Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 Augustine, Galileo, Darwin: Not‐So‐Uncomfortable Bedfellows Craig Condella, PhD 1 Abstract A century and a half after the publication of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, the theory of evolution remains the most prominent battleground for quarrels between science and religion. Acknowledging that the scientific community has by‐and‐large settled the matter (at least within its own circles), the numbers suggest that the general public is either unconvinced or simply confused as the competing theories of creationism and intelligent design vie for their attention. Of course, debates between religion and science are in no way new, faith and reason separately maintaining their privileged access to truth. Must we, however, view faith and reason as competitors? May they not, instead, be co‐collaborators in the truth‐seeking process? Such was the view of Saint Augustine, as noted well by Galileo in his own trial nearly four hundred years ago. Though Augustine maintained that faith should seek understanding, he saw the two as working toward one and the same truth. In defending the heliocentric model of the universe, Galileo defended himself against the Catholic Church by appealing to one of its founding intellectual fathers, offering a nuanced interpretation of scripture that reconciled with Copernicus’ theory. Though Galileo’s defense would prove unsuccessful, I believe that his basic argument can shed a good deal of light on contemporary debates involving Darwin’s theory of evolution. Introduction: On the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the Israelites, Joshua spoke to the Lord; and he said in the sight of Israel, “Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.” And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the book of Jashar? The sun stopped in 1
Craig Condella is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Salve Regina University. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Biology and Philosophy at the University of Scranton before earning his Doctoral degree at Fordham University. www.twoculturesjournal.org 1
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 midheaven, and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. There has been no day like it before or since, when the Lord heeded a human voice; for the Lord fought for Israel. 2
Joshua 10:12‐15 Two trials, separated by four centuries yet bound by a common passage and a perhaps all too familiar theme – the oftentimes uncomfortable relationship between science and religion. In his 1615 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina, Galileo treats with the above Old Testament passage in defending the Copernican model of the solar system, performing a biblical exegesis that draws upon the writings of Saint Augustine in an attempt to reconcile science with faith. However well‐intentioned; Galileo’s efforts here would not prevent his being charged with heresy in 1633. Fast forward to 1925 Tennessee and we meet with the same passage in the now infamous Scopes Monkey Trial when defense attorney Clarence Darrow calls prosecuting attorney William Jennings Bryan to the stand. In defending the right to teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, Darrow begins to press Bryan on the issue of whether the Bible should be interpreted literally and invokes the same Joshua passage, saying that if the sun had stood still, the earth “would have been converted into a molten mass of matter.” 3 While both of these trials seemed to originally favor religion in its battle with science (both defendants being found guilty), history has rendered a different verdict as Galileo was ultimately pardoned and Darwinian evolution has become a largely unquestioned part of the science curriculum. I say “largely unquestioned” when it comes to Darwin since the scientific community has seemed to reach a consensus that the general public – at least in the United States – has not. Depending on the poll you consult, roughly half of Americans accept Darwin’s theory of evolution while the other half are either unsure or are downright opposed. 4 Included in those who we might generally refer to as skeptics are many Roman Catholics who seem either unaware or unsure of the Catholic Church’s official position. In what follows – and in the hopes of clarifying some of this confusion –, I would like to: 2
Study Bible (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993).
State of Tennessee v. Scopes (1925), UMKC.edu, last modified April 25,
2008, http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm.
4
A 2012 Gallup Poll, to cite but one example, found that 46% of Americans hold
a creationist view whereby God created human beings in their present form
sometime during the last 10,000 years. Frank Newport, “In U.S., 46% Hold
Creationist View of Human Origins,” Gallup.com, June, 1,
2012, http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-humanorigins.aspx.
