Evolutionists and Creationists are engaged in a mortal fight. Dealing with facts in empirical work, Darwinists feel that they are always on the winning side. The myth of war metaphor or “the conflict thesis” as advocated by Drs. Andrews D. White and John W. Draper in 19th-20th centuries persists, even nowadays. But lately, a large number of historians of science and religion (Christianity) have re-evaluated this thesis in historical context. They have proposed a “complexity thesis” (Gary Ferngren, 2002). Their findings have enlightened our understanding of the controversies and their complex relationships. In this article, I wish to share this new insight, focusing on the complexity in historical context and calling for a new paradigm in the debate.

1. The two American scholars and their “conflict thesis” in 19th-20th centuries:

In 19th-20th centuries, Darwinism was much debated in schools and in public. At the same time, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) formulated the doctrine of papal infallibility. Academic institutions teaching evolution were not exempted from the RCC’s scrutiny. Wind of conflict was blowing from Atlantic to Pacific. Scientists and scholars took their stands, with pros and cons. William Whewell (1794-1866), a renowned mathematical physicist and Anglican clergyman, wrote his scholarly work on philosophy of science,“Fundamental Ideas.” The book was well accepted in academia. He expounded the principle that both human being and the natural world were God’s creation. Both moral and scientific knowledge was progressive. Whewell did not consider the conflict between science and religion significant, he considered them mutually reinforcing. He saw Galileo’s episode as nothing but an aberration. Of course, they were those who did not agree. On the other side of the aisle, Drs. John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White upheld diametrically different views. Eventually, they advocated the “conflict thesis.”

John W. Draper (1811-1882), professor of chemistry at N.Y. Univ. Medical School, wrote History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and depicted the conflict not with religion in general, but with “compression” inflicted by Catholicism at the time of broadening human intellect through science. Andrew D.White (1832-1918), leaving his professorship at Univ. of Mich., assumed presidency of Cornell Univ. While he was exercising his academico-administrative function, he encountered unjustified criticism and innuendo directed at him personally from ecclesiastic authorities and their sectarian theology. All these eventually led him to write Warfare of Science (1876), and A History of the Warfare of Science and Theology in Christendom (1896). In general, he did not blame all religion, but condemned “the same old, mistaken conception of rigid Scriptural interpretation”(p.75). He contended, “Science and true religion were not necessarily at odd. But, whenever dogmatic religious interpretations by ecclesiic authorities sought to constrain science, both science and religion suffered in the process, eventually science won the fight.” The two educators and their books thus became manifestos directed against dogmatic theology and sectarian interpretation; not Christianity per se. For nearly a century, the myth of conflict, or warfare metaphor has been perpetuated in both popular science writing, and evolutionists’ literature. Deeply rooted in the western culture and scientific literature, the conflict thesis has been proven extremely difficult to dislodge. The damage to both academic and intellectual life has been inevitable and incalculable.

2. The “complexity thesis” by historians of science and religion in recent years:

Lately, historians in both American and British universities have re-evaluated the conflict thesis in light of historical context. They realized the epistemological and methodological issues as well as the ethics and social power prevailing in time. Such historiographic studies require careful delineation of social and political settings. Studies yielded altogether different conclusions about science and religion (Christianity) and their relationships. A complexity thesis as a new paradigm was proposed and called for.

Prof. John Hedley Brooks’ Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (1991) by Cambridge University first invoked the “complexity thesis.” Brooks emphatically suggested that religion and science could no longer be viewed in broad universal terms. To understand them, one has to see the local contingent factors in order to understand the particular social and intellectual situation and its effects. Prof. Gary B. Ferngren edited two documentary books. The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia appeared in 2000, 586 pages, by Garland Publishing Co., with more than 60 contributors on various, current subjects.

The second book entitled in Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction was made available to the public in 2002, 389 pages, by Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, with 28 contributors.

