an attempt to bring ID into the science classroom. For example, in 2001 and 2003 legislation was introduced into the Michigan House of Representatives which sought to change the science standard for middle school and high school such that "all references to ‘evolution’ and ‘natural selection’ shall be modified to indicate that these are unproven theories by adding the phrase ‘describe how life may be the result of the purposeful, intelligent design of a Creator" [Scott 2004, 202]. In 2002, Republican Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum proposed the following amendment to the No Child Left Behind Education bill:

It is the sense of the Senate that

Good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science; and

Where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why the subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject [Scott 2004, 201].

Although the statement may appear innocuous at first glance, the true reasoning behind it (as a Trojan Horse for ID) may be seen from the language of the Conference Committee Report, where it is stated that "Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society" (emphasis added) [Scott 2004, 201-2]. Although threats to science education from Creation Science and ID have generally been considered to be American phenomena, this is no longer the case. Science classes in Australia will include a discussion of ID in the 2005 school year. Dr. Brendan Nelson, a physician and the Federal Minister of Education, told the National Press club that "the theory of Intelligent Design should be taught alongside Darwinian evolution" [Or 2005].

Efforts to include ID in American science classrooms appear to have broad public support. A December 2004 Newsweek poll found that 60% of respondents favored teaching creation science as well as evolution [Fraknoi 2005]. A June 2005 Harris poll of 1000 adults found that 55% believe creation science and ID should be taught in public schools alongside evolution [Wallis 2005, 28]. An August 2005 Pew Forum on Religion and Pubic Life poll of 2000 Americans similarly found that 64% were "open to the idea" of teaching creationism in public schools [Goodstein 2005]. It should be noted that in the minds of the pollsters and the general public, it appears that ID and creationism are nearly synonymous, further bolstering the claim that despite some arguments to the contrary, ID is directly connected not only with religion, but Christianity in particular.

The public groundswell of support for teaching ID has led to increasing pressure on public school science teachers. An online survey of over 1000 members of the National Science Teachers Association conducted in March 2005 found that nearly one-third "felt pressured by parents and students to include lessons on intelligent design creationism or other nonscientific alternatives to evolution in their science classes." Equally disturbing, nearly another third "felt pressured to omit evolution or evolution-related topics from their curriculum" [Wallis 2005, 32]. This threat to science education comes at a time when the United States is facing stiffer competition in the world technology arena. Gerry Wheeler, the executive director of the National Science Teacher Association, notes that this "sends a signal to other countries because they’re rushing to gain scientific and technological leadership while we’re getting distracted with a pseudoscience issue…. If I were China, I’d be happy" [Wallis 2005, 28]. However, the American public seems completely oblivious to this economic threat. Three out of four respondents in an Ohio poll "said including intelligent design in the curriculum would have either a positive effect or no effect on the state’s reputation or its ability to attract new businesses" [Dembski June 2002].

The high level of support for including ID in the science curriculum reflects the overall appeal of the "equal time" or "fairness" argument to many Americans – namely, in a democratic society, why not teach all views and let the students decide for themselves? However, this utterly ignores the fact that science is not politics. There is no "scientific electoral college" which decides which theories are included in textbooks. Theories cannot be impeached and removed from office because of unpopular legislation or sexual misconduct. If the science classroom became a popularity contest among competing theories, what would the result be? Astronomy forsaken for courses in horoscope reading? Faith healing classes in medical school? But however ridiculous these ideas may seem, we should not lose sight of the fact that the threat is alarmingly real. William Dembski openly brags that ID can and does exploit

the disconnect between high and mass culture. It’s the educated elite that love evolution and the materialist science it helps to underwrite. On the other hand, the masses are by and large convinced of intelligent design. What’s more, the masses ultimately hold the purse strings for the educated elite (in the form of state education, research funding, scholarships, etc). [June 2002]

Pressure from the ID movement on science education at the college level is already being felt. In 2002, accreditation was denied to a new college in Virginia because it required professors to "sign a statement of faith that they will teach from a creationist perspective." A Texas biology professor’s attempt to fight back against the rising tide of ID sentiment backfired, when he came under criticism for a policy involving letters of recommendation. His website warned students that he would only write letters for graduate school for students who "truthfully and forthrightly affirm a scientific answer" to human origin [National Science Board 2004, 7-19].

An increasing threat to science education on college campuses is the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) club. Started at the University of California, San Diego, in 1999, this movement now boasts over twenty chapters [Brumfiel 2005, 1063]. The stated purpose of the national IDEA Center is to

Promote, as scientific theory, the idea that life was designed by an intelligent designer,

Educate people about scientific problems with purely natural explanations for the origins and evolution of life,

Challenge the philosophical assumptions of Darwinism, naturalism, and materialism…. [ideacenter.org, "Start a Club"]

Their mission statement further explains that

We believe that in the investigation of intelligent design the identity of the designer is completely separate from the scientific theory of intelligent design, since a scientific theory cannot specify the identity of the designer based upon the empirical data or the scientific method alone, and is not dependent upon religious premises; nonetheless, we consider it reasonable to conclude that the designer may be identified as the God of the Bible, while recognizing that others may identify the designer in a different way. [ideacenter.org, "purpose and mission"]

Although the organization appears on the surface to have a tolerant view of the identity of the "designer," the posted qualifications for club leaders mandates that they be "Christians as the IDEA Center Leadership believes, for religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible" [ideacenter.org "Start a club"].

In response to the continued threat to education at all levels by the inclusion of Creation Science and ID and/or the removal of evolution from the curriculum, numerous scientific organizations, including the National Association of Biology Teachers [2004], Botanical Society of America [2003], Astronomical Society of the Pacific [Morrison 1982], American Physical Society [1997], American Astronomical Society [Fraknoi et al. 2004], and American Association of Physics Teachers [2005] have passed resolutions condemning the inclusion of non-science in the science curriculum. For example, the 2000 Statement of the AAS on Evolution [Fraknoi et al. 2004, 3] warned that

Children whose education is denied the benefits of this expansion of our understanding of the world around us are being deprived of part of their intellectual heritage. They may also be at a competitive disadvantage in a world where scientific and technological literacy is becoming more and more important economically and culturally.

In addition to the threat posed to formal schooling by the ID movement, planetariums, science centers and museums are under attack and "need to build alliances" [Miller 2005]. For example, IMAX theaters, especially in Southern states, have been pressured to not run some films which mention evolution and contradict Biblical versions of creation. A test audience of the film Volcanoes at the Fort Worth Museum of Science complained that "the theory of evolution is presented as fact" [Dean March 19, 2005, A11]. The Tulsa Zoo in Oklahoma planned to display a Biblical account of Genesis but later withdrew the plans after coming under criticism and ridicule. Creationist "science" museums have sprung up in Kentucky and Arkansas, which affirm literalist beliefs, including the supposition that dinosaurs could have been placed aboard Noah’s ark – at least smaller, juvenile members of their species. G. Thomas Sharp, the founder of the Creation Truth Foundation, the sponsor of the Eureka Springs Museum of Earth History, explained that "if we lose Genesis as a legitimate scientific and historical explanation for man, then we lose the validity of Christianity. Period" [Anderson 2005].

Statements such as Sharp’s beg the question, just what is the relationship between science and religion? An instructional example of the difficulty in defining the relationship can be seen from the "continuum of belief" in the evolution/creation debate. So-called "Young Earth Creationists" (YEC) are those who believe in a literalist interpretation of the Bible and therefore an age for the Earth of 10,000 years or less. They are distinct from "Old Earth Creationists" (OEC), those who accept an age for the Earth (and the universe) in line with mainstream science. However, both groups reject biological evolution as a process, especially in terms of human history. OEC can be subdivided into at least four groups [Scott 2004, 61-3]:

The continuum then shifts to those who can be called "evolutionists," who can also be subdivided into at least three camps (Scott 2004, 63-5):

Although many proponents of ID claim that science (and scientists) are strict materialistic evolutionists, all three evolutionist points of view can be consistent with the scientific method. The reader is directed to Scott (2004) for a detailed discussion of the sometimes subtle differences between philosophical naturalism (the rejection of the existence of the supernatural) and methodological naturalism (reliance on natural causes). The ID movement spans segments of both YEC and OEC, at least up to the creationist/evolutionist boundary. William Dembski [1998b, 20] explains that

Intelligent design is incompatible with what typically is meant by theistic evolution. Theistic evolution takes the Darwinian picture of the biological world and baptizes it, identifying this picture with the way God created life. When boiled down to its scientific content, however, theistic evolution is no different from atheistic [materialistic] evolution….

