About the Forum||Journals||FPP Online||Contributor Information||Board Members||Order Forms||Contact||

|| Back to Forum on Public Policy Online||Fall 2006 || Winter 2007 || Spring 2007 || Summer 2007 ||

Summer 2009: Table of Contents

|Digital Age||Fighting Terrorism||Issues in Education||Literature||Science and Religion||Social Justice||Three Cultures||Women and Leadership||

Science and ReligionBack to top

• Science and Religion Since Darwin The “Fairness” Issue in the Evolution-Creation Debate Voicesfrom an American Community College and the Blogosphere
  Paul A. Billeter and Danielle M. Quill
• Darwin, the Galapagos and God:  A Biologist’s Journey and Dilemmas
  Patricia T. Bradt and Rev. Peter A. Pettit
• The Scientific Method through the Lens of Neuroscience; From Willis to Broad
  J. Lanier Burns, Professor, Dallas Theological Seminar
• The River of Life: A Genetic Perspective on Macroevolution
  Sankar Chatterjee, Paul Whitfield Horn Professor of Geosciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock
• Thedocracy: Christian Universities and Muslim Students
  Gregg A. Chenoweth, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Olivet Nazarene University
• Meme-Splicing: Promoting in Science Virtues and Behaviors Traditionally Associated with Other Cultures
  Matthew William Pankhurst Griffiths, Coordinator of Physics, University of New Haven
• A Legal Perspective on Conflicts Involving Religious Communities
  Scott C. Idleman, Professor, Marquette University Law School
• A Discourse on No Discourse 9/11: Western Intellectuals and Muslim Intellectuals
  Husain Kassim, Department of Philosophy, University of Central Florida
• Shura/Consultation: A Strategy For Governance
  Donald Francisco Casanova Mansir, Associate Professor, Saint Mary’s College of California
• Building Bridges across Meaning Systems: Creating Democracy with Christianity and Islam in a Post-Darwinian World
  Mark S. Markuly, Dean, School of Theology and Ministry, Seattle University
• Gateway to Cultural Evolution—The Catholic Church in Jiangmen, China
  Isabella Notar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History, Mount Saint Mary’s University
• The Cosmological Inversion: Sacred and Secular Constructs of “Faith” and “Belief”
  John Roemischer, State University of New York, Plattsburgh, Adjunct Lecturer, Retired
• The Empire of God and Evolution
  John Wickham, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX

Science and Religion Since Darwin The “Fairness” Issue in the Evolution-Creation Debate Voicesfrom an American Community College and the Blogosphere
Paul A. Billeter and Danielle M. Quill

Abstract
Proponents of teaching Intelligent Design and Creationism in public schools often use “fairness” as a rationale. Attitudes of freshmen non-major biology students regarding the fairness of the opposite proposition, i.e. teaching evolution in churches, was surveyed. For contrast, an online debate on the same question at a conservative website was examined as well. The two groups applied a different standard of fairness to integrating Darwinism in a religious setting than that which they applied to integrating creationism into public academic settings. Fairness was not viewed as symmetrical. Their views are varied but the mandatory nature of attending school versus the optional nature of attending church was expressed frequently. It seems the Free Exercise Clause is sacred while the Establishment Clause is malleable. Addressing both creation and evolution concurrently using constructivist active learning is advocated. 

Darwin, the Galapagos and God:  A Biologist’s Journey and Dilemmas
Patricia T. Bradt and Rev. Peter A. Pettit

  Abstract
Why do fascinating organisms inhabit the Galapagos? Plants and animals colonized these geologically new islands and radiated into open ecological niches. The organisms arrived by chance: enduring swimming, flying or floating across 960 km of open ocean. Giant tortoises occupied the herbivorous mammal niche and the surviving finches and mocking birds exploited new avian niches. The indigenous flora and fauna evolved from those pioneer organisms with genes enabling adaptation to their new environment. These genetically advantaged organisms left more progeny, developed into new species and populated the islands with species found nowhere else on earth.  Observing these unique forms causes a biologist to ponder if and how God created these creatures. Did God just initiate the process and let it proceed, as detailed by Darwin and others?  The results are the development of the Galapagos biota that provides excitement not only for biologists but also for all who cherish the natural world. Can science or religion answer these questions? Theist biologists and theologians address these dilemmas. An evolutionary theology and metaphysics of the future may provide guidance. However, these questions will continue to challenge those who revere all earth’s creations, no matter how they got here.

