Darwin Correspondence Project

Templeton essay competition

In 2009 the Darwin Correspondence Project held an essay competition for schools to celebrate Darwin’s bicentenary.  The £1000 prize, funded by the John Templeton Foundation, was awarded to Daniel Bowman of King Edward’s School, Birmingham, who received his prize from the Project’s Director, Prof. Jim Secord,  at the Darwin 2009 Festival at the University of Cambridge.

Here is Daniel’s winning essay:

Communicating Evolution in a Religious World: is Darwin’s approach still relevant today?

On the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species, the science-religion debate over Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection continues to rage. In the U.S., where the debate has traditionally been fiercest, only 39% of Americans say ‘they believe in the theory of evolution’¹. But many rudiments of the debate haven’t changed. Just as in the 19th Century, many people in Europe and the U.S. believe in a literal interpretation of the Biblical creation story. Today’s Intelligent Design (ID) movement has its roots in William Paley’s Natural Theology (published 1802), in which he argued that evidence for God’s existence can be found in ‘the uniformity of plan observable in the universe’. The modern ID movement, having emerged in the 1980s, argues that today we can prove certain organisms are ‘irreducibly complex’², in the words of Michael Behe, and could not arise by evolution alone but show the work of an intelligent designer. Darwin had to debate and defend his theory in a Christian influenced environment that perceived it as a threat. However, his approach was very different to that taken by much of today’s elite scientific community. I will argue that the aggressive and atheistic approach taken by some scientists today, perhaps spearheaded by Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and fellow of New College, Oxford, is failing to communicate evolution in a predominantly religious world. Furthermore, by examining Darwin’s works and correspondence, I believe we can make headway in today’s debate.

Many theists today are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with Darwin’s theory of evolution; they are theistic evolutionists, believing in a metaphorical interpretation of their religions’ creation stories. Charles Darwin was unable to reconcile the two, and lost his Christian faith. In 1880 he wrote ‘I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God’³. Nevertheless, he respected that it is possible to be both a believer in God and an evolutionist; ‘It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist’⁴ he wrote in 1879. He himself became ‘agnostic’⁴. A number of Darwin’s closest friends, regular correspondents and fiercest defenders were able to retain their Christian faith, including Asa Gray, the American botanist, and the geologist Charles Lyell. Darwin disagreed with them, often arguing against them, but always respected their beliefs and opinions.

Many scientists today, like Darwin, reject divine revelation. But some, unlike Darwin, believe that evolution by natural selection disproves the ‘God hypothesis’⁵. Their approach to debate is strikingly different from Darwin’s. In 1859 the Anglican clergyman Charles Kingsley wrote to Darwin that ‘I have gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of Deity, to believe that he created primal forms capable of self development into all forms needful pro tempore & pro loco, as to believe that He required a fresh act of intervention to supply the lacunas which he himself had made. I question whether the former be not the loftier thought.’⁶ Darwin was so pleased with this analysis that he asked Kingsley if he could insert it into the second edition of the Origin. Darwin appreciated that many people need religion, despite not sharing that need. Richard Dawkins does not appreciate this. He has said that in regard to the question of ultimate purpose ‘I don’t think it’s a legitimate question’⁷. He argues that science should one day be able to answer the ‘why’ questions. Dawkins may well be right, but Darwin’s theory does not disprove a Deity. Hans Küng, a Catholic priest and theologian, presents this possible co-existence; ‘God is the dynamic himself; he creates the world in itself; he holds it and moves it invisibly from within’⁸.

According to a study carried out by Adherents.com just 16% of the world’s population are Atheist or non-religious, with 33% Christian and 21% Muslim⁹. In the U.S. the figures are even more dramatic. A May 2007 poll suggests that 86% of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit¹⁰. Regular church attendees are least likely to believe in evolution. Clearly, many believe that the theory of evolution by natural selection contradicts the story of creation in the book of Genesis.

