Evolution Sunday February 11, 2007

Professor 'BUTLER'?

I'm delighted to note that participation for Evolution Sunday has increased to 565 congregations (as of 3 February, 12:48 Eastern Time!). This represents an increase of more than 20 percent over last year. The Clergy Letter itself has now been signed by 10,534 members of the Christian clergy. Check out The Clergy Letter Project at www.evolutionsunday.org

Indeed, religion and science need not be at war with each other.

Michael

Michael Zimmerman
Office of the Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Butler University
Indianapolis, IN 46228

mz@butler.edu

Professor 'BUTLER'?

I am wondering why the Clergy Project, supported by over 10,400 Christian clergy members, seems to enjoy no visible support from any Rabbis, Imams, shamans, gurus, and lamas?

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook.... We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist....

Indeed, The Clergy Letter has been limited explicitly to Christian clergy members. Since it is fundamentalist Christian ministers who have been shouting to the American people that they must choose between religion and science, it seemed reasonable to have thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy assert otherwise. One of the main goals of The Clergy Letter is to demonstrate to the vast middle ground of American Christians that religion and science can be compatible. It simply wouldn't be very persuasive to have leaders of other religions saying to Christians that Christian fundamentalist ministers are not speaking for all Christians.

Evolution Sunday, on the other hand, is open to members of all religions and, next year, we will actively begin to recruit members of other religions to participate. This makes sense because the purpose of Evolution Sunday is broader than the purpose of The Clergy Letter itself.

Michael

I have just read several of the sermons by some of the participants in last year's Evolution Sunday (on a Sunday morning, no less!).

All I can say is that, the next time you hear anyone say, or even insinuate, that these religious leaders are somehow "bullied" by "Darwinists," make sure you let them know that that's probably the most outrageous lie in the entire anti-evolution movement. Yet it is unabashedly repeated by creationists an "I'm not a creationist" IDers alike. Granted, many of the people who repeat that line do so innocently, but not so the movement leaders.

Furthermore, I would bet that, for every participant in Evolution Sunday or signer of the Clergy letter, there are several others who would like to do so, but are afraid that their congregation would not understand. Just like the many teachers who are afraid to teach evolution because they don't want to deal with irate, closed-minded parents. Notice how anti-evolution activists get scarce when that happens? It should be clear who is really doing the "bullying."

Furthermore, I would bet that, for every participant in Evolution Sunday or signer of the Clergy letter, there are several others who would like to do so, but are afraid that their congregation would not understand.

When I have given talks on science and creationism, I mainly focused on a short history of science v. religion, starting with the Bible.

It is a very effective visual to hold up a Bible by the few pages of Genesis 1 - 12, the creation through the end of the Noah myth (it is about 5 printed pages in most Bibles) and point out that creationists insist that if these 3 pieces of paper are removed, or merely not interpreted in an absurd manner, then the entire remaining 600 to 700 printed pages are meaningless. Then I read the observations of Thomas Aquinas, c.a. 1225 - 1274, and the Christian father, Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) about the proper relation of science and the Bible.

I jam through Luther and Calvin, bounce on Ussher, Hume, and Paley and then shift over to the USA in the early to middle 1800s: the Millerites and then Ellen G. White. With the Seventh-day Adventests lined up, I then mentioned Darwin for the first time in the talk.

Why were the Adventists more worried about geology than biology? Back to the 1700s for a brief review of canal and road construction and the end of "Deluvianism." Return to Ellen White and her "trances" recounted in her 1868 book that fixed the Adventist dogma of young earth, and flood geology. Next George McCready Price and Adventist geology up until John C. Whitcomb, and Henry M. Morris The Genesis Flood 1961 Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, which basically created "scientific creationism." Law suits banning teaching creationism in public schools leads to a massive (and botched) rewrite of "Creation Biology" ultimately published as Of Pandas and People. This was the birth of creationism a la Intelligent Design Creationism.

Few people who have not read Ron Number's excellent book, The Creationists (recently released in a new edition), grasp that the Seventh Day Adventists are the source of most modern creationist dogma.

Correct me if I'm wrong as I delurk, but...
Is this the same FL who was so looking forward to the showdown in Dover?

This simply proves that Darwinism is all about religion.

Not because the minds of the congregation are closed---but because their minds are open and informed.