3
www.twoculturesjournal.org 2
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 1. Consider Galileo’s position on the relationship between science and religion especially as it relates to the position of Saint Augustine; 2. Perform a Galileo‐inspired exegesis on the Biblical passages most often cited as a refutation of Darwinian evolution, i.e., the first three chapters of Genesis; and 3. Situate the Catholic Church’s position on evolution today with an eye towards identifying the source of confusion among many true believers. Galileo on the Relationship between Science and Religion While Galileo’s heresy trial of 1633 is typically understood as a battle between science and religion, the actual battle had taken place almost twenty years earlier. The trial itself considered whether Galileo had violated the 1616 Decree from the Congregation of the Index which had condemned the teaching of Copernican theory as “false and completely contrary to divine Scriptures.” 5 The trial itself focused on Galileo’s non‐
compliance with the Church’s earlier decree and not the larger questions of truth that it is often associated with today. 6 This is not to say, however, that we have little from Galileo on what he takes to be the proper relationship between science and religion. It is simply to point out that Galileo’s own views on the matter were refined well before the trial, preserved as they now are in his 1615 Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina. Though Galileo’s Letter is not mentioned in the 1616 Decree condemning the teaching of Copernicus, it is little coincidence that it was published only months before. In the Letter, Galileo takes great effort in reconciling the truth of science with the truth of religion, drawing heavily on the writings of Saint Augustine. 7 One of Galileo’s earlier references to Augustine deals with the authority of the Bible. As Augustine writes, It is to be held as an unquestionable truth that whatever the sages of this world have demonstrated concerning physical matters is in no way contrary to the Bibles; hence whatever the sages teach in their books that is contrary to the holy Scriptures may be concluded without any hesitation to be quite false. And according to our ability let us make this evident, and let us keep faith of our Lord, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom, so that we neither become seduced by the Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (Notre Dame, ID:
5
University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), 122.
6
In this regard, Galileo’s trial is similar to that of John Scopes. Both seemed to
be in rather clear violation of the law as it was then written, the larger question in
each case being whether those laws were actually well-formed.
7
Galileo focuses in particular on Augustine’s commentary on the Book of
Genesis (De Genesi ad literam).
www.twoculturesjournal.org 3
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 verbiage of false philosophy nor frightened by the superstition of counterfeit religion. 8 The message here is quite clear: any teaching which runs counter to the teachings of Holy Scripture is false. In seeming agreement with Augustine here, Galileo earlier remarks “that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth – whenever its true meaning is understood.” 9 Notice, however, that Galileo’s decree comes with a certain caveat, namely that Scripture is undoubtedly true so long as “its true meaning is understood.” This addendum, in fact, becomes the crux of the debate. What does Galileo mean by “true meaning” here and – perhaps just as important – who is in the best position to determine it? In formulating his own response to these questions, Galileo takes himself to be very much in line with Augustine in making room for science without undermining Biblical authority. Before formulating his full and nuanced position on the relationship between science and religion, Galileo again references Augustine on what the Bible might have to say in regard to the rather obscure question of whether the stars are animate. Although at present this matter cannot be settled, yet I suppose that in our further dealing with the Bible we may meet with other relevant passages, and then we may be permitted, if not to determine anything finally, at least to gain some hint concerning this matter according to the dictates of sacred authority. Now keeping always our respect for moderation in grave piety, we ought not to believe anything inadvisedly on a dubious point, lest in favor of our error we conceive a prejudice against something that truth hereafter may reveal to be not contrary in any way to the sacred books of the Old or New Testament.10 Viewing this as an opening – if not an outright invitation – to investigate nature by way of science in matters which do not directly or importantly impact faith, Galileo offers us the following: From this and other passages the intention of the holy Fathers appears to be (if I am not mistaken) that in questions of nature which are not matters of faith it is first to be considered whether anything is demonstrated beyond doubt or known by sense‐experience, or whether such knowledge or proof is possible; if it is, then, being the gift of God, it 8
Galileo, “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” in Discoveries and Opinions
of Galileo, trans. Stillman Drake (New York: Doubleday, 1957), 194.
9
Ibid., 181. Ibid., 199.