The Scientific Method through the Lens of Neuroscience; From Willis to Broad
J. Lanier Burns, Professor, Dallas Theological Seminar

Abstract:
In an age of unprecedented scientific achievement, I argue that the neurosciences are poised to transform our perceptions about life on earth, and that collaboration is needed to exploit a vast body of knowledge for humanity’s benefit. The scientific method distinguishes science from the humanities and religion. It has evolved into a professional, specialized culture with a common language that has synthesized technological forces into an incomparable era in terms of power and potential to address persistent problems of life on earth. When Willis of Oxford initiated modern experimentation, ecclesial authorities held intellectuals accountable to traditional canons of belief. In our secularized age, science has ascended to dominance with its contributions to progress in virtually every field. I will develop this transition in three parts.
First, modern experimentation on the brain emerged with Thomas Willis in the 17th Century. A conscientious Anglican, he postulated a “corporeal soul,” so that he could pursue cranial research. He belonged to a gifted circle of scientifically minded scholars, the Virtuosi, who assisted him with his Cerebri anatome. He coined a number of neurological terms, moved research from the traditional humoral theory to a structural emphasis, and has been remembered for the arterial structure at the base of the brain, the “Circle of Willis.”
Second, the scientific method is briefly described as a foundation for understanding its development in neuroscience. Scientists now are necessarily professionals, who are credentialed and are engaged in scientific specialties. This section of the paper is sometimes referred to as the “heroic period” for its noteworthy pioneers. Their accomplishments paved the way for unprecedented growth in the neurosciences at the end of the 20th Century. Two illustrations demonstrate a preoccupation with brain (neuron doctrine) and mind (development of psychology) throughout the maturation stage. The neuron doctrine was formulated by creative use of cellular stains and improved microscopy: Ramón y Cajal, Golgi, Nissl, Weigert, Waldeyer, and Sherrington. Early options for the subject of psychology as science were consciousness (Wundt, James) and unconsciousness (Freud, Jung). In their wake were Gestalt (Wertheimer, Koffke, Köhler), behaviorism (Watson, Skinner), and mechanical intelligence. In the mid-20th century psychologists questioned a partitive approach to the mind and non-empirical theories. Governmental support for scientific research led to technology that dramatically expanded the neurosciences. The issues of the mind and neurophysiology have synthesized into the cognitive neurosciences, which are concerned with the biological substrates of mental processes and their behavioral manifestations.
Third, how does the world marshal neuroscientific and genetic breakthroughs to serve its urgent problems? The collaborations of the past point to the need for an institutional hub to coordinate the resources at our disposal. The Broad Institute was founded in 2004 to transform medicine through molecular knowledge. Its goals are holistic, so it adds a bodily dimension to the traditional mind/brain focuses of neuroscience. This collaborative model is very promising for the kinds of challenges that we face today. The paper has presented some information to show us that the scientific method has created distinctive academic disciplines with a common language. Accordingly, a neuroscientist is a professional practitioner in a specialty that seeks to advance our understanding of mind/brain/body connections through research, medicine, and the affiliations that sponsor collaboration in the field.     

