Free Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism by Alvin Plantinga Page B

American Talent for science, then what should we make of the anti-evolutionarymovement? One part of the analysis is clear. The willingness of Americans to reject established authority has played a major role in the way that local activists have managed to push ideas such as scientific creationsim and intelligent design into local schools. 34
     
    Miller’s idea seems to be that Americans tend towards a rugged and self-reliant individualism; they aren’t going to let a bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals tell them what to believe. While there may be some truth to this, it can hardly be the whole answer. Americans don’t ordinarily reject other basic scientific theses, such as the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. 35 True; they may not have
heard
much about these theories; but that just raises the question why evolution, as opposed to other central parts of science, is so much in the public consciousness.
    The answer, of course, is obvious: it is because of the entanglement of evolution with religion. The vast majority of Americans reject atheism, and hence also naturalism. A solid majority of Americans are Christians, and many more (some 88 or 90 percent, depending on the poll you favor) believe in God. But when that choir of experts repeatedly tell us that evolution is incompatible with belief in God, it’s not surprising that many people come to believe that evolution
is
incompatible with belief in God, and is therefore an enemy of religion. 36 After all, those experts are, well, experts. But then it is also not surprising that many Americans are reluctant to have evolution taught to their children in the public schools, the schools they themselvespay taxes to support. 37 Protestants don’t want Catholic doctrine taught in the schools and Christians don’t want Islam taught, but the distance between naturalism and Christian belief, either Catholic or Protestant, is vastly greater than the distance between Catholics and Protestants or, for that matter, between Christians and Muslims. Christians, Jews, and Muslims concur on belief in God; naturalism stands in absolute opposition to these theistic religions; and, due in part to those declarations by the “experts,” evolution is widely seen as a central pillar in the temple of naturalism. The association of evolution with naturalism is the obvious root of the widespread antipathy to evolution in the United States, and to the teaching of evolution in the public schools.
    This antipathy spills over to suspicion of science itself, with a consequent erosion of support for science. As a result, declarations by Dawkins, Dennett, and others have at least two unhappy results. First, their (mistaken) claim that religion and evolution are incompatible damages religious belief, making it look less appealing to people who respect reason and science. But second, it also damages science. That is because it forces many to choose between science and belief in God. Most believers, given the depth and significance of their belief in God, are not going to opt for science; their attitude towards science is likely to be or become one of suspicion and mistrust. Hence these declarations of incompatibility have unhappy consequences for science itself. Perhaps this is not a reason for those who believe these myths to stop promoting them; if that’s what they think, that’s what they should say. What it does mean, however, is that there is very good reason for exposing them for the myths they are: the damage they do to science.
IV KITCHER’S “ENLIGHTENMENT CASE”
     
    Like Dawkins and Dennett, Philip Kitcher thinks evolution creates a problem for theists, believers in God. His
Living With Darwin
, however, is far more responsible and evenhanded than the works of Dawkins and Dennett, but also less venturesome. 38 First, he proposes that those evangelical Christians who rally behind intelligent design “appreciate that the Darwinian picture of life (which goes well beyond current