Should Science And Religion Cuddle?

Across the pond, Matthew Reisz has written a long, rambling piece for Times Higher Education about the need for science and religion to make nice. Ophelia Benson and Jerry Coyne have already provided extensive critiques of the piece.

Reisz relies heavily on the view of Karl Giberson, physics professor at Eastern Nazarene College in Massachusetts:

“[Steven] Weinberg sees only the negative side of religion,” he suggests, “not so much in terms of wrong ideas but as a consistent force for evil. Religious people can’t help wondering where he gets that impression….”

Giberson shouldn’t have to rack his brains too much for an answer. He can find a wonderful example on the website of his own college’s sponsoring church:

The Church of the Nazarene believes that every man or woman should be treated with dignity, grace, and holy love, whatever their sexual orientation. However, we continue to firmly hold the position that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful and is contrary to the Scriptures.

Earlier today Google Alert brought to my attention another article about science and religion making nice. It’s from a newspaper in Victoria, Texas. I think it’s a great illustration of how this whole idea gets played out in the middle of the country:

Science and Theology [sic] are two complementary disciplines, seeking to answer different types of questions. Science deals with the “how,” and theology with the “why.” Science makes our personal faith more exciting, interesting and rewarding.

Sounds very reasonable. Giberson should be quite happy. Then we get this:

Evolution is not really a science at all; it is a philosophy. Evolution must be believed; it cannot be observed. It is a matter of faith, not science.

This is what we can expect when science backs down.