10
www.twoculturesjournal.org 4
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 ought to be applied to find out the true senses of holy Scripture in those passages which superficially might seem to declare differently. 11 In short, science should take precedence in matters that have nothing to do with faith and, while Scripture is unquestionably true, errors can be made by human beings who interpret it. As such, if science and Scripture seem to disagree on a question concerning the natural world, Scripture should be reinterpreted provided that the science is well‐
established. As Richard Blackwell states, The net result of this position is peace between science and revelation at the price of a full dichotomy between them; Scripture dealing with the articles of faith and salvation which are beyond human reason, and science with natural laws which sense experience and reason can determine with certitude in at least some cases. In religion revelation takes this first place and reason the last place; in science the roles are reversed. 12 On the heels of this distinction, Galileo – to steal a phrase from Blackwell – takes a “detour into Biblical exegesis.” Focusing on the passage of the sun standing still in the sky in the Joshua passage, Galileo makes sense of this passage from a Copernican perspective. In other words, he illustrates how we could read this passage with a view of the universe wherein the sun lies motionless at the center while the Earth moves around it. It is worth noting that, unlike Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Trial, Galileo does not make a mockery of this passage. Indeed given the power of the Catholic Church at the time, he was in no position to. Instead, Galileo offers a quite nuanced reading of Joshua 10:12‐15 that not only reconciles Scripture with heliocentrism, but which goes even further, showing how the sun being “stopped in midheaven” makes more sense within the Copernican system than the Ptolemaic. 13 From Copernicus to Darwin: Following Galileo’s Lead Turning from the Copernican to the Darwinian revolution – by most accounts the two most significant revolutions in the history of modern science – , I believe we can easily follow Galileo’s lead in interpreting that part of Scripture which is largely taken to be the most problematic when it comes to evolution, the first two chapters of Genesis. Here we encounter the Biblical account of the Earth’s creation, which, according to chapter one and the first three verses of chapter two, required a total of seven days. Should we understand a “day” to be the twenty‐four hour period needed for the Earth to make one complete rotation (all of us, by now, being good Copernicans), this would seem to be very much at odds with what science now tells us about the Earth’s formation. 11
Ibid. Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible, 68.
13
See Galileo, “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina,” 212-215. 12
www.twoculturesjournal.org 5
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 Scientists tell us that the Earth took somewhere around 4.3 billion years to arrive at the point where we find ourselves today, Homo sapiens coming along about 100,000 years ago. This is certainly much longer than the six days which God required in Genesis, human beings appearing a mere six days after God undertook the creation of the heavens and the earth. So a literal interpretation of Scripture here seems to be importantly at odds with what modern science tells us about the age and formation of the Earth. Insofar as the diversity and complexity of life that we find in nature today would require millions of years to evolve according to Darwin’s theory of natural selection, it would seem that either Scripture or Darwin is mistaken. But rather than choosing one version of the truth and abandoning the other, we might ask, as Galileo did, whether this disagreement is irreconcilable or only superficial. Upon a closer reading, we find that the meaning of the word “day” cannot stand for what we typically understand to be a day insofar as the rising and setting of the sun which now marks our days (pardon my slip back into geocentric language) was not even possible until the fourth “day” of creation when God created the sun and the moon. Indeed, the first day is marked by the separation of light and darkness, evidently a different sense of light and darkness than that provided by our sun. Naturally, this distinction makes a great deal of difference in interpreting what is meant by a “day” in the seven day account of God’s creation. As William Jennings Bryan even admits when he is put on the stand in the Scopes trial, “I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the earth in six days as in six years or in 6,000,000 years or in 600,000,000 years.”14 Upon such a reading, the disagreement between science and religion with regard to the Earth’s creation seems far less significant. In fact, if we read the first chapter of Genesis according to this alternative understanding of the word day, we find that the order of creation more or less coincides with what geologists, paleontologists, and biologists now tell us. Water, being a basic requirement for life, arrives on the second day. Vegetation begins to grow on the third. Animals emerge separately on the fourth and fifth days, the aquatic varieties arriving a day before their land‐dwelling brethren. Last of all, of course, are human beings, who God creates as something of a final act on the sixth day. In short, the order of God’s creation largely corresponds with the modern scientific account of the Earth’s natural history, now understood more fully because of Darwin’s theory of evolution. Rather than rejecting science or Scripture, a more careful reading of Genesis suggests that seemingly separate versions of the truth can be readily reconciled. 14
State of Tennessee v. Scopes (1925).