This is a predicament for individuals to confront, but belief in the respective truths of the two is possible for many. There is little use in simply informing the generally religious public in the U.S. and wider world that they are being illogical and irrational in believing in God. Darwin’s approach was to reassure his readers and correspondents that his theory should not threaten religious belief. While he knew that ‘There are however many bitter opponents’¹¹, he understood that the best way to communicate evolution in a Christian society is through discussion and candour. In one correspondence, Mary Boole wrote to Darwin, expressing her anxiety that evolution be compatible with her faith. Darwin’s thoughtful response, that ‘theology & science should each run its own course & that in the present case I am not responsible if their meeting point should still be far off’¹², led Boole to reply; ‘I should like to have your assurance that moral & religious faith are things quite independent of theories about the process of Creation. You have given me that assurance and again I thank you’¹³. Correspondences like this reflect Darwin’s amicable and practical approach, and reveal its success.

That is not to say that science should be afraid to ask questions of religion today. Darwin wrote in a letter in 1861 that ‘I am weary of all these various attempts to reconcile, what I believe to be irreconcilable’¹⁴. Religious groups should welcome science as a tool to ‘purify religion from error and superstition’¹⁵, as the late Pope John Paul II famously put it, and work out which passages of scripture they cannot take literally. Darwin believed that scientific fact must not cede in the interests of theists. But I don’t think that those interested in spreading scientific truth today should publicly dismiss a Creator because of any atheistic beliefs they hold.

The Nobel Prize winning physicist Stephen Weinberg said in August 2005; ‘The experience of being a scientist makes religion seem fairly irrelevant’¹⁶. In 1998 a survey of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), one of the most prestigious scientific organisations in the world today, found that just 7.0% of its members believe in the existence of God, with 72.2% expressing disbelief in the existence of God¹⁷. In the U.K. a survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God, contrasted with 68.5 per cent of the general U.K. population¹⁸. This suggests a polarisation between the religious and scientific communities. Given this ‘belief-gap’, it is hardly surprising that scientific associations are struggling to communicate evolution to a largely religious public. My proposition is that the theory of evolution is critical to the relationship between scientists and the public. If believers are reassured that the theory of evolution need not compromise faith in God, then scientists and science will receive a more sympathetic hearing from the general population. Hence Darwin’s approach is still relevant today. Unless Weinberg, Dawkins and other atheistic scientists learn from Darwin’s approach, I cannot see the deadlock being broken.

The recent controversy concerning Michael Reiss exemplified, in my view, failure to follow this conciliatory approach. Reiss was the education director of the Royal Society, and an ordained Church of England minister. On 11 September 2008 Reiss said that one in ten children in Britain have creationist beliefs, and argued that science teachers must not see and teach creationism as a ‘misconception’, but rather as an alternative ‘world view’, and they should be equipped to ‘have a genuine discussion’ in class¹⁹. These comments immediately provoked consternation amongst some scientists. After vociferous calls for his resignation by Royal Society fellows, Reiss stepped down.

Without doubt, creationism must not be taught alongside evolution in science lessons. Darwin would have been completely against this. This is conveyed clearly in one letter written in 1853, in which he stressed the need to keep ‘the whole secular part of the education’ separate from church ministers²⁰. There is however a case for considering creationism in lessons and encouraging students to try and consider their religious beliefs in the context of Darwin’s theory, rather than side-stepping the issue completely. This might be an enterprise for biology and RS teachers to work together. I believe Reiss’ ideas might have helped the teaching of evolution to children holding creationist beliefs. Nevertheless, opposition to the initiative is understandable. It is not this, however, that concerns me. Reiss was forced to resign within just five days. I suspect that the anger and vitriol provoked amongst some scientists suggests that there is a fear of debate, or prejudice or frustration against creationists. Comments circulated, such as ‘There is no evidence for a creator, and creationism explains nothing’²¹, and ‘Creationism doesn’t challenge science, it denies it’²² may be valid, but they had little relevance. There are good reasons for arguing against Reiss’ proposals, but I doubt whether these were the driving force for his resignation.

