《Religion in AmericaSUNY Oneonta.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Religion in AmericaSUNY Oneonta.doc（39页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、Religion in America: The Intelligent Design ControversyDouglas W. Shrader November, 2006 by Douglas W. Shrader. This paper has been accepted for presentation at the Fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on Arts and Humanities, January 2007. My analysis is based in part on research conducted w
2、hile I was a visiting scholar at the East-West Center in Honolulu, during a sabbatical from SUNY Oneonta (Spring 2006). Participation in the conference is supported in part by a Faculty Development Award. Sincere appreciation is extended to: (i) SUNY Oneonta, especially President Alan B. Donovan, Pr
3、ovost F. Daniel Larkin, and Dean Michael Merilan, and (ii) the East-West Center, especially Elizabeth Buck, Peter Hershok, and Grant Otoshi.Distinguished Teaching Professor& Chair of PhilosophySUNY OneontaOneonta, NYAbstract: In theory, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
4、 America sets forth a principle widely known as “separation of church and state.” In practice, America is a dynamic patchwork of religious and political values, attitudes, and activities. In some cases, the religious and political components of our lives rest side by side without seriously challengi
5、ng one another or the principle of separation. Other cases are fraught with misunderstanding, conflict, and confusion. As a preliminary step toward clarifying misunderstandings and resolving conflicts, this paper examines several components of the current controversy concerning intelligent design. S
6、pecifically, I explore: (i) a frequently befuddling and puzzling fabric of public opinion, (ii) conceptual difficulties inherent in the use of concepts like creationism, evolution, and intelligent design, (iii) the rich philosophical and intellectual history underpinning the concept of intelligent d
7、esign, including Charles Darwins lifelong fascination with the concept, and (iv) pivotal court cases concerning the teaching of creation science (Edwards v. Aguillard: June 1987) and intelligent design (Kitzmiller v. Dover: December 2005). But I begin as all good papers should begin: with a story.A
8、Timely TopicLast fall a colleague from Earth Sciences invited me to speak to an Elderhostel group about the concept of Intelligent Design. His inspiration, he confided, originated from a Geology conference where professors had been given ten minutes to state their views on the subject. The energy du
9、ring that session, based on the impact it made on my colleague, must have been incredible. He found himself not only wanting to know more about Intelligent Design, but wondering what scholars in other fields especially at his home institution thought about the topic. He pitched his idea to the Elder
10、hostel who, much to his delight, demonstrated considerable interest. In addition to thirty-three registered participants, our sessions were “crashed” by approximately a dozen undergraduate students who had somehow gotten wind of the event. When all was said and done, what would have been a low profi
11、le discussion between professors and senior citizens wound up as a front page story in the college newspaper.Professor Fleisher selected a provocative title for the session Stirring the Pot but repeatedly stressed that our goal was to explore rather than debate. A total of six presenters, divided ev
12、enly between two sessions on consecutive Mondays, were expected to adhere to the same ten-minute limit that had governed exchange during the Geology conference. Five of the six presenters were professors, three of whom hold the title of Distinguished Teaching Professor. A Baptist minister rounded ou
13、t the group but, unfortunately, a Jewish rabbi who had been invited to provide additional religious perspective was unable to participate. Our forum was sponsored by the Center for Continuing Adult Learning and hosted by the State University of New York at Oneonta. My fellow presenters included Paul
14、 Bischoff (Associate Professor of Science Education), Gary Bonebrake (Pastor of the Main Street Baptist Church in Oneonta, NY), P. Jay Fleisher (Distinguished Teaching Professor of Earth Sciences), Nigel Mann (Assistant Professor of Biology), and John Relethford (Distinguished Teaching Professor of
15、Anthropology). I am grateful to Jay Fleisher for inviting me to participate in this invigorating exchange. Each participant provided a clear, incisive presentation that served to remind me of things I might otherwise have forgotten, to inform me of things I did not otherwise know, and to spur my tho
16、ughts in directions they might not otherwise have taken. To each, I owe a heartfelt “thank you.”Despite (or maybe even because of) the Draconian time constraint placed on each speaker, the Elderhostel sessions provided an intriguing cross-section of belief concerning Intelligent Design. Yet in a ver