— FL

While I applaud the efforts of the Clergy Letter and endorse the idea of Evolution Sunday, I would point out that very few of the signatories of the letter are from evangelical or fundamentalist churches.

The position that science and faith are compatible is in fact a majority view amongst Christians world-wide and most mainline denominations endorse it. So it is no bold stance for a Lutheran, Methodist, or United Church of Christ minister to sign the document.

While I'm I'll for this kind of teaching, I fear that in the end all Evolution Sunday accomplishes is to widen the riff in Christianity between mainline denominations and their younger evangelical cousins. What we really need are evangelical pastoral leaders that take science seriously. I think that is starting to happen thanks to the work of Francis Collins, Darrell Falk, and even Mark Noll. But it'll likely be a while before we start hearing evangelical pastors talk about evolution from the pulpit.

[N]ext year, we will actively begin to recruit members of other religions to participate. This makes sense because the purpose of Evolution Sunday is broader than the purpose of The Clergy Letter itself.

— Michael Zimmerman

Grey Wolf's suggestion to change the name of Evolution Sunday to Evolution Weekend is exactly what we've been thinking about doing. If there's enough interest, we'll likely do just that this coming year. Please help generate such interest.

Let me also say that The Clergy Letter Project and Evolution Sunday are not designed to change the minds of fundamentalists. Rather, our goal is to educate the vast majority of Christians who, if told they have to choose between religion and modern science, are likely to opt for religion. Our goal is to demonstrate to these people that there are thousands upon thousands of Christian clergy members who know that such a choice is unnecessary. The only voices these people are currently hearing are those of the fundamentalists who are demanding that such a choice be made.

I think Zimmerman's most recent post illustrates my point well.

It states that the purpose of evolution Sunday is to educate "the vast majority of Christians who, if told they have to choose between religion and modern science, are likely to opt for religion." But who are these Christians? In America, they are largely Christians who attend evangelical churches. And in evangelical churches, the head pastor is the ultimate authority on things biblical and spiritual. Choosing modern science for these Christians often means conflicting with that authority and often means leaving their church. Since 'controversial' scientific theories have little daily relevance for most people, the vast majority will choose their church.

So, I am very pessimistic about evolution sunday to have any great impact on the beliefs of any statistically significant number of Christians in this country. Potentially, I think it also could drive deeper the wedge between mainline and evangelical churches already marked by misunderstanding and paranoia. However, I do think it has value in adding a voice to the media hurrah - a media which has by and large bought into the false dichotomy between science and religion that fundamentalism has set up. As such its witness might be greater to non-Christians who use science as an excuse for unbelief than to Christians who use religion as an excuse for scientific ignorance.

So, I am very pessimistic about evolution Sunday to have any great impact on the beliefs of any statistically significant number of Christians in this country

You already know that the culture war is only heating up. And that it is really a war between two worldviews: Christianity versus secular humanism. At a foundational level, the debate is between these two factions: those who accept God as the Creator of life versus those who believe that natural processes are responsible for life. Either man is created in the image of God---and accountable to his Creator, or man is an animal---and answerable to no one but himself.

Kentucky has fewer signatures than KANSAS.

*hangs head in shame*

Does the Presbyterian church mentioned belong to The Presbyterian Church of the U.S. ? If so, it has official resolutions supporting evolution, as do many other mainstream denominations. The statements of these churches in support of evolution can be found at the NCSE web site (http://www.ncseweb.org/) under the 'Resources" tab and then the 'Voices for Evolution' tab.

Also, one needs to be careful in using 'evangelical.' It is not the same as 'fundamentalist.' Most mainstream denominations (Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, etc.)are evangelical, but are not among the far-right groups we usually associate with the term 'fundamentalist.'

vhutchinson --- far-wrong, not far-right!

One of the main goals of The Clergy Letter Project is to demonstrate to the broad spectrum of Christian believers that, unlike what is being shrilly shouted by many fundamentalist ministers, a choice does not have to be made between religion and science. Because the two are compatible, congregants should feel comfortable accepting both. Additionally, the signers of The Clergy Letter want to go on record making it clear that those fundamentalist ministers are not speaking for the majority of Christian clergy.