In general, the relationship between religion and science can be situated in one of three possibilities [Griffin 2000, 6-9; Pigliucci 2002, 179]:

The independence model generally follows from arguments such as the following:

Many aspects of reality as well as some key elements of human existence, such as the ability to distinguish between good and evil, spirituality, artistic creativity – some of the things we most value about human beings – inevitably fall outside the scope of the [scientific] method. [Dalai Lama 2005, 206]

Love, faith, and morality belong to a different category to physics. You cannot deduce how one should behave from the laws of physics. [Hawking 1993, 173]

Stephen Jay Gould [1999, 5] suggested a "principle of respectful noninterference – accompanied by intense dialogue between the two distinct subjects, each covering a central facet of human existence – by enunciating the Principle of NOMA, or Non-Overlapping Magisteria." Gould is careful to define the distinct magisteria as follows:

Science covers the empirical realm: what is the universe made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for example, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty)…. To cite the old clichés, science gets the age of rocks, and religion the rock of ages; science studies how the heavens go, religion how to go to heaven. [1999, 6]

Framing the relationship between science and religion in this way brings attention to a point frequently lost in the evolution/creation debate; namely that "Evolution, like all of science, is not antireligious; it is unreligious" [Lehman 1982, 281-2]. Likewise, in cosmological discussions, physicists openly admit that there is still room for religion:

Even if we were to attain a comprehensive theory of fundamental interactions, physics would still fail to address human purpose and hence would provide a causally incomplete description of the real world around us. [Ellis 2005, 52]

And even if there is only one unique set of possible laws, it is only a set of equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to govern? Is the ultimate unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist? I don’t know the answer to that. [Hawking 1993, 99]

But with the respectful relationship of NOMA also comes responsibilities on both sides. Religion has no basis to impose on scientific theory (such as Young Earth Creationism, or ID), while "scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world’s empirical constitution" [Gould 1999, 9-10]. Failure on either side to respect the boundaries of their "magisteria" leads to a conflict model of the science/religion relationship.

Conflicts arise between science and religion when the point of view is taken that each one has a lock on explaining the one true reality. Conflicts of various types arise. For example, a religious group or movement may ignore the scientific method and demand that God is the undeniable cause of activity in the world, or cling to beliefs about the world which are plainly contradicted by observations (such as the age of the Earth). As the Dalai Lama warns, "spirituality must be tempered by the insights and discoveries of science. If as spiritual practioners we ignore the discoveries of science, our practice is also impoverished, as this mind-set can lead to fundamentalism" [2005, 13]. On the other side, scientists may claim that the scientific method, rather than being silent on supernatural possibilities, negates the possibility of God, or make value judgments "about particular events that conflict with beliefs that are vital to religious communities" [Griffin 2000, 15]. Additional conflict can arise when well-meaning scientists, in "attempting to prod public interest… draw unjustified religious conclusions" [Sagan 1996, 334-5]. A classic example is Stephen Hawking’s controversial ending to his A Brief History of Time [1988,175]:

However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.

Another is Einstein's infamous statement "God does not play dice (and Bohr's apocryphal retort "Stop telling God what to do"). A more egregious example is Nobel Prize Laureate Leon Lederman’s dubbing of the Higgs boson as the "God Particle" because its discovery would allow physicists to "know the mind of God" [Lederman 1993, 24]. Peter Higgs expressed embarrassment over the designation, saying "I am not a believer in God, and this might be offensive to believers. It is not an expression used by anyone in particle physics" [Dalton 2002, 3].

The benefits of a harmonious, integrated relationship between science and religion have been expressed by scientists and religious figures alike. Chet Raymo [1998, 8-9] suggests that science could directly benefit from such a relationship:

Science sometimes is aloof, arrogant, blind to the ambient mystery that animates knowledge. A fusion of knowledge with religious feeling need not weaken the rigor of scientific skepticism; it can, however, help stitch science back into the larger fabric of our emotional, intuitive, aesthetic, and sensual lives.

On the other side, "many people from a variety of religious faiths accept the testimony of science, including evidence for the great age of the universe. Indeed, they may find that it deepens their understanding of creation and reinforces their faith" [Fraknoi et al. 2004, 17]. Tenzin Gyatso, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, summarizes the possibility of such a relationship as follows:

Since the emergence of modern science, humanity has lived through an engagement between spirituality and science as two important sources of knowledge and well-being. Sometimes the relationship has been a close one – a kind of friendship – while at other times it has been frosty, with many finding the two to be incompatible. Today, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, science and spirituality have the potential to be closer that ever and to embark upon a collaborative endeavor that has far-reaching potential to help humanity meet the challenges before us. We are all in this together. May each of us, as a member of the human family, respond to the moral obligation to make this collaboration possible. This is my heartfelt plea. [2005, 208-9]

The relationship between scientists and the Vatican has improved greatly since the time of Galileo. The Vatican has since founded a number of observatories in Rome to encourage astronomical research. For example, the first detailed classification system of stellar spectra was conducted by Jesuit priest Father Angelo Secchi at the Roman College Observatory [Vatican Observatory]. The most famous of these institutions is the Vatican Observatory, formally founded by Pope Leo XII in 1891. Today its science program is affiliated with the Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

Another institutional relationship between science and the Catholic Church is the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS), founded in its current form by Pope Pius XI in 1936. Its members conduct work in various areas, such as fundamental research in science, bioethics, global applications of science and technology (especially in the Third World), and epistemological questions [Sorondo 2003, 2]. In fact, Pope John Paul II officially reopened the case of Galileo with his first address to the PAS on November 10, 1979, on the occasion of the Einstein centenary. He reminded the Academicians that

The existence of this Pontifical Academy of sciences, of which in its ancient ancestry Galileo was a member and of which today eminent scientists are members, without any form of ethnic or religious discrimination, is a visible sign, reasoned amongst the people of the world, of the profound harmony that can exist between the truths of science and the truths of faith. [Sorondo 2003, 6]

Among the duties of the PAS is the hosting of special conferences called "Study Weeks," held since 1948 on topics of current interest in science. It was at one such Study Week in September 1981 that Stephen Hawking (who was admitted as a member of the PAS in 1986) presented his first work on the "no-boundary" proposal of cosmology. As he recounted, after the conference

we were granted an audience with the Pope…. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did not know that the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference was the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of creation. [Hawking 1992, 120]

This complicated relationship between Catholicism and cosmology (agreement with serious exception) mirrors the views of the Vatican on evolution.

In his Humani Generis (1950), Pope Pius XII declared that there was no "conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points" [Pope John Paul II 1996]. It is these "fixed points" which continue to create tension between the Vatican and evolutionary scientists. In a 1985 general audience, Pope John Paul II [Schönborn 2005, A23] declared that

All observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration, This finality which directs beings in the direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator.

His support for evolution appears based on the fact that (in his view) it provides evidence for a creator (presumably the Christian God). Similarly, in a 1996 address to the PAS, Pope John Paul II noted that the scientific method "allows for the concordance of two points of view which seems irreconcilable." However, from this "theology extracts… the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs" [Shermer 1997 133]. However, these "design" arguments are largely ignored by science writers, who appear to have instead glommed onto another section of that same talk:

Today, more than a half century after the appearance of that [1950] encyclical [of Pope Pius XII], some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory. [Pope John Paul II 1996]

Science writers were quick to interpret this as some new "acceptance of evolution as a fact of nature" [Shermer 1997, 133] by the Catholic Church. In response, Michael S. Rose [1996], editor of the St. Catherine Review, cautioned that:

Pope John Paul has made no new pronouncement, as has been reported lately, concerning the acceptability of any hypothesis of evolution. He has merely reasserted that the scientific inquiry into the origins of life is commendable as long as it is recognized, above all, that the soul is created by God alone.

Rose referred to another passage in the speech, which affirmed that

The theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man. They are therefore unable to serve as the basis for the dignity of the human person. [Pope John Paul II 1996]

What the Pope rejects here is the "emergence" of the human spirit from the material world. Emergent properties of the physical world with be discussed later in this paper.