17、y real sense, as inspired and insightful as the content of our presentations may have been, the most interesting thing about the exchange is the simple fact that it took place at all. In terms of the title of this paper, we may ask what it says about religion in America when both senior citizens and
18、 college students are drawn to an intellectual discussion of Intelligent Design.Public OpinionRecent surveys conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life According to their website (, accessed November 10, 2006): The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, launched in 2001, seeks to promote a
19、 deeper understanding of issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs. The Forum pursues its mission by delivering timely, impartial information to national opinion leaders, including government officials and journalists. As a nonpartisan, non-advocacy organization, the Forum does not t
20、ake positions on policy debates. The Forum functions as both a clearinghouse and a town hall. As a clearinghouse, it gathers and disseminates objective information through polls and reports. As a town hall, it provides a neutral venue through its various issue roundtables and briefings for discussio
21、ns of important issues where religion and domestic and international politics intersect.The Director of the Institute, Luis E. Largo, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago. His publications include an edited volume titled: Religion, Public Life and the American Polity (Un
22、iversity of Tennessee Press, July 1994). demonstrate that Americans exhibit a generally positive attitude toward science, but retain a decidedly religious conviction about the origins of life and remain deeply distrustful of the theory of evolution by means of natural selection. According to a repor
23、t issued August 30, 2005:Most Americans believe that God was responsible for the creation of life on earth but divide on the question of whether and how life has changed since the creation. Overall, 78% say God created life on earth, while 5% think a universal spirit or higher power was responsible
24、for the creation.Despite this broad agreement regarding the origins of life, the public is deeply divided on precisely how life developed. A plurality of Americans (48%) say that humans and other living things have evolved over time, but nearly as many (42%) say that humans and other living things h
25、ave existed in their present form since the beginning of time. There is further division among those who agree that life has evolved over time. Of those who say that living things have evolved over time, roughly half (26% of the public overall) accept the Darwinian account of evolution, saying that
26、evolution has occurred through natural processes such as natural selection. But nearly four-in-ten of those who believe in evolution (18% of the public as a whole) say that evolution was guided by a supreme being for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today, a view t
27、hat is consistent with some aspects of what has been called “intelligent design.” “Public Divided on Origins of Life: Religion a Strength and Weakness for Both Parties.” . Issued August 30, 2005. Accessed November 10, 2006. A follow-up survey, reported a year later, provides confirmation of the over
28、all statistical portrait, important context and detail that were not addressed in the 2005 study, and even a few hints concerning the direction in which opinion is shifting: Solid majorities in every major religious group say that scientific advances help rather than harm mankind. The view that scie
29、nce is helping mankind varies from 63% among mainline Protestants to 72% among white Catholics. But the issue of evolution and the origins of life remains highly divisive. Specifically, the views of white evangelical Protestants are very different from those of other groups, with a majority (65%) re
30、jecting the notion that humans and other living things have evolved over time, and espousing the view that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. Just 28% of evangelicals believe in evolution, and only 6% think evolution occurred through natural selection. Among seculars a
31、nd most other religious groups, majorities believe in evolution: this includes 59% of white Catholics, 62% of white mainline Protestants and 83% of seculars. “Many Americans Uneasy with Mix of Religion and Politics.” . Issued August 24, 2006. Accessed November 10, 2006. For comparison, the 2005 stud
32、y reported that 70% of white evangelicals believe that life has always existed in its present form (vs. 65% in 2006) while 20% believe in some form of evolution (vs. 28% a year later). The percentage of white evan-gelicals who accept evolution by means of natural selection remained unchanged at 6%.