The debate is taking on greater significance as potential ecological disaster looms in the shape of Global Warming. Evolution is at the centre of the science-religion debate, and so evolutionists need to be more conciliatory in dealing with creationists, because it is crucial that people around the world take current scientific issues seriously. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society, has clearly begun to understand this. One panel at its 2008 meeting was entitled Communicating Science in a Religious America. Its synopsis stated; ‘Over the coming decades, as society faces major collective choices on issues such as climate change, biochemical research, and nanotechnology, scientists and their organizations will need to work together with religious communities in order to formulate effective policies and resolve disputes… scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs’²³. This type of approach is needed: Darwin’s rather than Dawkins’. Dawkins does succeed in bringing debate, controversy and discovery into the scientific and public domains, but his approach to the science-religion debate only aggravates most theists and hardens many against the theory of evolution.

We can see how Darwin’s approach reaps dividends. The Vatican recently accepted the theory of evolution as compatible with Christian faith. We now live in an environment in Europe where science and religion are widely accepted as reconcilable, and the Catholic Church has responded favourably. The Church of England has recently unveiled a website promoting the evolutionary views of Darwin. In the U.S., the Clergy Letter Project is an organization that has created a statement signed by American clergy of different denominations, and a statement signed by American rabbis, both rejecting creationism. The clergy wrote that they ‘believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth’²⁴. They have also organised ‘Evolution Weekends’ marking Darwin’s anniversaries. 1,049 Congregations from all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands and 15 Countries participated in Evolution Weekend 2009, holding ‘serious discussion and reflection on the relationship between religion and science’²⁵.

Through the Clergy Letter Project, scientists are actively working with pro-evolution clergy to reassure religious Americans of the compatibility of their religions with evolution by natural selection. I think it is fitting that it has been accomplished through correspondence, as for me this encapsulates how Darwin’s approach remains useful today. The biologist behind the initiative, Michael Zimmerman, said in a recent interview; ‘I too am an atheist … but what I think is important is that we recognize that people can believe in what they want, that there are lots of different kinds of worldviews’²⁶. Dawkins and Weinberg might do better to follow scientists like Zimmerman, in placing scientific fact before their atheistic beliefs.

There is a parallel of sorts between the Clergy Letter Project and a letter sent by John Brodie Innes, the Anglican Clergyman and perpetual curate of Down, 1846–6, to Darwin in 1878. In it, he recounts how at a Church Congress at Dundee he defended Darwin. He said he was ‘a most accurate observer, and never states anything as a fact which he has not most thoroughly investigated. He is a man of the most perfect moral character, and his scrupulous regard for the strictest truth is above that of almost all men I know. I am quite persuaded that if on any morning he met with a fact which would clearly contradict one of his cherished theories he would not let the sun set before he made it known. I never saw a word in his writings which was an attack on Religion’²⁷. Different content, but this underlines that moderate religious leaders can react favourably to a Darwinian approach.

But how far can we extend the approach? Would discussion with ID advocates be sensible? Most evolutionary biologists today roundly reject intelligent design, and don’t debate with its proponents. ‘Intelligent Design is not science at all’²⁸, according to Simon Conway Morris, Professor of Evolutionary Palaeobiology at the University of Cambridge. In 2005 the AAAS boycotted a series of hearings scheduled by the Kansas State Board of Education on proposed revisions to state science standards, as ‘We saw little purpose in a forum where evolution would be juxtaposed against “intelligent design”, an unsubstantiated alternative that is a matter of religious faiths, not facts.’²⁹ But would debate be a better approach? In my view, the answer here is no. Darwin believed that ‘The old argument from design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered’³⁰.

I am sure that Darwin would have seen through today’s ID movement. While ID advocates such as Behe and William Demski claim that the designer need not be the Christian God, they and most others believe that it is. I believe ID encourages laziness rather than investigation and experimentation. I am certain that Darwin would have refrained from debate with ID proponents, generally Christians with closed minds. Darwin once wrote that ‘I have never answered criticisms excepting those made by scientific men’³¹. While some ID advocates have degrees in scientific disciplines, many admit to have done so only to gain respectability. Jonathan Wells for instance, a prominent ID advocate, applied for his biology degree because ‘Father’s words [Rev. Sun Myung Moon], my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism’³².