The misreading of the Pope’s statements as a blanket sanctioning of evolution continued in the popular science press for nearly a decade. In his arguments against including ID in science classrooms, physicist Lawrence Krauss [2005, 9] further referred to the 2004 statement by the International Theological Commission (chaired by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that "since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism." What Krauss omitted to acknowledge is that in the same 2004 statement, the Commission warned that Pope John Paul II’s 1996 comments

cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe…. Any unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist. [Schönborn 2005, A23]

A clear sign of the Catholic Church’s open rejection of the misinterpretation of Pope John Paul II’s statements came in Pope Benedict XVI’s investiture homily on April 24, 2005:

And only where God is seen does life truly begin. Only when we meet the living God in Christ do we know what life is. We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God.[Pope Benedict XVI 2005]

In July 2005, an editorial authored by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, created a firestorm of controversy. Although admittedly not openly sanctioned by the Vatican, Schönborn had been "encouraged" by the new pontiff to express his desire for a "more explicit statement" about the Church’s position [Dean and Goodstein 2005]. In his piece, Schönborn attacked the "defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma" using Pope John Paul II’s statements to show "the supposed acceptance – or at least acquiescence" of the Vatican toward evolution:

But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things….Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology not science.

But Schönborn rebuked more than evolution. He claimed that cosmology, in the form of the proposed "multiverse hypothesis" was also "invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design…." In response, he affirmed that the

Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design are the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. [Schönborn 1995 A23]

Scientists, especially those of Christian faith, immediately responded with dismay and concern, fearing the Church was taking a step backwards (perhaps even mirroring the persecution of Galileo). Dr. Francis Collins, lead American scientist on the Human Genome Project, warned that Schönborn’s comments played into the "deep and growing chasm between the scientific and the spiritual world views…. To the extent that the cardinal’s essay makes believing scientists less and less comfortable inhabiting the middle ground, it is unfortunate. It makes me uneasy" [Dean and Goodstein 2005]. More disturbing still, Schönborn explained in an interview that he "believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories" [Dean and Goodstein 2005]. This apparent embracing of the teaching of Intelligent Design added fuel to what was becoming a bonfire of contention.

In the September issue of the Vienna archdiocese education newsletter, Schönborn clarified his position somewhat, stating that "Charles Darwin’s theory of genetic mutation and natural selection did not clash with belief in God… so long as scientists did not assert that pure chance accounted for everything from ‘the Big Bang to Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony’" [Heneghan 2005]. He then apparently took his original argument a step further, encouraging religion teachers to "discuss intelligent design with colleagues from other disciplines and coordinate teaching plans with them." He also unveiled plans for the archdiocese to provide teachers with information on "links between neo-Darwinism and neo-conservative economical policies and how they are guided by evolutionary principles, such as ‘survival of the fittest.’" [Heneghan 2005] This appeal to so-called "social Darwinism" in an attempt to discredit evolution in a biological context is certainly not new, but the apparent sanctioning of such a strategy by a highly respected member of the Catholic Church[3] was seen as most unexpected. In the same newsletter, Schönborn openly chastised scientists for "highly intolerant behavior… towards people who come from other disciplines and point out where the evolutionists overstep their bounds." In particular, Schönborn cited the example of "scientists who mention certain unsolved questions about the theory of evolution" [Heneghan 2005].

Soon after, Schönborn presented a lecture, which was published by his office in early October, in which he appeared to slightly soften his stance. He acknowledged that his article in the New York Times had led to "misunderstandings and sometimes polemics." He affirmed that there was "no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition – that the limits of a scientific theory are respected." These so-called limits are reached when scientists "conclude evolution proves there was no creator," because it is "fully reasonable to assume some sense or design even if the scientific method demands restrictions that shut out this question" [Reuters 2005]. In the space of several months, Schönborn had apparently moved from advocating a conflict model of the science/religion question to open support of ID as a valid scientific theory, back to a harmonious theistic evolutionist model – the very stance which scientists and science writers had taken as the de facto stance of the Vatican for five decades.

A major source of grants for "pursuing research at the boundary between science and religion" is the John Templeton Foundation. Their goal is to "unite credible and rigorous science with the exploration of humanity’s basic spiritual and religious quests" [John Templeton Foundation 2005]. British billionaire Sir John Templeton, who now resides in Tennessee, has set aside $800 million of his fortune to fund the foundation. However, despite its stated dedication to "credible and rigorous science," the Foundation is known as a main funding source of neo-creationist investigations [Pigliucci 2002, 53]. The foundation’s website features the following quote by its founder:

There is here no knockdown argument for design and purpose, but certainly there are strong hints of ultimate relativities beyond the cosmos. One of the strongest hints, in our opinion, relates to the new understanding of the creativity of the cosmos, its capacity for so-called self-organization…. From a theological perspective it is indeed tempting to see this remarkable self-organizing tendency as an expression of the intimate nature of the Creator’s activity and identification with our universe [John Templeton Foundation 2005]

In contrast with Cardinal Schönborn’s rebuke of the application of emergence theory to questions of origins, Templeton uses it as evidence for design (by God). Clearer support for ID comes from Templeton’s 1989 book with Robert L. Herrmann, The God Who Would be Known. The main thrust of the text was to explain how "God is revealing himself in all his immensity at an ever-accelerating pace through rapid developments in the science [13]. They argued that

At every level in the cosmos, whether the astronomical ordering of light to stars and supernovae, or the microscopic cellular abstraction and transformation in the brain, or the delicate balance of this subatomic strong force holding atomic nuclei together, the hand of the Great Designer is far easier to see than to ignore. Perhaps it is supposed to be this way…. [79]

The so-called Religious Right describes secular humanism as a "Godless philosophy that replaces the absolute of Christian truth, as defined in the Bible, with a humanist tolerance based on evolutionary precepts" [Young 1985, 21]. This tolerance, also called "relativism", seeks to recognize different religions and philosophies are equally valid, and is considered a serious threat to not only organized religion, but to society at large. This fear is pictorially encompassed in the "tree of unbelief" described in a previous section. In his Homily at the mass for the election of a successor to Pope John Paul II, then Cardinal Ratzinger warned against the "dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own egos and desires" [Ratzinger 2005]. Republican Texas Representative Tom DeLay (former House Majority Leader), commented that the Columbine High School tragedy was caused "because our school systems teach our children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial mud" [Krause 2005, 9].

Although religious voices have loudly demonized the secularization of society as the source of a wholesale plethora of ills, there is no critical study to support these charges. In fact, in a study conducted of "prosperous democracies," Paul [2005] found the direct opposite to be true – namely that "pro-evolution democracies have… come closest to achieving practical ‘cultures of life’ that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion," contradicting the "dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator." Not surprisingly, he found that a negative correlation exists between "popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism." Among the countries studied, the United States had both the lowest belief in human evolution and highest religiosity, and was the "most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so" [Paul 2005].

Recognized as the reincarnation of his predecessor (and thus an incarnation of Avalokitesvara, the Buddha of Compassion) at the age of two, Tenzin Gyatso, the fourteenth Dalai Lama, has had a professed interest in science and technology since childhood. As the religious leader of the Tibetan people in exile, the Nobel Peace Laureate has sought to bring Tibetan culture into the spotlight of the world. He has repeatedly affirmed that science and Buddhism share much in common, and "though differing in their approaches, share the same end, which is the betterment of humanity" [Dalai Lama 2005, 8].

In Tibetan Buddhism, logic and debate are taught to monks and nuns as part of their religious education, and

If, when we investigate something, we find there is reason and proof for it, we must acknowledge that as reality – even if it is contradiction with a literal scriptural explanation that has held sway for many centuries or with a deeply held opinion or view. So one fundamental attribute shared by Buddhism and science is the commitment to keep searching for reality by empirical means and to be willing to discard accepted or long-held positions if our search finds that the truth is different [Dalai Lama 2005, 24-5]

For example, Carl Sagan once asked the Dalai Lama if Tibetan Buddhism would be willing to discard the fundamental belief in reincarnation if science were to disprove the possibility. He agreed that they would, but added "with a twinkle – it’s going to be hard to disprove reincarnation" [Sagan 1996, 278].

The Dalai Lama has repeatedly commented that there are no conflicts between the big bang model or evolution and Buddhism. The emergence of life from inanimate matter is also a non-issue. He writes that there is "an implicit assumption that the emergence of living organisms from inanimate matter is simply a consequence of cause and effect over time, given a set of initial conditions and the laws of nature that govern all realms of existence" [Dalai Lama 2005, 104]. This appears to closely parallel reductionist arguments in science. However, George Johnson [October 2, 2005] has compared the Dalai Lama’s statements concerning the existence of some underlying order in the natural world to the Discovery Institute’s ID agenda. He finds room for concern in statements by the Dalai Lama such as "I hope I have made the case that one can take science seriously and accept the validity of its empirical findings without subscribing to scientific materialism" [2005, 207]. However, as has already been discussed, an extreme materialistic view of the world is not required for one to "scientific" – the supernatural and spiritual realm ultimately lies beyond the realm of science.