www.twoculturesjournal.org 6
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 The first chapter of Genesis notwithstanding, the second chapter admittedly proves more problematic. There we find the creation of man – and man alone – to precede the creation of all other living things, plant, animal, and woman alike. Reconciling this second creation story with the modern scientific account of the Earth’s formation proves far more difficult, if not impossible. That granted, it proves equally difficult to reconcile Scripture here with itself, as the two creation stories have a number of important and seemingly irreconcilable differences. As such, it seems unfair to say that science disagrees with Scripture here as Scripture, at least as I read it, is at odds with itself. The issue of the two creation stories, however, takes us to a perhaps more important point. In spite of their differences, the two stories were included in Genesis, no doubt because of their separate foci. Whereas the first story emphasizes the order and goodness of God’s creation, the second story deals in greater detail with humanity’s special place in God’s creation, culminating in the act of original sin and the foretelling of humankind’s ultimate salvation. The second story, as Galileo would tell us, falls under the distinct purview of religion and has little, if anything, to do with the truths with which science concerns itself. It may be enough then to reconcile modern science with the first story of creation and leave the second story well enough alone. Situating Galileo’s Position Before considering the Catholic Church’s present stance on the issue of Darwinian evolution, it is worth considering whether the Church’s overall position on the relationship between science and religion agrees with that put forth by Galileo. In large part this comes down to the question of whether Galileo interpreted and applied Augustine correctly. Ernan McMullin, characterizing Galileo’s position as the “principle of limitation,” describes his view as follows: “since the primary concern of Scripture is with human salvation, texts of Scripture should not be taken to have a bearing on technical issues of natural science.”15 Provided that we accept this depiction of Galileo’s view, is it acceptable in the eyes of the Church? Based on Pope John Paul II’s 1979 address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, it would seem so. As John Paul II states, “Galileo introduces a principle of interpretation of the sacred books that goes beyond the literal meaning but is in accord with the intention and type of exposition proper to each of them. It is necessary, as he affirms, that “the wise men who explain it should bring out their true meaning”.” 16 15
Ernan McMullin, “Galileo on Science and Scripture,” in The Cambridge
Companion to Galileo, ed. Peter Machamer (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998), 298.
16
Richard J. Blackwell, Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible, 84.
www.twoculturesjournal.org 7
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 Lest we consider the matter settled, however, Gregory Dawes has more recently taken issue with the notion that Galileo and Augustine were on the same interpretive page. Agreeing with McMullin’s description of Galileo as invoking a certain “principle of limitation,” Dawes takes Augustine to be advocating a rather different principle, what Dawes himself calls the “principle of differing purpose.” Whereas Augustine would agree with Galileo in saying that the primary purpose of Scripture is not to teach science in general or astronomy in particular, what Scripture does say about the natural world must be taken with “utmost seriousness.” Unlike the “principle of limitation,” “the principle of differing purpose” says that “biblical texts do “have a bearing on technical issues of natural science,” even if they were not written for that purpose.” 17 On Dawes’ reading, Galileo rightly cites Augustine in saying that Scripture does not aim to teach astronomy, but goes further than Augustine in arguing that the Bible “should not be invoked with regard to any kind of natural knowledge.” 18 In short, Galileo places limits on Biblical authority that Augustine would not be comfortable with, a point which is not insignificant when it comes to the issue of evolution. So which position does the Catholic Church advocate today – Galileo’s principle of limitation or Augustine’s principle of differing purpose? Looking to different statements from different sources, the answer is far from clear. As Dawes sees it, the stance that emerged from The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) seemed to split the difference between Augustine and Galileo, leaning ever so slightly towards the former. “Vatican II’s position,” writes Dawes, is closer to that of Augustine: the principle articulated in Dei Verbum is a “principle of differing purpose.” The purpose of Scripture is not to teach scientific matters; it is to bring human beings to salvation. But historical and scientific matters, even quite technical issues, would fall under the inerrancy of Scripture, if they could be shown to relate to salvation. 19 Unlike Galileo, then, the dividing line of Scriptural inerrancy is not drawn between technical and non‐technical issues, but between issues that do and do not pertain to salvation. On the whole, then, Vatican II’s stance is more in line with Augustine’s, which is not to say, however, that they are exactly the same. Indeed, Vatican II takes Biblical authority further than Galileo, but not quite as far as Augustine, suggesting the possibility of Scriptural errancy in matters not pertaining to salvation. As such, “differing purpose” may be a better way to characterize the Vatican II position, but only so long as we bear in mind this seeming nuance. 17
Gregory W. Dawes, “Could There Be Another Galileo Case?,” Journal of
Religion & Society 4 (2002): 7.