It states that the purpose of evolution Sunday is to educate "the vast majority of Christians who, if told they have to choose between religion and modern science, are likely to opt for religion." But who are these Christians? In America, they are largely Christians who attend evangelical churches. And in evangelical churches, the head pastor is the ultimate authority on things biblical and spiritual. Choosing modern science for these Christians often means conflicting with that authority and often means leaving their church. Since 'controversial' scientific theories have little daily relevance for most people, the vast majority will choose their church.

Ah, Donald M again, swinging by in his smog-spewing bucket of bolts. Must be that time of month again.

Honest, M, if this monthly problem is all that irritating, you should consult your physician. Usually there are hormone preparations that offer serious relief.

This is little more than Science trying to dictate to Religion where the boundaries are. So much for Non-Overlapping Magesterium. I wonder how the science community would react if a bunch of ministers created a "Scientists Letter Project" proclaiming the compatibility of Science and Religion and requesting an ID Monday in their labs and classrooms to bring awareness that Scientists (and by extension students) and Science have nothing to fear from Religion and requesting that ID be taught alongside evolution.

Gary Hurd,
The reason creationists do not think that the rest of the Bible remains intact when you remove the early passages of Genesis or interpret it to be merely a meaningful mythical story of some kind, is because they see that if you somehow do not believe in a real space time (that is Historical) fall to humanity, then there is no need for an historical space time resurrection of Christ. Thus, they see that the story of Christ's death and resurrection changes from an real event which reversed some actual ontological status which humanity recieved at the fall, to just a good example of a man dying to unjust hands. This is why it is so serious to them. It is not just Mary Baker Eddy and YEC that drives many many Christians to see that a "God-breathed" Genesis is necessary to the entire metaphysical structure of the Christian worldview.

It has been awhile since I've read Numbers' fantastic history of creationism but I believe that this is covered quite well in there.

MS

PS: I think it is great that evolutionary theory has become celebrated in so religious a manner.

This Clergy Letter Project is an excercise in disingenuousness. Science and Religion are compatible, by these rules, as long as Science gets to call all the shots.... This project is a ruse! I wholeheartedly endorse the DI for condemning this charade.

— Donald M

The reason creationists do not think that the rest of the Bible remains intact when you remove the early passages of Genesis or interpret it to be merely a meaningful mythical story of some kind, is because they see that if you somehow do not believe in a real space time (that is Historical) fall to humanity, then there is no need for an historical space time resurrection of Christ. Thus, they see that the story of Christ's death and resurrection changes from an real event which reversed some actual ontological status which humanity received at the fall, to just a good example of a man dying to unjust hands. This is why it is so serious to them.

"In fact, I suspect that if a person is truly going to take Christianity seriously, then perhaps they cannot simultaneously accept the Theory of Evolution. Although I rarely credit Christian fundamentalists with sensible, reasonable arguments, I suspect that they may hold a stronger position than most liberal Christians in the matter." http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_relig_xtn.htm

First, I doubt you'd get 10,000 scientists to sign such a petition. The latest count for the DI's petition is, what, 400? Second, the vast majority of scientists would think it absurd, just as a perhaps smaller percentage of clergy hold the Clergy Project and Evolution Sunday absurd. Lastly, the word "request" applies to Evolution Sunday; the attempts to create "ID Monday," OTOH, have thus far been found in legislatures and school boards, where the word "request" is usually not to be found. And as far as respecting boundaries, the concept of NOMA was put forth by a scientist. Science has a history of respecting the boundaries it sets for itself. Religion does not.

The DI claims to be on the "science side," not the "religion side." So you must be OK with science calling the shots, as long as it the DI's (pseudo)science. You might want to consult the DI for pointers on how to better disguise your double standard.

OK, Donald M, let's get to the point: What boundary could religion set for itself and stick to? Do you even acknowledge that there is or could be a boundary to religion?

"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages."
Richard Lederer, "Anguished English"

Is NOMA a principle of Science or Religion?

It's a principle of common sense based on centuries of observation and experience, by religious and non-religious people alike: science most effectively explains phenomena of the physical Universe -- matter, energy, space, time, life-forms and all that; while religion most effectively describes the spiritual Universe -- gods, beliefs, priorities, meaning, morality, etc.

Serious, damaging and embarrassing mistakes are made when this boundary is violated, especially by religion trying to second-guess science. The Catholic Church, among others, learned this the hard way, when they took 400 years to admit that quote-mining the Bible does not trump a proper scientific proof that the Earth orbits the Sun.