To foster dialogue between scientists and Buddhists, the Dalai Lama established The Mind and Life Institute, based in his exile home of Dharamsala, India. The stated goal is to "establish a powerful working collaboration and research partnership between modern science and Buddhism – the world’s two most powerful traditions for understanding the nature of reality and investigating the mind" [The Mind and Life Institute 2002a]. The institute has hosted an ongoing series of meetings between the Dalai Lama and international scientists, mainly in the areas of theoretical physics and neuroscience. For example, in October 1997, a small group of physicists, including David Finkelstein (Georgia Institute of Technology), George Greenstein (Amherst College), Piet Hut (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton), and Anton Zeilinger (University of Innsbruck) met with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala to discuss "the implications of the new physics and cosmology" and to "examine the methods of western scientific inquiry and Buddhist contemplative inquiry, in order to understand the limitations as well as the power of each of these possibly complementary modes of research" [The Mind and Life Institute 2002b]. The edited transcript of the meeting was published as The New Physics and Cosmology Dialogues with the Dalai Lama (Zajonc 2004).

But the Dalai Lama’s involvement in dialogue between science and Buddhism has led to controversy. In 2005, he was invited to speak at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience as the first lecture in the new "Dialogues between Neuroscience and Society" series. The series planned to "feature leaders from fields outside of neuroscience whose work relates to subjects of interest to neuroscientists" [Society for Neuroscience 2005]. The invitation was extended to the Dalai Lama because of the "growing interest in the neuroscience of meditation" but led to an outcry, petition, and call for boycotting the meeting, by some members of the society [Epstein 2005]. The petition calls the invitation "of poor scientific taste because it will highlight a subject with hyperbolic claims, limited research and compromised scientific rigour" and warns "it could be a slippery road if neuroscientists begin to blur the border between science and religious practices" [Adam 2005]. However, some scientists took umbrage in the outcry rather than the invitation. For example, Todd Weber of Rider University posted the following editorial comment on the Inside Higher Education website [Epstein 2005]:

Already fuming about the religious right’s opposition to even hearing opinions expressed that are different from their own, I now find myself incensed at the notion that 30,000 neuroscientists should not be afforded the opportunity to hear the Dalai Lama speak, as if we might all be brainwashed and recant our pragmatic beliefs in the scientific process…. Listening to him does not imply an explicit support for what he says, but rather expresses an intelligent desire to hear other viewpoints before constructing my own. Anyone who makes up his or her mind without considering all possibilities is an idiot, not a scientist.

As theoretical physicist Andreas Albrecht [1994, 12] explained,

The field of cosmology has a grand history of pushing back the boundary between physics and metaphysics. Decades ago, who would have thought that the origin of relative abundances of the different chemical elements would be considered the subject of physical calculation rather than metaphysical speculation! I have no doubt that we will find more opportunities to push the boundary back even further.

Metaphysics, in a scientific rather than philosophical context, is generally taken to mean the study of problems that cannot be answered by scientific observation or experimentation. Two decades ago, theoretical physicist Paul Steinhardt coined the term "metaphysical cosmology (metacosmology)" to encompass problems in cosmology which seemed to be "totally decoupled from observations" [Vilenkin 1983, 2854]. An example of a research topic currently within this purview is the multiverse hypothesis, discussed later in this paper. Are such speculative topics truly science? According to philosopher of science Karl Popper, scientific theories need only be falsifiable through empirical investigation. Therefore, the existence of directly unobservable phenomenon, be they quarks, superstrings, or multiple dimensions, does not automatically relegate the theory to metaphysics [Tegmark 2004, 464-5].

Initial arguments against the big bang theory included a disbelief that the laws of physics could possibly be pushed back to the origin of the universe. Catholic Abbé Georges Lemaître, who served as the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, is generally considered as the father of the big bang theory. Independently of the work of famed American astronomer Edwin Hubble, he discovered the expansion of the universe, and proposed an energetic origin for the universe as a logical explanation for that observation. The theory was controversial from the beginning. Some religious figures, including Pope Pius XII, embraced it as scientific proof for the Judeo-Christian origin story. There was also an antireligious backlash against the theory, which reportedly was part of the motivation for the rival steady state model [DeWitt 2005, 33]. Lemaître himself struggled with the theological implications of his theory, but came down on the side of separate magisteria: "As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside of any metaphysical or religious question" [Krauss 2005, 9].

Despite Lemaître’s caution, the big bang is still cited by some ID proponents as proof of design. The topic was even broached in the October 16, 2005 episode of the political drama "The West Wing." For example, Hugh Ross [1998, 371] argues that the big bang renders "the design of the universe irrefutable." He makes the erroneous (and perhaps even inflammatory statement) that

Astronomers and physicists widely acknowledge that the only reasonable explanation for the intricately harmonious features of the universe, our solar system, our planet – all ingeniously focused on the requirements for life – is the action and ongoing involvement of a personal, intelligent Creator.

Noted Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe warns that the big bang, "although friendly to a religious point of view, does not forcibly compel that belief" [1996, 246]. However, on the other side of the spectrum, Ross further argues that cosmologies with extra dimensions, such as superstrings, have "important implications for Christian theology, helping to explain certain mysteries and paradoxes that have puzzled biblical scholars for centuries." For example, Ross explains a resurrected Jesus’ ability to pass through walls as "evidence of his extradimensionality" [1998, 370-1]. Although Ross’ claims are among the most extreme examples, other ID proponents have hijacked various aspects of cosmology, including emergence theory and the anthropic principle, as evidence for their point of view. In addition, various cosmologists have used the analogy of Darwinian evolution to describe their hypotheses of the origin of the universe (as opposed to the origin of species), further muddying the waters. Both points will now be illustrated through specific examples.

Post-newtonian science has generally been reductionist in nature – namely, an understanding a system can be reduced to understanding the operation and interaction of its parts. This approach met with widespread success, and led to the acceptance of physicalism, "the belief that all science ultimately reduces to the laws of physics’ [Sawyer 2002, 3]. However, by the twentieth century, it was discovered that some systems cannot simply be reduced to the sum of their parts, but rather have self-organization or emergent properties. These unique properties are different from the properties of the constituents at a more fundamental level. Examples range from something as basic as the hydrogen atom (more than merely a proton and an electron) to the human brain and the universe itself.

Over the decades of the twentieth century, scientists in an increasing number of disciplines (ranging from biology to computer science) as well as philosophers have applied emergence theory to systems of interest. As early as 1926, philosopher Stephen Pepper set out three basic tenets of emergence theory:

1) that there are levels of existence defined in terms of degrees of integration;

2) that there are marks which distinguish these levels from one another and above the degrees of integration;

3) that it is impossible to deduce the marks of a higher level from those of a lower level, and perhaps also (though this is not clear) impossible to deduce marks of a lower level from those of a higher. [241]

Confusion arises because emergent can be used in different contexts. The first is the scientific sense defined above, while the second "has mystical overtones. It implies that the emergent behavior cannot in any way, even in principle, be understood as the combined behavior of its separate parts" [Crick 1994, 11]. This second sense derives from creation myths in which the universe "emerges" into being through the action of an agent or Creator. This is what physicist Marcelo Gleiser refers to as "driven emergence" [2004, 637]. He warns that

As the "driver" in the driven emergence has an implicit supernatural origin, any scientific model of cosmogenesis should fall within the "spontaneous emergence" category. Indeed, it is fair to say that a scientific account of creation attempts precisely to do away with the assumption of a driver who is somehow "outside" physical reality. For science, the first cause must come from within physical reality: the universe must come to be on its own.

It comes as no surprise that some in the creationist/ID community have jumped on emergence theory as "proof" of a Creator. For example, John Templeton and Robert Herrman [1989, 13] claim that

There are deep and powerful ordering forces in the universe. This is especially observed in recent developments in the study of what are called far-from-equilibrium processes, in which it is seen that there are spontaneous transitions within apparently random processes to higher levels of order.

Although it is true that such "chaotic" systems do show emergent properties of order, there is no scientific evidence that this derives from a supernatural driver. Others have claimed that emergence is a philosophical concept rather than a testable, scientific theory. In response, philosopher of science Philip Clayton has proposed the following tenets:

1) Emergence studies will be scientific only if emergence can be explicated in terms that the relevant sciences can study, check, and incorporate into actual theories.