18
19
Ibid., 5. Ibid., 9.
www.twoculturesjournal.org 8
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 Vatican II, however, is by no means the final word on this ongoing debate. In 1979, John Paul II called for a re‐examination of the Galileo affair, an investigation that resulted in Galileo’s acquittal some thirteen years later. To mark the occasion, the Pope gave an address which, in part, seemed to embrace Galileo’s principle of limitation. Consider the following two statements: The Bible does not concern itself with the details of the physical world, the understanding of which is the competence of human experience and reasoning. There exist two realms of knowledge, one which has its source in Revelation and one which reason can discover by its own power. 20 Unlike Vatican II, John Paul II does not merely assert that Scripture and science have separate purposes in their ascertainment of truth, but suggests instead that they are working in different truth domains. For Dawes, these passages not only betoken a certain principle of limitation, but may be taken even further to imply what Marcello Pera has called the “principle of independence.” Here, it is not a matter of science and Scripture working within the same domain of truth, each with their separate focus. Instead, they are thought to be working in altogether separate domains, comprising what Stephen Jay Gould has called “non‐overlapping magisteria.” 21 Science, on this account, does one thing while Scripture does another, with each more or less having nothing to do with the other. Simply put, just as religion should not meddle in matters that pertain to science (namely, the cause and effect relationships in the natural world), neither should science interfere with issues that fall under the domain of religion (namely, God and human salvation). If this, indeed, represents the Church’s position today, another Galileo trial, at least as Dawes sees it, would be highly unlikely. In fairness, however, John Paul II’s remarks do not end with the passages noted above, as he goes on to say – in the same speech – that “these two realms [of knowledge] are not altogether foreign to one another – they have points of contact.” 22 However few, these “points of contact” effectively distance John Paul II from the principle of independence, as Gould’s magisteria are essentially non‐overlapping. But what exactly are these “points of contact?” Are they enough to once again complicate the relationship between science and Scripture? Do they, as Blackwell and Dawes wonder, open up the possibility of another Galileo trial? In closing, I want to consider the issue of intelligent design and how this theory, as a possible “point of contact,” is contributing to the general confusion surrounding Darwin’s theory of evolution. 20
Ibid., 10.
See Stephen Jay Gould, Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of
Life (New York: Ballantine, 1999), 173-216.
21
22
Ibid. www.twoculturesjournal.org 9
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 The Church’s Position on Evolution Today In 1996, John Paul II famously declared Darwin’s theory to be “more than just a hypothesis,” a statement that has largely been read as the Catholic Church’s official endorsement of Darwinian evolution. A 2005 editorial by Christoph Schönborn, however, challenged this interpretation of the Church’s position and, as a result, caused a bit of a stir. Schönborn, the current Archbishop of Vienna, wrote the following: The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things. Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo‐
Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science. 23 To many in the intelligent design camp, this sounded like a clear departure from Darwin’s theory and a possible embrace of intelligent design theory, which states that nature is too complex to have evolved from natural processes alone, thereby pointing to the necessity of an intelligent designer. Regardless of Schönborn’s intentions, his comments went far from unnoticed. In September of 2006, Pope Benedict dedicated his Schulerkreis – an annual meeting with his former doctoral students – to the issue of evolution. Set at Castel Gandolfo, the meeting included addresses by molecular biologist Peter Schuster, philosopher Robert Spaemann, the Reverend and scientist Paul Elbrich, and, naturally, Schönborn himself. While no clear or concise position emerged from the meeting – aimed, as it was, at discussion and not the generation of doctrine – the conversation itself suggests that the issue of evolution remains open to debate. 24 In fact, of the four speakers, three are in some way critical of evolutionary theory. Were there to be another Galileo trial, it seems rather evident to me that Darwin would be at the heart of it. At present, the Catholic Church in no way endorses intelligent design as a biological theory. Moving forward, however, I wonder whether some within the Church will come 23
Christoph Schönborn, “Finding Design in Nature,” New York Times (New
York, NY), July 7,
2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&scp
=5&sq=cardinal+christoph+schoenborn&st=nyt&oref=slogin.