Would you like me to dig up that quote by St. Augustine, which may have been the first articulation of NOMA in the Christian era?

"I have no double standard at all because I reject NOMA outright."

You reject common sense outright. But I digress. You're not happy about science "calling the shots" as you say it, but you'd be happy in a science class where religion would be "calling the shots". THAT's your double-standard. Perhaps you could also tell us why the only people who have problems with evolution do so because of their religious objections? And what exactly are the "merits of ID" you mentioned?

See ya in another month, or are you waiting for Lenny?

is NOMA a principle of some other over-arching philosophy that dicatates to both science and religion? If so, what philosophy would that be and from where does it get the authority to tell either where their boundaries are?

Would you like me to dig up that quote by St. Augustine, which may have been the first articulation of NOMA in the Christian era?

— Raging Bee

I have no double standard at all because I reject NOMA outright.

— Donald M

Re (Frank J's reply to Donald M) "You might want to consult the DI for pointers on how to better disguise your double standard."

Cause the DI has been so successful at that so far?

Henry

I'd especially like to know what these ministers have to be "shrilly" shouting in order to earn the label "fundamentalist".

— Donald M

And why is it automatically assumed (which is precisely what all this means) that anyone, especially a minister, who has the audacity to question or otherwise criticize any aspect of evolutionary theory must be a "fundamentalist"?

This Clergy Letter Project is an excercise in disingenuousness. Science and Religion are compatible, by these rules, as long as Science gets to call all the shots. This is little more than Science trying to dictate to Religion where the boundaries are. So much for Non-Overlapping Magesterium.

Either man is created in the image of God---and accountable to his Creator, or man is an animal---and answerable to no one but himself.

— Ken Ham

Yes, Bill, that's the one. Thanks for the help there.

Now let's see how "the Donald" responds to the wisdom -- indeed, the testable and proven hypotheses -- of a fellow Christian.

Now let's see how "the Donald" responds to the wisdom --- indeed, the testable and proven hypotheses --- of a fellow Christian.

Cause the DI has been so successful at that so far?

— Henry J

Science only gets to call the shots as to what science is. Thankfully, science has a hugely successful method, quite clearly defined, to make that determination. Absolutely anything outside of that method, religion can have, and frequently appropriates.

It's because science has this hard and fast definition that it is able to say to ID "You're not science, you're a man behind a curtian pulling the levers of the gullible" It's because of this hard and fast definition that it can point to some of the things that religion has appropriated and say, "actually, turns out you're wrong about that - sorry, but really, that's what you get when you try and explain things by just making stuff up". As scientific knowledge grows, inevitably it will tread on religion's toes - but science never changes its basis in what it, of itself, is - the results of its methodical application.

Raging Bee and Bill Gascoyne,
the quote you linked to, and the suggestion that St. Augustine was or would be a proponent of NOMA is in error. For Augustine and pretty much all thinkers during the middle ages would not understand the world as being something that could possibly be understood in two different, and conflicting ways which both retained actual meaning. That is, the scientia or knowledge concerning the natural world prescribed by religious texts or "scientific" texts understood by both pagan (read: non-Christian) and Christians alike could not at the same time be true and conflicting. They understood that if religion made pronouncements about the natural world (the universe came into being from the nonphysical properties of God's omnipotence at some point in the past, Genesis 1:1) that science couldn't make conflicting pronouncements (the universe is eternal, Aristotle, Proclus)and the both of them be true. Religion made pronouncements that scientia would either support or contradict. When scientia contradicted religion (as in the example parenthised above) the religious thinkers were suspect that the scientia was wrong and would later come to support the religious view. All this to say that Gould's NOMA is invalid if religion makes claims concerning the natural world. Of course it does, the great scientists of the past understood this. Guys like Augustine, and later John Philoponus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton would find NOMA unthinkable. Today, we have had the tendency to separate Science from religion on this point because if we place Religion in a subjective, spiritual only box, then it really doesn't mean anything. This results from our current epistemological paradigm and dare I say it, our scientism. Thus many of us so called moderns have told ourselves that religion doesn't even claim to explain or even comment on physical reality to any however small degree.

MS

sam said:
"science has a hugely successful method, quite clearly defined,"
"science never changes its basis in what it, of itself, is - the results of its methodical application."

Whomever thinks this statement right needs to study the history and philosophy of science for at least an hour. Then they will see how dubious an assertion this is.