An Encyclopedia covers 103 chapters under 10 Parts, in 586 pages. Part I. The Relationship of Science and Religion: covers 1. The historiography of science and religion, 2. The Conflict of Science and Religion, 3. The demarcation of science and religion, 4. Epistemology, 5. Causation, 6. Views of nature, 7. God, nature and science, 8, Varieties of providentialism, 9. Natural theology, 10. The design argument. 11. Miracles, 12. Theology, 13. Genesis and science, and 14. Nineteenth-century biblical criticism. Part II. Biographical studies, III. Intellectual Foundations and philosophical backgrounds, IV. Specific religious traditions and chronological periods, V. Astronomy and cosmology. VI Physical sciences, VII Earth Sciences, VIII Biological Sciences, IX. Medicine and psychology and X. The occult sciences. The scope and the breadth of coverage are indeed very impressive.

Dr. Colin A. Russell in The Conflict of Science and Religion, pp. 12-16, outlines the weakness of the conflict thesis as follows: 1) The thesis hinders the recognition of other relationships between science and religion, 2) it ignores the many documented examples of science and religion operation in close alliance, 3) it enshrines a flawed view of history in which “progress” or “victory” has been portrayed as inevitable. 4) It obscures the rich diversity of ideas in both science and religion, 5) it engenders a distorted view of dispute resulting from other causes than those of religion versus science, and 6) it exalts minor squabbles, or even differences of opinion, to the status of major conflict, (e.g. with the debate of Samuel Wilberforce and Huxley.) People wonder that with such inaccuracies how could “Warfare Model” have lasted so long? It was partly due to exaggeration of Wilberforth and Huxley’s debate. Another reason was naturalistic scientists enhanced their position in Victorian society, and perpetute a myth for the more public appreciation of their sciences.

In the Preface, Prof. Ferngren as editor, strives to provide a comprehensive review and treatment of the subject. He and others vigorously avoid any simplistic approach. Instead, with so many contributors drawn from a variety of backgrounds, no single point of view–in respect to either religious or historical interpretations–can be said to monopolize these pages. Yet, many contributors share the view that the historical relationship of science and religion has been a complex one–sometimes harmonious, sometimes conflicting, often merely coexisting–others retain a less benign view of western religions as they have interacted with science. One thing is for sure. The editor and all the contributors adopt a historical approach to the subjects. They have attempted to avoid imposing presentist and essentist approaches, which have too often distorted the modern understanding of both religion and science of the past. Science has long enjoyed a kind of privileged reputation as empirically based and therefore, rigorously objective. By contrast, it has been widely recognized that religious traditions are neither monolithic nor static. They have developed over time and reflect the diverse circumstances of their geography and culture. Less well known is the fact that definitions and conceptions of science, too, have changed over the centuries (page xiv ).

Interested readers should take the time to read these three books for your instruction, and draw your own conclusions.

3. Concluding remarks:

The myth of warfare between science and religion (Christianity) has been perpetuated far too long, causing enormous damage to intellectual life in the West and elsewhere. Lately, historians of science and religion have found many shortcomings of “conflict thesis” in their in-depth studies. Instead, they have proposed a “complexity thesis.” The new thesis is faithful not only to the evidence of the past, but it is also relevant to the present. History has often taught us that our most influential thinkers fret when their followers disagree with their theories. However, ideas and theories are liable to change when they are thoroughly argued and studied. I, as an academician, scientist and evangelical Christian, join hands with many others, and call for a new thesis and a paradigm shift.

Attention could be paid to what a renowned educator and philosopher said. Prof. Alfred North Whitehead once said, in 1925, “Science is more changeable than theology. If the historical landscape is littered with discarded theological ideas, it is equally littered with discarded scientific theories. Failure to understand this historical reality has led those who see the march of science as one of inexorable progress; and consider science is always right and religion is always wrong in the debate. The fact in these cases are very much complex. We should refuse to summarize them in simplistic terms.”

(Dr. Stephen C.Y. Liu is Professor Emeritus of microbiology and molecular biology, now residing in Washington, D.C. In recent years he has extensively traveled in USA, to Europe and England, giving lectures on science and Christian faith and their relationships. His e-mail address is stephen_c_y_liu@yahoo.com )