24
A full transcript has since been published as Creation and Evolution (San
Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008).
www.twoculturesjournal.org 10
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 to view the idea of intelligent design as a “point of contact” between science and religion. To date, Pope Benedict has been critical of Darwinian evolution, not so much as scientific doctrine, but in terms of its broader implications. At his 2005 Installation Mass, Benedict asserted that “we are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.” 25 Here, Benedict is trying to preserve the dignity of each and every individual, which seems importantly threatened by the abundance of chance present in the evolutionary process. Along the same lines, Benedict offers the following in Truth and Tolerance: Now the theory of evolution, in the cases where people have tried to extend it to a philosophia universalis, has in fact been used for an attempt at a new ethos based on evolution. Yet this evolutionary ethic that inevitably takes as its key concept the model of selectivity, that is, the struggle for survival, the victory of the fittest, successful adaptation, has little comfort to offer. Even when people try to make it more attractive in various ways, it ultimately remains a bloodthirsty ethic. 26 Once again, while the scientific credibility of evolution is not questioned, its implications are taken to be quite problematic. That evolution occurs is not so much the problem. What it teaches is. Though there may be a line of distinction here, it may become an increasingly difficult one to discern. Being ever appreciative of constructive dialogue and of the Pope’s concerns when it comes to what evolution is often taken to imply, I feel that the Catholic Church would benefit its followers in making a clear statement in regard to the issue of evolution, especially in light of the confusion in the United States. Should Darwin’s theory be accepted in biology, but rejected in morality? Does it provide a compelling account of human origins, but not of the soul? Are there “points of contact” that should be explored or, to borrow a phrase, are science and religion non‐overlapping magisteria that have little if anything to do with one another? If the Church is genuinely interested in avoiding another Galileo case, such questions present a good place to start. 25
Ian Fisher, “Pope Benedict and his ex-students holding seminar on evolution,”
New York Times (New York, NY), Sept. 1,
2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/europe/01ihtvatican.2673608.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2.
26
Ibid. www.twoculturesjournal.org 11
Two Cultures ISSN 2324‐738X Vol. 1, no. 1 Bibliography Blackwell, Richard J. Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible. Notre Dame, ID: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991. ‐‐‐. “Could there be another Galileo case?” In The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 348‐366. Edited by Peter Machamer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Creation and Evolution (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008). Dawes, Gregory W. “Could There Be Another Galileo Case?” Journal of Religion & Society 4 (2002): 1‐12. Fisher, Ian. “Pope Benedict and his ex‐students holding seminar on evolution.” New York Times (New York, NY), Sept. 1, 2006. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/world/europe/01iht‐
vatican.2673608.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2. Galileo. “Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina.” In Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo, pp. Translated by Stillman Drake. New York: Doubleday, 1957. Gould, Stephen Jay. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine, 1999. McMullin, Ernan. “Galileo on Science and Scripture.” In The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 271‐347. Edited by Peter Machamer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Newport, Frank. “In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins.” Gallup.com. June, 1, 2012. http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold‐creationist‐view‐human‐
origins.aspx Pera, Marcello. “The God of Theologians and the God of Astronomers: An Apology of Bellarmine.” In The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, 367‐387. Edited by Peter Machamer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Schönborn, Christoph. “Finding Design in Nature.” New York Times (New York, NY), July 7, 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&scp=5&s
q=cardinal+christoph+schoenborn&st=nyt&oref=slogin State of Tennessee v. Scopes (1925). UMKC.edu. Last modified April 25, 2008. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/day7.htm. Study Bible. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1993. www.twoculturesjournal.org 12