33、The percentages of respondents who accept some form of evolution were fairly consistent between the two studies for two profile groups: white Catholics (61% in 2005 vs. 59% in 2006) and white mainstream Protestants (60% in 2005 vs. 62% in 2006). However the corresponding percentage for secular respo
34、ndents in 2006 (83%) was notably higher than in 2005 (71%). Interestingly, only 25% of African American Protestants in 2005 accepted the idea that species evolve over time, with about half (13% overall) believing in natural selection and about half (12%) opting for the idea that evolution is guided
35、by a supreme being. 1644 (82.2%) of the 2005 respondents identified themselves as “White.” 224 (11.2%) selected “Black.” Only 126 (6.3%) were Hispanic. Data tables provide partitions for White Catholic, White Mainstream Protestant, and White Evangelical, but no parallel subdivisions for Blacks or Hi
36、spanics.As had been the case in 2005, the 2006 study found that:mainline Protestants and Catholics who believe in evolution are themselves divided over the question of whether evolution occurred through natural selection or was guided by a supreme being for the purpose of creating human life in its
37、present form. Overall, 31% of mainline Protestants believe in natural selection, while 26% believe a supreme being guided the process. Among Catholics, 25% subscribe to the idea of natural selection and 31% think evolution was divinely guided. Only among seculars does a majority accept natural selec
38、tion: 69% of respondents with no religious affiliation believe that life evolved through natural selection. Ibid. In 2005, 24% of mainline Protestants reported a belief that evolution occurred under divine guidance (vs. 26% in 2006), but the percentage who accept a process of natural selection was u
39、nchanged from one year to the next (31%). For Catholics, figures shifted slightly more, but not enough to constitute a trend or challenge the reliability of the overall statistical portrait: in 2005, 28% accepted natural selection (vs. 25% in 2006) while an identical 28% opted for guided evolution (
40、vs. 31% in 2006). As noted above, the percentage of secular respondents who expressed a commitment to evolution was markedly higher in 2006 than it was in 2005 (rising from 71% to 83%). A parallel increase shows up in the data concerning natural selection: whereas a bare majority of secular responde
41、nts in the 2005 survey reported a belief in natural selection (56%), over two-thirds (69%) opted for natural selection in the 2006 survey. Despite the apparent upswing in evolutionary commitments, both increases may depend more on sampling technique and size than they do on changing societal attitud
42、es. Less than one-eighth (234 of 2000) of the 2005 respondents described their religious orientation as “secular.” According to the 2006 survey, America is not nearly as secular as our schools, movies, newspapers, television, and shopping malls would lead an unbiased observer to suppose. Two-thirds
43、of Americans answer “yes” when asked, “Is the U.S. a Christian nation?” (67% yes; 28% no, and 5% dont know). Even citizens who describe their own beliefs as secular tend to agree: nearly half (48%) respond affirmatively to the question. Whether America really is a Christian nation is of course a mor
44、e difficult and controversial question, but one thing is clear from the polls: most Americans (secular and religious alike) are inclined to think that it is.Moreover, the vast majority of the American public regards the Bible as the word of God:Most Americans (78%) continue to view the Bible as the
45、word of God, though there is disagreement over whether everything in the Bible is literally true; 35% say it is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, while 43% say the Bible is the word of God, but not everything in it should be taken literally. These numbers have remained largely unc
46、hanged since Pew began asking the question in 1996. The view that the Bible is literally true is more widely held among women than men (39% vs. 31%) and is more prevalent among blacks compared to whites (58% vs. 31%). There is also a geographic component to opinions on this question. Nearly half of
47、those in the South (48%) say the Bible is literally true, compared with much smaller percentages in the Midwest (34%), West (24%), and East (24%). (Ibid.)The 2006 report continues:The rejection of evolution is not entirely a result of a lack of awareness of the scientific consensus on the subject. M
48、ore people believe that scientists agree on evolution (62%) than accept the idea themselves (51%), and this is true even among white evangelical Protestants (43% think scientists agree on evolution but only 28% believe in evolution). Nor is the rejection of evolution a result of political or ideolog
49、ical beliefs. While Republicans and conservatives are more apt than Democrats or liberals to deny that evolution occurs, this correlation is mostly a result of the large number of evangelicals with creationist views in the Republican Party and among conservatives. Ibid. On the matter of scientific consensus, overall figure