In my view, ID has developed in the U.S. from the separation between church and state. In public schools there are no religious education classes. Because of this, feeling threatened by the teaching of evolution, which many equate with atheism, the ID movement has sprung up, an attempt to give legitimacy to Christian beliefs. I believe that through failure to engage with creationists, whether in schools or places of worship, conditions have been created for ID to re-emerge from its 19^th century roots. Conciliation with ID advocates is not in my opinion the answer to this problem. Scientists need to discuss evolution with creationists in a non-patronising, non-imposing way, and encourage critical thought, and I’m in no doubt that positive results will follow.

The Muslim creation story is quite similar to Genesis, with Allah creating everything in six periods. Many Muslims are wary of evolution, seeing it as contrary to the teachings of the Koran. If and when the science-religion debate moves east, then the approach of scientists will doubtless prove a determining factor in its outcome.

While advocating Darwin’s approach, I do not simply seek to revere him. But Darwin largely succeeded in convincing a theistic public of his theory’s merits. He was even buried in Westminster Abbey, the seat of Anglican Christianity. Darwin could not have done it alone. While he remained in Down House, Gray, Lyell and Innes among others defended and advocated him and his theory. All of them were Christians, but this mattered little to Darwin.

Today, I think that some elite scientists are moving away from this approach, and this is partly why creationism and intelligent design remain popular. When recently it was proposed to Dawkins that his approach was hindering rather than helping the teaching of evolution, he replied that ‘for the sake of what I see as the war [between science and religion], I’m in danger of losing this particular battle, but as it happens I think that the war is more important.’³³ I would argue that this debate isn’t at its centre a war, and his view that ‘it is a scientific question whether the Supreme Being exists or not’³² is a belief, not fact. However, this belief is turning a debate into a war. Furthermore, this ‘battle’ over teaching evolution, which is at the centre of the science-religion debate, is one that science cannot afford to lose.

‘There is no reason why the disciples of either school [Science and Religion] should attack each other with bitterness, though each upholding strictly their beliefs. Nor can I remember that I have ever published a work directly against religion or clergy’³⁴. Darwin wrote this in 1879, and in my view it remains extremely important today. For theological and scientific, as much as practical and political, reasons, there is little sense or justification in teaching evolution in an aggressive or imposing way as a means of denying religious belief. While the inerrancy of faith and scripture can be disputed, the possibility of the existence of a Deity cannot, at least not at this time. As Darwin’s ‘meeting point’ between science and religion still remains far off, his approach is the one most likely to succeed once again.

Notes

¹ On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution, Gallup Poll, February 11, 2009. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

² Michael Behe devised the concept of irreducible complexity, and presented it in his Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, 1996. Behe defines irreducible complexity as follows:

‘By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional. An irreducibly complex biological system, if there is such a thing, would be a powerful challenge to Darwinian evolution.’ (p. 39)

I extracted this from Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe, http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/behe.html.

³ Letter from Darwin, C. R. to McDermott, F. A., 24 Nov 1880 (Letter 12851)

⁴ Letter from Darwin, C. R. to Fordyce, John, 7 May 1879 (Letter 12041)

⁵ This term was used by Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA’s double-helix structure in 1953, in an interview with Matt Ridley. See Roger Highfield, Do our genes reveal the hand of God? 26 March 2003.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/3306329/Do-our-genes-reveal-the-hand-of-God.html

⁶ Letter from Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R., 18 Nov 1859 (Letter 2534)

⁷ I have quoted this from a debate between Richard Dawkins and Baron Richard Harries, a retired Anglican clergyman, held at the University of Oxford on February 12, 2009. See the University of Oxford’s podcast Darwin 200: Dawkins and Harries

⁸ Hans Küng, The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007), p. 107

⁹ Adherents.com, Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents, 2005. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

¹⁰ Americans More Likely to Believe in God Than the Devil, Heaven More Than Hell, Gallup Poll, June 13, 2007. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27877/Americans-More-Likely-Believe-God-Than-Devil-Heaven-More-Than-Hell.aspx

¹¹ Letter from Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 24 Dec 1859 (Letter 2599)

¹² Letter from Darwin, C. R. to Boole, M. E., 14 Dec 1866 (Letter 5307)

¹³ Letter from Boole, M. E. to Darwin, C. R., 17 Dec 1866 (Letter 5310)

¹⁴ Letter from Darwin, C. R. to Sullivan, B. J., 24 May 1861 (Letter 3156)

¹⁵ I have quoted this from Letter of His Holiness John Paul II to Reverend George V. Coyne, S.J. Director of the Vatican Observatory.