The River of Life: A Genetic Perspective on Macroevolution
Sankar Chatterjee, Texas Tech University, Lubbock

Abstract
The genetic mechanisms that might have triggered the macroevolutionary events throughout the geological record, the sudden and spectacular radiations of certain clades both in the seas and on land, remain elusive.  The patterns of the fossil record document the emergence of nine major macroevolutionary events or dynasties: (1) eucaryans, (2) metazoans, (3) embryophytes, (4) angiosperms, (5) craniates, (6) gnathostomes, (7) teleosts, (8) neognaths, and (9) eutherians.  Such big leaps in evolution required enrichment and expansion of gene pools.  A synthesis in paleontology, genetics, and developmental biology recognizes several genetic mechanisms that might be linked to macroevolutionary events.  In this paper I hypothesize that macroevolution occurs via macrogenesis, a different set of genetic mechanism than the point mutation of microevolution.  These macrogenesis agents are powerful facilitators of genome evolution in living organisms that include horizontal gene transfer (HGT), endosymbiosis, hybridization, and polyploidization for generating variation. They create new body plans, morphological innovation, phenotypic diversity, and taxon richness.  The primary strategy employed here is to look for correlations between a macroevolutionary event and its likely macrogenesis agent.  Although geographic isolation is not necessary for macrogenesis, its effect in small isolated peripheral populations is intense as they can cause genetic changes of great magnitude and variety in a drastic evolutionary acceleration.  Among various agents of macrogenesis, the most prevalent mechanism appears to be gene duplication in supplying raw material for macroevolution.  Macroevolution can be analyzed as a three-step process, interspersed with intervals of millions of years: (1) origin of a higher clade by macrogenesis; (2) an interim stabilizing process called phylogenetic fuse; and (3) rapid cladogenesis or evolutionary explosion, mediated by developmental genetics.  Delay between origination of higher taxa and their subsequent phylogenetic fuse and explosive evolution indicates that macroevolutionary pattern depends on survival and adaptation of newly acquired genes, biological potential, regulatory gene networks, and ecological opportunity.  The tempo of macroevolution is episodic, fast during the origination of a clade and its eventual cladogenesis, which are separated by a slow pace of phylogenetic fuse regime.  Macrogenesis changes the topology of The Tree of Life, which is a powerful metaphor in Darwinian evolution to portray the divergence of life from a common ancestor.  Recent molecular phylogeny has produced a three-trunked tangled tree of ancient microbes at the deepest level of phylogeny—bacteria, archaea, and eucarya—where the branches recurrently fuse and divide like a river, driven by horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis.  The topology of the tangled tree continues upward in the multicellular level, where the tree branches fuse recurrently during the macroevolutionary explosion events by macrogenesis.  A tree reconstructed from combined phylogeny of genes and fossils cannot fully represent the patterns and processes of history of life.  A better metaphor to portray the branching and fusion pattern of macroevolution of life would be The River of Life—a braided river system in preference to a conventional tree, because the branches of a river form a network by lateral anastomoses, while each branch of a tree stands free.

Thedocracy: Christian Universities and Muslim Students
Gregg A. Chenoweth, Vice President for Academic Affairs, Olivet Nazarene University

Abstract
Few cultural institutions so potently foster free thought and speech, appreciation for others unlike self, and community service as higher education. As such, universities catalyze democracy. One calls them the “Messiah” of that cause. Christian universities in particular, though not designed as political or religiously pluralist entities, assist democracy under theological warrant. This convergence of theology and democracy make Christian campuses a venue in “thedocracy” for moderating social problems. This paper develops the thedocracy construct, then applies it to the politicized strain between Islam and America. Christian schools often fail to contribute either because American Muslims are off their radar, numbering under 1% of the U.S. population, or comity is perceived unnatural to their religious mission. This project analyzed admission policies among all 111 CCCU member institutions and found 16, or 1 in 7, limit enrollment to Christian applicants. Thedocracy is proposed through open admission, socially conservative campus environments, campus evangelism emphasized on free will and human dignity.