2) Explanations concerning such phenomena must thus be given in terms of the structures and functions of stuff in the world. [2004, 579]

As the universe itself is the greatest "emergent" structure of all, it is not surprising that physicists have used the term to describe various theories of the very early universe. For example, time, space-time, and Einsteinian gravity have all been described as "emergent properties" of the universe [Barceló, Visser, and Liberati 2001; Butterfield and Isham 1998; Clayton 2004]. Various models of the emergence of the universe itself have been proposed, mainly within the framework of the inflationary paradigm [Linde 1987]. The universe is generally pictured as being "spontaneously created from nothing," either through quantum tunneling (nucleation) [Vilenkin 1983 and 1987] or through the "no-boundary" proposal [Hartle and Hawking 1983]. For this reason, inflationary models are frequently called "the ultimate free lunch" [Guth 1997, 1]. Such glib comments have opened up inflationary cosmologies to sharp criticism from the ID community. For example, in his book No Free Lunch (2002), William Dembski called it a "form of magic" and explained its appeal as "the offer of a bargain – indeed an incredible bargain for which no amount of creative accounting can ever square the books. The idea of getting something for nothing has come to pervade science" [368]. After ridiculing cosmology for appealing to this "magic," Dembski offers the salvation of design theory, which

substitutes a designer who explains everything. Magic gets you something for nothing and thus offers a bargain. Design gets you something by presupposing something unimaginably bigger and thus asks you to sell your scientific soul. At least so the story goes. But design can be explanatory without giving away the store. [371]

Despite Dembski’s inflammatory language and glossing over of scientific theory, it is understandable how a popular level audience might be swayed by his "logic." The sometimes amusing language that scientists use to converse within their own community can come back to haunt them when it comes to communication with the general public. For example, the term "quarks" sounds nonsensical enough when taken in isolation, but when these unobservable particles are said to come in "flavors" named up, down, strange, charm, top and bottom (originally truth and beauty), the door is certainly opened for raised eyebrows (if not red flags) from opponents of scientific theories. In the 1980s and 1990s various research groups searching for observational evidence of macroscopic baryonic dark matter candidates (such as brown dwarfs) via microlensing made a veritable game of naming their projects in such a way as to obtain sexually suggestive acronyms, such as MACHO, AGAPE, EROS, DUO, and OGLE. While this can lead to moments of humor in otherwise dry conference presentations, it does nothing to further the reputation of science outside of its own community, and can furthermore play into the hands of its harshest critics.

In 1937, famed physicist Paul Dirac noted a curious relationship between the numerical size of various parameters in the universe, called the large number hypothesis. This was the beginning of a realization that the universe seems to be "fine-tuned" in such a way to make carbon-based life forms possible. For example, if the relative strengths of the fundamental forces were significantly different, stars would not exist or would live too short a span to allow for the development of intelligent life. Various explanations have been proposed by scientists, philosophers, and religious writers. For example, Templeton and Herrman see "in this remarkable ordering of the universe, the hand of a Designer, guiding within narrow limits the direction, magnitude, and timing of each event of the universe, from that staggering explosion billions of years ago to the present" [1989, 68]. Within the scientific sphere, the anthropic principle and multiverse theories are both controversial alternative explanations to fine-tuning by design. As Wilkinson [2001, 147] charges, "they are both metaphysical suggestions. The question is, then, what evidence is there for them."

A scientific discussion of the anthropic principle is best done within the framework of careful definitions, as there are several concepts housed under the "anthropic" umbrella. The most common version of the principle is the so-called "weak" version attributed to Robert Dicke [1961]. Essentially the cause of the fine-tuning of the universe is not explained, other than to say that if the constants were not the values they currently are, we as observers would not be here to observe them. In some ways it explains why intelligent life exists at this point in the universe rather than earlier, in that the conditions (such as the amount of carbon made within stars) necessary for life simply were not met until this point. Some have called the weak anthropic principle (WAP) a tautology with no predictive power, while others claim it is one of many selection effects found in observational physics [Coyne 1993, 162]. It has also been suggested that the WAP could have been used against the steady state cosmology during its long-running debate with the big bang [Barrow and Tipler, 1988, 17].

The strong anthropic principle (SAP) was developed by Brandon Carter [1974] and suggests that the universe had no choice in its fine-tuning because the eventual existence of intelligent observers was a necessity. Rather than to merely note that the fine-tuning of the universe makes our existence possible (the WAP), the SAP seeks to answer "why" the universe is fine-tuned by appealing to our very existence. As speculative (and controversial) as the SAP is considered, even more so are the final anthropic principle (FAP) and participatory anthropic principle (PAP). The former claims that not only is the eventual existence of intelligent life a necessity for the universe, but that once it has arisen it will continue to exist indefinitely. The PAP is related to questions of the role of the observer in collapsing the wave function in quantum mechanics. It claims that because of their role in quantum mechanics, observers are necessary to bring the universe into full existence [Barrow and Tipler, 1988, 22-3]. However, the SAP, FAP, and PAP appear unlikely, as the only form of intelligent observers currently known did not arise until the universe was well over 10 billion years old and well after all its basic structures (such as stars, galaxies, and superclusters) had already been formed [Linde 2004, 427].

Among the physic community, reaction to the anthropic principle(s) includes open hostility and resigned acceptance ("until there’s a better explanation, it will have to do"). In their review of the standard model of the early universe, Kolb and Turner editorialized "It is unclear to one of the authors how a concept as lame as the ‘anthropic idea’ was ever elevated to the status of a principle" [1990, 269]. In the late 1990s, Andrei Linde was warned prior to delivering a conference talk that they "used to throw eggs at anybody who talked about the anthropic principle" [Falk 2004, 44]. Physics Nobel laureate David Gross referred to it as a "virus," while Princeton physicist David Spergel likened it to "intellectual surrender" [Falk 2004,  47]. The anthropic principle even became the subject of parody, with mathematician David Shotwell’s "entomologic principle" (the universe is fine-tuned to produce insects) and Carl Sagan’s "lithic principle" (the universe is fine-tuned to produce rocks) [Silber 1999]. On the other side of the spectrum, the anthropic principle has been used for many years by Stephen Hawking and others to constrain the parameters of various models by selecting out those versions which allow for the existence of observers [4].

Aside from the argument as to whether or not the WAP is a useful scientific principle, there is the well-publicized danger that anthropic arguments could be used as evidence for a Designer [Chaisson 2001, Falk 2004, Wilson 1993]. David Gross warns that "it smells of religion, and like religion, it can’t be disproved" [Falk 2004, 46]. Eric Chaisson [2001, 8] especially takes issue with the SAP, calling it "humankind’s latest attempt to reinstate for itself a special position in the cosmos, to argue for a purposeful design, and thence a Designer, in Nature." Such fears are well-founded. Templeton and Herrmann [1989, 66] call the anthropic principle "perhaps the most powerful recent source for design in the universe," while Ross [1998, 381] credits the anthropic principle with moving research "so conclusively in the direction of design that astronomers who reject design no longer have a scientific basis for their position." "Reformed" atheist Patrick Glynn called the anthropic principle

a major turning point in Western intellectual history… because it really marks the end of the modern period when mechanism was triumphant, when the view of the universe as matter and motion was triumphant. The anthropic principle undercuts that completely… [and] puts the antitheists, the people who are arguing against the existence of God, in a very tough spot. [Silber 1999].

Therefore, like emergence theory and the original big bang model, the anthropic principle has been hijacked by the ID community for its own purposes.

The other major scientific "explanation" for the fine-tuning of the universe is the multiple universe or "multiverse" paradigm. This is a set of theories which derive from inflationary models of cosmology, based on the prediction that in many such models separate inflationary regimes or "pocket universes" will continuously be produced as they nucleate out from the original vacuum state. The collection of all these pocket universes (of which our observed universe is just one) is referred to as a multiverse, and the process by which they form termed eternal inflation [Linde 1990, Garcia-Bellido and Linde 1995, Vilenkin 1995]. A possible explanation for the observed fine-tuning of constants in our pocket universe can be made on statistical grounds. Given a large (possible infinite) sample of pocket universes, there should be a large range of possible combinations of fundamental constant values manifested. In at least one of those pocket universes the combination of constants is appropriate for the formation of intelligent carbon-based life, and this is the pocket universe in which we live.

Members of the ID and religious communities reject multiverse explanations as artificial constructs (ala aether) scientists use to avoid what is suggested to be overwhelming evidence for design [Silber 1999; Schönborn 2005]. Solar physicist Taeil Bai [nd] suggests that "some scientists are more willing to accept the existence of a large number of universes than the existence of God because they want to go as far as possible without invoking God." There is currently debate amongst physicists as to the testability of various multiverse models [Tegmark 2004]. As in the case of the anthropic principle, the charge of "metaphysics" has been levied against the multiverse paradigm. It remains to be seen in both cases whether physicists will come to a consensus regarding both issues; until then, both will remain within the "arsenal" of the ID movement.

Analogies and metaphorical language should be used with caution in science, as previously seen in the example of Lederman’s "God particle." However given the success of evolution in the biological sciences (and despite the problems of "social Darwinism") it was perhaps inevitable that physicists would use the language of evolution to describe theories of cosmic origin and change. For example, Eric Chaisson [2001, 5] defines cosmic evolution as

a search for principles that subsume, and even transcend, Darwinian selection – a unifying law, an underlying pattern, or an ongoing process perhaps, that creates, orders, and maintains all structure in the Universe, in short a search for a principle of cosmic selection.

It is difficult to see how "Darwinian selection" is relevant to theories with one universe, or even in most multiverse theories, where the pocket universes do not interact with each other, let alone compete. There is the also an unspoken assumption of a direction to the process, something that is rejected in mainstream evolutionary theory.

Andrei Linde has used Darwinian terms to describe eternal inflation [Linde 1987; Linde 2004; Garcia-Bellido and Linde 1995]. According to his interpretation, the nucleation of pocket universes may lead to "mutations of the laws of physics" [Linde 2004, 436] which will lead some of these pocket universes to have greater size and therefore the possibility of hosting a larger number of observers. He then refers to a "kind of natural selection of the ‘constants’ of particle physics which lead to a preference for a greater physical volume of those domains which can be occupied by observers of our type" Garcia-Bellido and Linde 1995, 429]. Theoretical physicist Lee Smolin [2005] rejects the analogy, "because each universe in eternal inflation has the same ancestor" and therefore "there is not inheritance and modification parameters analogous to the case of biology."

Smolin [1997] has his own Darwinian cosmology, which views black holes not as singularities, but as doorways to other pocket universes. He argues that in the formation of a black hole, quantum effects prevent the creation of the singularity, and the interior of the black hole instead "bounces," creating a new universe which is hidden behind the black hole’s event horizon. In his model, during each "bounce," fundamental constants "mutate" by a tiny amount. The result is that in each new universe, the likelihood of black holes forming changes, as some mutations are more advantageous for their formation. Therefore, each "child" universe has a different number of progeny universes (i.e. black holes), depending on the mutation of physical constants at its creation ("bounce"). Smolin’s conjecture is that the "fittest" universe (presumably the one we inhabit) is the one which creates the largest number of black holes. Smolin’s model has found little support among colleagues and evoked some serious criticism [Susskind 2004; Rothman and Ellis 1993]. Among the main arguments against this theory is the fact that black holes are now assumed (even by long-time hold out Stephen Hawking) to retain information after they collapse. Therefore even if a black hole were to give birth to another universe, "the quantum state of the offspring is completely unique and can have no memory of the initial state. That would preclude the kind of slow mutation rate envisioned by Smolin" [Susskind 2004]. Smolin’s theory has not escaped the notice of the ID community - it is one of those ideas that Dembski [2002, 368] ridiculed as "magic" in No Free Lunch. As Rothman and Ellis [1993, 204] warned in their critique of Smolin’s work, "Analogies are often useful but just as often dangerous."

In the previous sections we have reviewed the philosophical underpinnings of the relationship between science and religion, focusing on the current issue of Intelligent Design and its assault on science education in the United States. In addition, examples where the ID movement has moved from biology to cosmology (sometimes with the unwitting aid of the scientists) have been explored. Before discussing ways in which the scientific community can openly combat the ID movement through education and outreach, it is important to understand "the prize" being fought over – namely the American public.

It is well-established that belief in pseudoscience is widespread in American culture. A 2001 National Science Foundation poll found that 9% of those polled found astrology "very scientific" and 31% believed it was "sort of scientific" [National Science Board 2004, 7-22]. Belief in visits by extraterrestrials was found by the National Science Board to be at 27% in 1990 and 32% in 2001 [2004, 7-23]. A serious part of the problem appears to be that "since both magic and science produce remarkable results that may seem inexplicable, how can the non scientist be expected to distinguish one from the other?" [Park 2000, 196]. Therefore increased education and science literacy is usually stated as the cure-all for belief in pseudoscience. As defined by Hazen and Trefil [1991, 348], science literacy is "simply what every citizen needs to know to function intelligently in today’s high-tech society." More specifically, D. Allan Bromley, science advisor to former President George H. W. Bush, warned that to "know nothing about the constituents of the atom, the theory of evolution or the genesis of the universe is to be intellectually handicapped in modern society" [Schmidt 1990, 60].

Measures of scientific literacy over the years have given stagnant (and disappointing) results. The National Science Board [2004, 7-3] found that in a 2001 quiz of basic scientific knowledge, on average Americans polled answered 8.2 out of 13 questions correctly and Europeans 7.8. They found that scientific literacy "has remained essentially unchanged since the 1990s, with one exception: more people now know that antibiotics do not kill viruses." Perhaps even more distressing than the lack of factual knowledge is the average American’s lack of understanding of the scientific method. A 2001 NSF poll found that two-thirds of Americans "do not clearly understand the scientific process" [National Science Board 2004, 7-3]. This appears to explain the ability of the purveyors of pseudoscience and outright scam artists to influence the American public.

Another important influence here is the public’s perception of the interplay between science and faith. According to census data, in 1990 86% of Americans self-identified as Christians, with 8% claiming no religion. In the 2001 the figures were 77% and 14% respectively [U.S. Census Bureau 2004]. It is not surprising that in a 2005 poll conducted by Jon D. Miller, 51% of respondents agreed with the statement that "we depend too much on science and not enough on faith." This level of response has remained consistent for many years [National Science Board 2004, 7-24]. As has already been discussed, nowhere is the tension between science and religion more openly felt than in the area of evolutionary biology. A 2001 NSF poll found that 53% of Americans surveyed agreed that "human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals." Although this marked the first time that the affirmative response rate was over 50% to that question, there is little room for celebration. Firstly, the average response rate in Europe is 69% [National Science Board 2004, 7-3]. Secondly, a November 2004 Gallup poll found that support for human evolution was tempered at best. Only 13% of those surveyed believed that God played no role in the evolution of human over millions of years, while 38% believed that God guided the process over millions of years. It is not clear how many of this group are "theistic evolutionists" and how many subscribe to hard core ID beliefs. Nearly half (45%) believed that God created humans in the past 10,000 years in their current form. The same poll found that Americans were evenly split as to whether evolution was "a theory supported by evidence" (35%) or "one of many theories" (35%) [Fraknoi et al. 2005].

Belief in pseudoscience and low scientific literacy are both chronic problems among American college students [Feder 2005; Feder 1984; Duncan, Donnelly and Nicholson 1992; Feder 1985/1986; Eve and Harrold 1986]. A survey of students in general education astronomy-based classes at Central Connecticut State University was conducted in 1994 and 2005 [Larsen 2005]. In 1994, 21% of male students and 50% of female students professed some belief in astrology, while in 2005 the numbers had risen to 34% and 54%. Over the same period of time, basic astronomical literacy had not significantly changed, although on average students had taken an extra half year of science in high school from 1994 to 2005. A similar disconnect between science education and literacy/dismissal of pseudoscience was found in a Gallup poll which found a higher level of belief in UFO visitations among college-educated Americans (51%) than high school drop-outs (48%) [Pigliucci 2002, 265].

Like surveys of adults, a recent Gallup poll of American teenagers has found that the majority agree that humans evolved over millions of years, but only 18% believe that it happened without interference from God, while 43% believed God directed the process. Over a third (38%) agreed that God created humans "as is" in the past 10,000 years [Brumfiel 2005, 1063]. While these numbers are certainly more heartening to the science educator than the corresponding beliefs of American adults at large, it is still important to recognize that a significant proportion of students entering college science classrooms do not believe in human evolution, and may subscribe to ID-like beliefs in other sciences as well.

Woods and Scharmann [2001] interviewed 49 high school students in order to probe their attitudes concerning evolution and science education. They found that 35% of the students "generally accept" evolution, 6% "accepted it with conditions," and 29% admitted lacking sufficient knowledge or understanding or were generally unsure. Several of the students who rejected evolution because of perceived conflicts with their religious views had similar coping mechanisms:

"I study it for the test, but it doesn’t change my belief."

"I just learn it, I don’t have to accept it. I just learn it."

"I pay attention but then I just don’t believe what they say even although they have theories."

College science educators would do well to consider the fact that one-third of their students might be saying the very same things behind their back.

If the increasing inroad the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center is making in creating new chapters on college campuses is any indication, then college science teaching is in serious need of reconsideration. Saperstein [2005, 2] warns that

Many of our students finish their undergraduate careers possessed of a split brain – at least with respect to science. They can pass enough of the required science courses to get their degree, but refuse to make the -supposedly learned- science a foundation for their out-of-school lives.