John Paul II wrote:

‘Science develops best when its concepts and conclusions are integrated into the broader human culture and its concerns for ultimate meaning and value. Scientists cannot, therefore, hold themselves entirely aloof from the sorts of issues dealt with by philosophers and theologians. By devoting to these issues something of the energy and care they give to their research in science, they can help others realize more fully the human potentialities of their discoveries. They can also come to appreciate for themselves that these discoveries cannot be a genuine substitute for knowledge of the truly ultimate. Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.’

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19880601_padre-coyne_en.html

¹⁶ Weinberg said this in an interview with a New York Times Reporter. See Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science, by Cornelia Dean, published in The New York Times on August 23, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

¹⁷ Larson, Edward J. and Witham, Larry. Leading scientists still reject God. In Nature (Vol. 394, No. 6691, p. 313 (1998)).

¹⁸ See Intelligent people ‘less likely to believe in God’, by Graeme Paton, August 2, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

¹⁹ Reiss was speaking at the British Association Festival of Science. See Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert, Guardian article by James Randerson (Thursday September 11, 2008). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education

²⁰ Letter from Darwin, C. R. to Lubbock, J. W. (b), 11 Oct 1853 (Letter 1536). Darwin wrote:

‘I should have hoped, that the power of appeal to the Government Inspectors & our individual power of withdrawing our subscriptions, would in effect have rendered the Managers sufficiently independent of the Minister for the time being, i.e. as far as the whole secular part of the education was concerned. M^r Innes says he is willing to put on written record, his willingness to admit the children of dissenters, & not enforce on them any religious doctrine, obnoxious to their parents.— I heartily hope that you may see some way out of the present difficulty.’

²¹ Prof Lewis Wolpert, a developmental biologist at University College London. See Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert, Guardian article by James Randerson (Thursday September 11, 2008). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education

²² Dr John Fry, a physicist at the University of Liverpool. See Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert, Guardian article by James Randerson (Thursday September 11, 2008). http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education

²³ Mathew C. Nisbet. AAAS Panel: Communicating Science in a Religious America, posted on ScienceBlogs, November 3, 2007. http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/11/details_on_aaas_panel_communic.php

²⁴ The Clergy Letter – from American Christian clergy – An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science. http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/Christian_Clergy/ChrClergyLtr.htm

²⁵ See 2009 Evolution Weekend. http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evolution_weekend_2009.htm

²⁶ Zimmerman said this in an interview in 2007 with the Institute for Humanist Studies. See Conversations with Christian and Atheist Activists: Michael Zimmermann, guest column for HumanistNetworkNews.org, by Jeff Nall. http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=278&article=1

²⁷ Letter from Innes, J. B. to Darwin, C. R., 1 Dec 1878 (Letter 11768)

²⁸ I have quoted Simon Conway Morris from an interview with Professor Paul White of the Darwin Correspondence Project. See Interview with Simon Conway Morris. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/93/78/

²⁹ Evolution on the Front Line: Q and A on Evolution and Intelligent Design, posted on the AAAS’ website. http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

³⁰ Darwin presented his view in his Autobiography, p. 50. I have quoted this from Darwin and Design: historical essay, on the Darwin Correspondence website. http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/content/view/110/104/

³¹ Letter from Darwin, C. R. to Ridley, H. N., 28 Nov 1878 (Letter 11766). H. N. Ridley had written to Darwin reporting a sermon written by E. B. Pusey, a Hebrew scholar and clergyman. It was a vitriolic and unfounded attack on Darwin and the theory of evolution by natural selection. Pusey had written that ‘the ”transformation theory“ is a special object of your interest because it dispenses with the intervention of a personal creator’.