Meme-Splicing: Promoting in Science Virtues and Behaviors Traditionally Associated with Other Cultures
Matthew William Pankhurst Griffiths, Coordinator of Physics, University of New Haven

Abstract

In this paper I ask “What do other cultures do well that Science could learn lessons from?” and I find a rich vein of examples in Religion where many traditionally extra-scientific activities practiced and different virtues are stressed. I present the results of exercises where I have envisioned a culture of Science engineered to include these elements. I see that it could be possible to have a Science with: a strong emphasis on the personal; an emphasis on the practice of faith (as willful exercise and learning tool); and the incorporation of ceremony, liturgy, and possibly even godless prayer. The need for a new or improved subjective language is identified and open questions are then raised about: the appropriateness of incorporating these behaviors and virtues in Science; and the ways religious or other memes could be spliced into the scientific code. Underlying this paper is the long view of cultural development, fifty years ago C.P. Snow agitated for a change in non scientific cultures, I am advocating a revision of our own scientific culture to ensure that it can thrive fifty years into the future.

A Legal Perspective on Conflicts Involving Religious Communities
Scott C. Idleman, Professor, Marquette University Law School

Abstract
Within any given state or society, numerous factors can influence both relations among religious communities and relations between these communities and other institutions or value systems, including scientific communities, schools of economic or legal thought, and various ideological or political movements.  Though some of these factors obviously arise from within the beliefs and structures of the religions themselves, many arise from the history, political culture, and legal framework of the state or society in which a given religious community is situated.
         This paper discusses the potential role of law and the legal system in influencing these relations and addressing conflicts among these communities and institutions.  After explaining in general terms the relevance of a legal perspective to the assessment and resolution of such disagreements, the paper specifically examines characteristics of the constitutional framework and political culture of the United States that appear to prevent or minimize conflicts involving religious communities.

A Discourse on No Discourse 9/11: Western Intellectuals and Muslim Intellectuals
Husain Kassim, Department of Philosophy, University of Central Florida

ABSTRACT
The main contention of this article is to show that the discourse on terrorism prompted by 9/11 by the Western intellectuals remains within what I call a ‘Eurocentric’ framework without understanding the real cause of so-called ‘Islamic terrorism’. Correspondingly, the Muslim intellectuals have led their discourse within what I call an ‘Islamocentric’ perspective with no configuration of the Western ideology. As a result, the discourse from both sides ends in no discourse.
Our discussion of these intellectuals is selective, confined to the Western intellectuals Virilio and Baudrillard, who maintain that the cause of terrorism is Western scientific-technological progress devoid of human values and Nussbaum, Habermas and Derrida, who in order to resolve the issue, use ideas of universal values, cosmopolitism and world citizenship from the Enlightenment period that are essentially secular ideas. The Muslim intellectuals that are discussed here include Mawdūdī, al-Banna, Qutb, al-Farag, Huweidi and others, who maintain that the ideology of Islam and its values are universal which can be realized only by sharī‛a and not through secularization.
The suggestion given here to resolve the issue employs simultaneously Western ideological notions of secularization and pluralism and Islamic ideological doctrines of religious freedom and tolerance. This proposal sets out only a broad outline and will not be developed as this is beyond the scope of this article.

Shura/Consultation: A Strategy For Governance
Donald Francisco Casanova Mansir, Associate Professor, Saint Mary’s College of California

Some years ago I was visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem with the former Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem His Beatitude Michel Sabbah.  At the time of our visit the Christian Custodial Communities were chanting their prayers.  I exclaimed to the Patriarch, “What a cacophony!”  He encouraged me to think of it rather as a harmony of differences all under one roof, at a single holy place.  It made me think of the Christian understanding of the Trinity as a Unity of Differences, that the One God is radically the same as Himself and radically different from Himself at the same time.  It led me to reconsider how one might approach the reconciliation between and among conflicting groups.  The chanting, a conversation with God, suggests we engage in conversation.  Essentially, the conversation is a dialogue between human reason and God’s knowledge of Himself, a knowledge known through faith and revelation.
The differences in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are religious, and at the same time, political:  Greek Orthodox, Latin Catholic, Armenian Apostolic, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox, Ottoman, Palestinian, Israeli, and Muslim.  How can any of these religions and political differences be brought into conversation?

Building Bridges across Meaning Systems: Creating Democracy with Christianity and Islam in a Post-Darwinian World
Mark S. Markuly, Dean, School of Theology and Ministry, Seattle University

Abstract
Religions like Christianity and Islam have excelled at building meaning systems that have helped their members ground and interpret their daily lives, create and maintain a personal and corporate identity and morality, and negotiate the chaos of living.  For centuries, these religious traditions were so strong in some cultures that they dominated all other meaning systems.  The processes of democracy and the forces of secularization, however, have broken this dominance in many nations, leading some countries to overreact by attempting to eliminate religious perspectives from discourse in the public sphere.  Achieving comity and democracy in today’s world will require a new moment in both government and religion.  Democracies need a more sophisticated understanding of the nature and purpose of religions, and a realization that humans cannot “compartmentalize” their religious meaning systems while addressing civic issues.  Meanwhile, religions like Christianity and Islam need to build stronger traditions of tolerance and respect for the religious and secular other.  Religions need practices and methodologies for building bridges across the broad diversity in their own ranks, while simultaneously spanning divisions with other religious traditions and meaning systems.  Intelligent, in-depth dialogue, cooperation and collaboration between meaning systems is a necessary foundation for 21st century democracy.

Gateway to Cultural Evolution—The Catholic Church in Jiangmen, China
Isabella Notar, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of History, Mount Saint Mary’s University

Abstract:
My research offers a unique and contemporary opportunity to share how Chinese Catholics worship in churches and how inter-cultural exchange influences church-state relations.
In 2008, Mount Saint Mary’s University celebrated the bicentennial celebration of its founding.  As part of the celebration, University President Powell sought to reconnect with the Mount’s religious past in China.  Last summer, on behalf of the University, I traveled to Jiangmen, China, the town where Bishop James Walsh, the late Mount graduate, lived and established the Mount Saint Mary’s Church.  My objectives were to try to locate and reconnect with our sister Church and community, and to document the legacy of Bishop Walsh.
Religious policy in China is evolving.  Beijing may be more open to compromise on the question of Church participation in the country’s modernization efforts.  Christianity has been subdued for so long that its breakout is coinciding with government enthusiasm for developing the creative economy.  The local Religious Affairs Bureau (RAB) officials are implementing policies aimed at empowering religious groups to respond to social-economic development in new ways. 

The Cosmological Inversion: Sacred and Secular Constructs of “Faith” and “Belief”
John Roemischer, State University of New York, Plattsburgh, Adjunct Lecturer, Retired.

Abstract
In the October, 2002, The Atlantic, Philip Jenkins made some disquieting observations concerning the future of Western Christianity under the title, “The Next Christianity.” Given the current preoccupation with Islamic countries, the suggestion that Christianity is itself in trouble is being given little attention.

The Empire of God and Evolution
John Wickham, Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX

ABSTRACT
Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrodinger, Werner Heisenberg and their scientific descendants have undermined a master of the universe, creator God because it has become an unnecessary assumption. Christians should consider agreeing with that assessment and base their theology on a moral, loving God advocated by a “historical” Jesus. This has greater philosophical appeal if there is such a thing as the naturalistic fallacy. Natural morality produced by evolution conflicts with Jesus’ Empire of God. For example, genetically facilitated emotions and instincts induce humans to: promote self survival at the expense of others if necessary; give preference to kin and be altruistic and forgiving toward relatives and in-group members; expect reciprocity; and punish cheaters. In contrast, Jesus’ morality is based on a radical, egalitarian interpretation of the love command and discounts the moral value of: preferring self, kin and in-group members over others; expecting reciprocity; punishing cheaters and enemies; and being evolutionarily fit (wealthy) as opposed to being un-fit (poor). Jesus’ Empire of God is concerned with how I love my neighbor. That God would probably not have produced this universe. Assuming mental causation and memes are real, a moral God could interact with the universe through organisms that have consciousness and can act on intentions.

©Copyright by the Forum on Public Policy
All rights Reserved. Electronic edition published 2006