Hazen and Trefil [1991, 348] charge that at the crux of the problem is that science education currently reflects "what the scientific establishment wants to teach" rather than "what the nonscientist needs." Science faculty are

obsessed with the idea of "covering" the material and end up with no time to teach students how science is really done… it conveys the message that science is as boring as reading the yellow pages … [and] reinforces the idea that science is about results that somehow -more or less magically- come out of people who are dressed in white coats and are involved in mysterious activities. No appreciation for the process of science is developed.

It is no wonder, then, that the scientific literacy and understanding of science process by the average American is woefully low.

A troublesome, pervasive "urban legend" on college campuses is that good teachers are good researchers and vice versa [Terezini and Pascarella 1994]. Empirical evidence does not appear to support the assertion that instructional effectiveness and scholarly productivity are connected [Feldman 1987]. This is certainly not to minimize the benefit of scholarly activity to the faculty member himself/herself. Perhaps we should replace the "good teacher=good researcher" myth with one that has at least anecdotal evidence on its side; namely that the experience of teaching non-major courses can be beneficial to good researchers. David Permutter, Senior Fellow of the Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs, reflects that

Preparing to teach an entry-level course can help us clarify our thoughts about our field. We encounter new audiences who have little inkling, and may even harbor misconceptions, about topics to which we have devoted our lives. It’s quite easy for research specialists to become hypnotized by our own agendas, and to find our prejudices and prescriptions reified and fetishized by a narrow cohort of fellow specialists…. Also, rather than an exercise in dumbing down or oversimplifying, teaching the intro class forces me to explain and justify what I do more clearly…. Another colleague argues that "teaching the basic course is harder for me than teaching a seminar in my own areas – there’s more to learn and relearn. It’s not a no-brainer by any means." [2004, C4]

Certainly college science education can benefit from such a perspective. Therefore the most productive strategy would be to put the best teachers in the general education classroom, regardless of their academic rank or publication record, and to openly support faculty members who want to bring their research experience into the classroom in a pedagogically sound way. In addition, quality teaching must be given serious consideration in the promotion and tenure process. This is an increasing problem at public universities whose stated mission is primarily teaching, but

where the road to promotion and tenure is publishing. The result is a schizophrenic role for the university professor, who literally has to serve two masters, one of which is (unofficially) much more powerful than the other. Where do you think his allegiances will go? [Pigliucci 2002, 262]

An undeniable foundation for quality science teaching is critical thinking. Fraknoi [2003, 154] argues that "helping our students to do more critical thinking about and real testing of controversial ideas may be one of the most important things we can do to equip them for life after college." But teaching critical thinking as an abstract concept is not sufficient to combat the invasive influence of pseudoscience in our culture. As Feder advocates, "We need to show the differences between the methodology of science and pseudoscience, and to explicitly examine the extreme claims related to our fields" [December 1985, 185]. Numerous examples exist of college science courses which integrate a critical study of pseudoscience into their curriculum [5]. However, instructors should be sensitive to the religious beliefs of their students, and try to avoid using examples of tenets from the major world religions as examples of pseudoscientific beliefs (such as resurrection and reincarnation). The same methodology can be used to critically analyze why creation science and Intelligent Design fail as a scientific theories [Pigliucci 2002; Wilson 2002]. Note that this is different from the "teach both and let the students decide" curriculum currently on trial in Pennsylvania.

But it is not only in the college science classroom that academics have a responsibility to educate. Pigliucci [2002, 274] issues a challenge to his fellow to scientists to

come down from the Ivory tower! It is high time for scientists to take seriously their role in their communities and give more back to them…. Scientists who don’t give back to the community in some tangible way should start thinking of themselves as social parasites….

One of the most pressing arenas where the talents of more scientists are sorely needed is educating the public about pseudoscience in general, and ID in particular. However, a 2003 poll of scientists found that 42% did not engage in any public outreach [National Science Board 2004, 7-4]. By comparison, an online survey of 1142 amateur astronomers found that 37% did not engage in public outreach [Storksdieck et al. 2002]. When asked why they did not participate in public outreach, 76% of the scientists in the 2003 poll cited lack of time, while 28% lacked the desire, and 17% simply "did not care." That scientists lack the time to engage in productive public outreach should come as no surprise. For although increasingly service in the form of public outreach is cited among the responsibilities of college professors, an equitable reward system has not been put into place. Pigliucci laments that quality undergraduate teaching and public outreach "are the most immediate contributions a scientist can make [to the community], and they are also those that receive respectively the lowest and no priority at all because of the way our system of rewards is set up" [2002, 275].

Another roadblock in the participation of scientists in public outreach (especially those who are not in academia) is a lack of experience and finesse in communicating science to a non-technical audience. The same lack of time, rewards, and "knack" have lead to a dearth of well-written, engaging science books for the general reader. Rather than another dozen tomes in the spirit of A Brief History of Time, relegated to the coffee table for the appearance of erudition, the scientific community needs for those who have the talent of accessibility to

write articles for national magazines or work on an occasional book for the general public. It would not be necessary for a few people to do as much as a Carl Sagan, Stephen Gould, or Richard Dawkins if more people would bother writing for the public at least once in a while. [Pigliucci 2002, 275]

If scientists continue to hide "behind a curtain of specialized vocabulary spoken by condescending practitioners," the battle for the hearts and minds of the American public will be won by the ID movement with relatively little effort on their part [Knott 1994, 96].

It has become painfully clear that scientists in general, and science educators in particular, "cannot afford to ignore the efforts of creation-scientists: like it or not, the movement has tainted the perceptions of science and religion that students bring to the classroom" [Sakimoto 1990, 243]. Part of the problem has been that the science community has been fearful of engaging the ID community in open debate lest the attention lend more credibility to the movement [Orr 2005, 40]. But as Michael Shermer warned nearly a decade ago, "this New Creationism, regardless of how long it lasts before it mutates into another form, is supportive of my claim that the creationists are not going to go away, and that scientists cannot afford to ignore them" [1997, xx].

In addition, given the fact that the vast majority of Americans are self-described Christians, and even among those who believe in evolution the vast majority believe that the process was guided by the hand of God, scientists need to begin by taking away the emotional appeal of the ID movement. Scientists need to include either a NOMA (no conflict) or harmonious viewpoint of the science/religion question into their own explanations of the issues, whether it be in the college science classroom or in dealings with the general public. But in truth, religion is no stranger to the scientific community. A survey of American scientists conducted in 1997 found that "40% believed in a personal God, the same number as was found in similar surveys conducted in 1914 and 1933" [Fraknoi et al. 2004, 17]. A good place to start may be for scientists to feel freer to admit to their own faith, and show the public by example that science and faith can exist within one individual without sacrificing the scientific method. For example, physicist Bryce DeWitt [2005, 33] explained that "I have never felt a conflict between my sensitivity to the King James Bible and my beliefs as a physicist. I am a theoretical physicist and it is common knowledge that theoretical physicists often start out as amateur theologians. They want to understand the whole of reality, and they begin by studying cosmology – the most obvious starting point."

On their part, scientists need to be more cognizant of the power of language, and avoid falling into the hands of their critics through sloppy use of metaphor and analogy. Instead, they should share the wonders of the natural universe and the excitement of the scientific method through effective and enthusiastic communication with the general public. In doing so, both the public and the scientific community will be well-served, and hopefully future polls of pseudoscience belief and science literacy will better reflect what we expect of a technological society.

[1] Buddhism is an example of a religion which does not acknowledge the existence of a supreme deity. Because of this, some authors prefer to classify Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion.

[2] See for example, Pigliucci (2002), Scott (2004), Perakh (2004), Young and Edis (2004), Dawkins (1986), and Talkdesign.org.

[3] As early as 1999, Schönborn’s name was floated as a possible successor to John Paul. See Allen, Jr. (1999).

[4] See for example Hawking and Turok (1998).

[5] See for example Thwaites and Awbrey (1982), Keeports and Morier (1994), Howes and Watson (1981), Zeilik II (1973), Kruglak and O’Bryan (1977), LoPresto (2002), Fraknoi (2003), and Feder and Larsen (2004).

 References:

Adam, David (July 27, 2005) Plan for Dalai Lama Lecture Angers Neuroscientists. The Guardian. www.guardian.co.uk/religion/story/0,2763,1536642,00.html Accessed September 8, 2005.