Darwin replied; ‘I just skimmed through D^r Pusey’s sermon as published in the Guardian, but it did not seem to me worthy of any attention. As I have never answered criticisms excepting those made by scientific men I am not willing that this letter should be published’. It is clear that that Darwin had no interested in associating himself through debate with people set on disputing his theory due to religious convictions.

³² Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D., by Jonathan Wells, (1996). http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm

³³ Dawkins said this in an interview with Jim Flemming of Wisconsin Public Radio and PRI Public Radio International. See the podcast Electrons to Enlightenment: Debating Darwin.

³⁴ Letter from Darwin, C. R. to Innes, J. B., 27 November 1878 (Letter 11763)

Bibliography

All of Darwin’s letters have been drawn from the Darwin Correspondence Project (http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk). I have also used the information, essays and interviews posted online.

AAAS Press Room. Evolution on the Front Line. http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/qanda.shtml

Adherents.com. Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents, 2005. http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Behe, Michael. The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity: Every living cell contains many ultrasophisticated molecular machines. In Intelligent Design?. Ed. Milner, Richard and Maestro, Vittorio, Natural History, April 2002.

Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In The Origin of Species and The Voyage of the Beagle. Vintage, 2009.

Dean, Cornelia. Scientists Speak Up on Mix of God and Science. In The New York Times, August 23, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?pagewanted=3&_r=1

Dixon, Thomas. America’s Difficulty with Darwin. In History Today, February 2009.

Ecklund, Elain Howard and Park, Jerry Z. Creating and Crossing Boundaries: How Scientists View the Relationship between Religion and Science. Paper prepared for the 101^st Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, August 11-August 14, 2006.

Frean, Alexandra and Smith, Lewis. Anglicans back Darwin over ‘noisy’ creationists. In The Times, September 13, 2008

Gallup Poll, Americans More Likely to Believe in God Than the Devil, Heaven More Than Hell, June 13, 2007. http://www.gallup.com/poll/27877/Americans-More-Likely-Believe-God-Than-Devil-Heaven-More-Than-Hell.aspx

Gallup Poll, On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution, February 11, 2009. http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx

Küng, Hans. The Beginning of All Things: Science and Religion. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.

Larson, Edward J. and Witham, Larry. Leading Scientists still reject God. In Nature, Vol. 394, July 23, 1998.

Lloyd, Robin. Evolution Arguments Headed for Islamic World. Posted on LiveScience, December 11, 2008. http://www.livescience.com/culture/081211-islam-evolution.html

Nall, Jeff. Conversations with Christian and Atheist Activists: Michael Zimmerman. Posted on HumanistNetworkNew.org, January 3, 2007. http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=278&article=1

Mathew C. Nisbet. AAAS Panel: Communicating Science in a Religious America, posted on ScienceBlogs, November 3, 2007. http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2007/11/details_on_aaas_panel_communic.php

O’Leary, Denyse. By Design or by Chance? Augsburg Books, 2004.

Owen, Richard. Vatican buries the hatchet with Darwin. In The Times, February 11, 2009.

Oxford University. Darwin 200: Dawkins and Harries. Podcast Oxford University, 2009.

Paton, Graeme. Intelligent people ‘less likely to believe in God’. Posted on telegraph.co.uk, August 2, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html

Pigliucci, Massimo. The Evolution of Evolutionary Theory. In Philosophy Now, Issue 71, January/February 2009.

PRI Public International. Electrons to Enlightenment: Debating Darwin. Podcast, 2009.

Randerson, James. Teachers should tackle creationism, says science education expert. Posted on guardian.co.uk, Thursday September 11, 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/11/creationism.education

Tilby, Angela. Darwin’s Conundrum. Broadcasted by BBC Radio 3, Sunday 15, February 2009.

The Talk Origins Archive. Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe. http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/behe.html.

van Wyhe, John. Darwin vs God? In BBC History magazine, Vol. 10, no 1, January 2005.

Wells, Jonathan. Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D., 1996. http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm

Zimmerman, Michael. The Clergy Letter Project. http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm