Rock of Ages

Whose science?

ROCK OF AGES
Science and Religion in the fullness of life
By Stephen Jay Gould
Jonathan Cape. 240 pages. £14.99
ISBN 0 224 06092 9

Professor S.J. Gould died earlier this year and is probably best known for his book Wonderful Life. He was a strong proponent of evolution, though also in conflict with Darwinians for some of his views. However, he was an engaging man in his presentations, whether oral or written, and in this book he interacts well with his readers.

He was not a religious man himself (he describes himself as an agnostic) though he claims to have great respect for religion. He acknowledges that, for some, religion is an important part of life. But his thesis here is that science and religion have separate domains in which they can operate. He coined the expression non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA). He defines these domains or magisteria as that of science covering the empirical realm - the facts and theory - and religion covering questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. Readers of this review will readily appreciate some of the flaws in such a distinction! He claims (pages 59, 63) that these magisteria have equal status but are independent domains. The chief principle of NOMA (page 162) is that 'factual truth ... cannot dictate, or even imply, moral truth'. He sums up his thesis on page 175, advocating that not only are the two independent approaches to life possible but are essential. But the rules of the conflict are, it seems, to be set by the scientists!

Gould uses the Lord's words in John 20.29 to describe the fundamental difference - in his view - between science and religion: Thomas passed the test (to use Gould's wording) because he saw the evidence (science), whereas he should have believed (religion). However, we would turn the argument round on Gould and point out that the text also shows that faith does not exclude evidence. Again, when commenting on Psalm 8, he gives a false interpretation (pages 178-179), ignoring the New Testament's own exposition.

Sometimes he sounds like an evangelical! For example (page 21), 'The natural world cannot contradict Scripture (for God, as the author of both, cannot speak against himself).' So, when it comes to, say the 'days of creation' (pages 21-22), we have the natural world that cannot lie but words that can convey many meanings. In this particular example, as with Christian evolutionists, he proposes that the days refer to long periods of time. Of course, the area of miracles is one that cannot be properly entertained under his thesis (page 83), which is where this and other dilemmas find their answer. Gould also falls into the classic trap of confusing the facts (the fossil record) and the interpretation (page 94) and so condemns creationists for intruding outside their domain. (He does also criticise extremists among scientists who resent the interference of morals - religion - into their domain). He spends quite a bit of time later in the book dealing with the conflict with creationism. He describes scientific creationism as a deception. Though this is a hard conclusion and not entirely justified, it is an approach used in America because of their particular political system. British and European creationists prefer the concept of biblical creationism. Not that this prevents the interaction of creationists with the scientific processes; quite the opposite.

I was amazed to see someone of his scientific standing falling into the trap of using so-called 'junk DNA' as an example of a problem to Bible-believers. This refers to the large proportion of our DNA (the chemical name for our genetic information) which does not (apparently) programme for the production of protein, which in turn controls our physiological activity. For several years now, it has been demonstrated that this is an example of our ignorance, as with the concept of vestigial organs a century ago. Regularly the scientific press is publishing papers showing that this 'non-coding DNA' (the preferred term now) has specific and life-critical functions.

Readers of EN will find interesting parallels between Gould's NOMA and the approach postulated by our own Prof. D. Mackay on 'complementarity'. The weakness in both approaches is the same. While we can talk in terms of physical and moral realms, the two do interact. Going back to Gould's particular example of Creation, Genesis 1-3 do have something to say about the material world and its origins. We must seek to expound the passage correctly, but we cannot say that God was not involved in the miraculous way the passage claims. But if He was, then we must ask how that affects our scientific observations. This will go through the whole of Scripture wherever it interacts with the material world.

Science and Religion in the fulness of life

Whose science?

JHJP

Main Articles

Other articles