Albrecht, Andreas (October 1994) The Theory of Everything vs. the Theory of Anything. arXiv:gr-qc/9408023

Allen, Jr. John L (October 15, 1999) Five Europeans Who Could Be Pope. National Catholic Reporter. http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/documents/JA10-15.htm Accessed October 15, 2005.

American Association of Physics Teachers (2005) AAPT Statement on the Teaching of Evolution and Cosmology. Physics and Society 34(3), 12-13.

Anderson, Lisa (August 7, 2005) Museum Exhibits a Creationist Viewpoint. Chicago tribune www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chi-0508070365aug07,1,4842450.story?coll=chi-news-hed Accessed August 8, 2005

American Physical Society (1997) APS Reaffirms 1981 Statement on Creationism. APS News 6(5) 3,

Arnhart, Larry. (2001). Evolution and the New Creationism. Skeptic 8(4), 46-52

Associated Press (August 19, 2005) Frist Voices Support foe "intelligent design." MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9008040, Accessed October 11, 2005.

Bai, Taeil A. (nd) Accident or Design? http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/design.pdf Accessed September 15, 2005.

Barceló, Carlos, Matt Visser, and Stefano Liberati (2001) Einstein Gravity as an Emergent Phenomenon? International Journal of Modern Physics D 10(6) 799-806.

Barrow, John D. and Frank J. Tipler (1988) The Anthropic Principle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Behe, Michael J. (1996) Darwin’s Black Box. New York: Touchstone.

Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005) Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long time Scales. Astronomy Education Review 4(1) aer.noao.edu/figures/Issue7/7-4-3.pdf

Botanical Society of America (July 23, 2003) Botanical Society of America’s Statement on Evolution. www.botany.org/newsite/announcements/evolution.php . Accessed September 5, 2005

Brooks, Rosa (August 27, 2005) Not Your Daddy’s Creationists. Los Angeles Times. www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks27aug27,0,6635626.story. Accessed August 29, 2005.

Brumfiel, Geoff (2005) Who Has Designs on Your Students’ Minds? Nature 434: 1062-5.

Butterfield, J. and C.J. Isham (December 13, 1998) On the Emergence of Time in Quantum Gravity. arXiv:gr-qc/9901024

Carter, Brandon (1974) Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology. In Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data: Copernicus Symposium 2, M. S. Longair (eds). Dordrecht: D. Reidel 291-298.

Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (1997) The Wedge Strategy. www.public.asu.edu/~jmlynch/idt/wedge.html. Accessed September 1, 2005.

Chaisson, Eric (2001) Cosmic Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Chopra, Deepak. http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2005/08/intelligent_des_1.html Intelligent Design without the Bible - Part I August 24, 2005 at 11:32 PM Accessed October 11, 2005

Clayton, Philip D. (2004) Us From It. In Science and Ultimate Reality, John D. Barrow, Paul C. Davies, and Charles L. Harper, Jr. (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 577-606.

Coyne, S.J., George (1993) Some Theological Reflections on the Anthropic Principle. In F. Bertola and U. Curi, eds, The Anthropic Principle, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 161-70.

Crick, Francis (1994) The Astonishing Hypothesis. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso (2005) The Universe in a Single Atom. New York: Morgan Road Books.

Dalton, Alastair (September 2, 2002) Clash of the Atom-smashing Academics. The Scotsman, 3.

Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon (1993) Of Pandas and People, 2^nd ed. Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co.

Dawkins, Richard (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton.

Dean, Cornelia (March 19, 2005) A New Test for IMAX: The Bible vs. the Volcano. New York Times, A11.

Dean, Cornelia and Laurie Goodstein (July 9, 2005) Leading Cardinal Redefines Church’s View on Evolution. www.nytimes.com/2005/07/09/science/09cardinal.html Accessed September 5, 2005.

Dembski, William A. (1998a) The Design Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dembski, William A. (1998b) Introduction: Mere Creation. In William Dembski, (ed) Mere Creation. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 13-30.

Dembski, William A. (2002) No Free Lunch. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Dembski, William A (June 2002) Skepticism’s prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design. www.designinference.com/documents/2002.06.Skepticism_CSICOP.htm Accessed September 1, 2005

DeWitt, Bryce (January 2005) God’s Rays, Physics Today, 32-4.

Dicke, Robert H. (1961) Dirac's Cosmology and Mach's Principle. Nature, 192, 440-441.

Dirac, P. A. M.(1937) "The Cosmological Constants." Nature 139, 323

Duncan, David F., J. William Donnelly and Thomas Nicholson (1992) Belief in the Paranormal and Religious Belief Among American College Students. Psychological Reports 70(1) 15-18.

Ellis, George F.R. (July 2005) Physics and the Real World. Physics Today. 49-54.

Epstein, David (July 28, 2005) Dissing the Dalai Lama. Inside Higher Education. www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/07/28/dalai Accessed September 10, 2005.

Eve, Raymond A. and Francis B. Harrold (1986) Creationism, Cult Archaeology, and Other Pseudoscientific Beliefs. Youth and Society 17(4) 396-421.

Falk, Dan (March 2004) The Anthropic Principle’s Surprising Resurgence. Sky and Telescope, 43-7.

Feder, Kenneth L. (December 1985/January 1986) The Challenges of Pseudoscience. Journal of College Science Teaching, 180-6.

Feder, Kenneth L (1984) Irrationality and Popular Archaeology. American Antiquity 49(3) 525-41.

Feder, Kenneth L. (2005) Skeptics, Fence-Sitters and True Believers: Student Acceptance of an Improbable Prehistory. In G. Fagan, ed. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Oxford: Routledge.

Feder, Kenneth and Kristine Larsen (2004) Science and Pseudoscience: Syllabus www.physics.ccsu.edu/larsen/hon_120_syllabus.htm

Feldman, K.A. (1987) Research Productivity and Scholarly Accomplishment of College Teachers as Related to Their Instructional Effectiveness: A Review and Exploration. Research in Higher Education, 27: 227-298.

Fraknoi, A., G. Greenstein, B. Partridge, and J. Percy (2004) The Ancient Universe. Washington, DC: American Astronomical Society.

Fraknoi, Andrew (2005) The Challenge of Creationism and Intelligent Design: An Introduction. Astronomy Education Review 4(1) aer.noao.edu/figures/Issue7/7-4-2.pdf

Fraknoi, Andrew (2003) Dealing with Astrology, UFOs, and Faces on Other Worlds: A Guide to Addressing Astronomical Pseudosciences in the Classroom. Astronomy Education Review 2(2) 150-60. http://aer.noao.edu/AERArticle.php?issue=4&section=4&article=1

Garcia-Bellido, Juan, and Andrei Linde (1995) Stationarity of Inflation and Predictions of Quantum Cosmology. Physical Review D 51(2) 429-43.

Gleiser, Marcelo (2004) The Three Origins: Cosmos, Life, and Mind. In Science and Ultimate Reality, John D. Barrow, Paul C. Davies, and Charles L. Harper, Jr. (eds). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 637-53.

Goodstein, Laurie (August 31, 2005) Teaching Creationism is Endorsed in New Survey. New York Times. www.nytimes.com/2005/08/31/national/31religion.html

Gould, Stephen Jay (1999) Rocks of Ages. New York: Ballantine.

Gribbin, John (1986) In Search of the Big Bang. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Griffin, David Ray (2000) Religion and Scientific Naturalism. Albany, NY: Suny Press.

Guth, Alan (1997) The Inflationary Universe. Reading, MA: Helix Books

Hartle, J.B. and S.W. Hawking (1983) Wavefunction of the Universe. Physical Review D 28(12) 2960-75.

Hawking, Stephen W. (1988) A Brief History of Time. Toronto: Bantam Books.

Hawking, Stephen W. (1993) Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays. New York: Bantam Books

Hawking, Stephen W., ed (1992) Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time a Reader’s Companion. New York: Bantam Books.

Hawking, S.W. and Neil Turok (1998) Open Inflation without False Vacua. Physics Letters B425, 25-32

Hazen, Robert M. and James Trefil (April 1991) Astronomical Literacy. Sky and Telescope, 348.

Heneghan, Tom (September 5, 2005) Top Cardinal Raps Intolerance in Evolution Debate. www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=32346 Accessed September 15, 2005.

Howes, Ruth and James Watson, Jr. (November 1981) Science and Pseudoscience: A Course for the Citizen of the Twenty-First Century. Journal of College Science Teaching, 105-7.

Hughes, Stuart W. (1982) The Fact and the Theory of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher 44(1), 25-32.

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (nd) Purpose and Mission. www.ideacenter.org/about/mission.php Accessed September 29, 2005.

Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (nd) Start a Club. www.ideacenter.o