MS

Science only gets to call the shots as to what science is. Thankfully, science has a hugely successful method, quite clearly defined, to make that determination. Absolutely anything outside of that method, religion can have, and frequently appropriates.

— sam

But it's equally likely that many clergy are afraid that members of their congregation WOULD in fact understand what's going on, and therefore openly question his or her views and intentions, insisting on some open discussion of the issues involved. Maybe that's the real reason. Not because the minds of the congregation are closed---but because their minds are open and informed.

I've been attending evangelical churches all my life and I have never had a pastor who thought he/she was the ultimate authority on things Biblical and spiritual. If I ever had one like that, I'd leave in a flash.

Whomever thinks this statement right needs to study the history and philosophy of science for at least an hour. Then they will see how dubious an assertion this is.

I know what you're saying here, but I still think "hugely successful" is appropriate. And while science could be said have changed its spots in certain respects, the means by which they changed (though occasionally two steps forward and one step back) were by and large through the correct application of the scientific method. Unless you're thinking of something specific....

Just a clarification on the term "evangelical." It gets thrown around alot, but there are two main and important uses.

One is theological - a focus on personal conversion and sharing of the Gospel. In this use of the term, vhutchinson is right in calling many mainline denominations evangelical.

But the second use of Evangelical (capital E) refers to a wide range and large number of smaller denominations that formed in the US under specific historical circumstances beginning in the early 1800s (up into the late 1800s), in particular within the religious culture created by the Great Awakening. These church movements not only emphasized personal conversion and evangelism, but defined themselves by it. Large denominations like the Assemblies of God, Church of God, etc. are evangelical in this sense as well as many independent churches, including many of the 'mega-churches' we find in the US today.

With regards to accepting evolution, historically the Evangelical churches had no problem accepting it. B.B. Warfield, one of the fathers of the movement, is famous for stating this position, for instance. But in the 1910s through the 1930s something changed as a wave of fundamentalism swept through evangelical churches. In my mind, it can largely be seen as a reaction to liberal theology, also making its impact in those times - in particular in the mainline denominations. Liberal theology emphasized historical over theological understanding, Jesus' teachings over his supernatural acts, and personal action over personal conversion. To many it appeared that liberal theology represented as erosion of traditional Christian belief (as indeed it did), yet it was gaining ground - particularly in academic institutions. The fundamentalist reaction to this within the Evangelical churches was a retreat to a strict literalist and biblicist theological position that persists today.

I think knowing a bit of this history is helpful on both sides of the evolution "debate" - Evangelicals should know that even Evangelicals have not always been so anti-evolution and Darwinists should know that not all Evangelicals are fundmentalists with their heads in the sand.

So, I am very pessimistic about evolution sunday to have any great impact...

If we try, we might fail. If we DON'T try, we WILL fail.

Evolution Sunday, of course, is not the whole effort by any stretch, and no one in his right mind expects it to turn any tides on its own. This is just a publicity stunt to draw attention to the issue, and flash a message that not all Christians sbuscribe to the simpleminded fundie worldview.

(Besides, if Evolution Sunday is not expected to have any impact, then why are so many Christians going out of their way to disparage and discourage it? Have we thrown them into damage-control mode already?)

Thanks, TLTB, for the history. This can be very helpful, in a know-your-enemy kind of way.

They understood that if religion made pronouncements about the natural world (the universe came into being from the nonphysical properties of God's omnipotence at some point in the past, Genesis 1:1) that science couldn't make conflicting pronouncements (the universe is eternal, Aristotle, Proclus)and the both of them be true.

That is almost the exact opposite of what Augustine said in the above-cited quote. Also, in his time, the claim about the Universe being eternal was, for all practical purposes, a religious belief, just like the Genesis story, since neither could be tested at the time. The tone of Augustine's quote makes me pretty sure that if a knowledgeable scientist, Pagan or Christian, were to show him a scientific proof regarding the origin of the Universe, Augustine would have re-interpreted his own doctrine as necessary to accomodate the new information. For him, the #1 priority was Man's salvation through Jesus; and he would not have wanted to lose credibility bickering over off-message issues like how old the Universe was.

All this [is?] to say that Gould's NOMA is invalid if religion makes claims concerning the natural world.

Rubbish -- NOMA is valid, and means that religious-based claims about the natural world are suspect.

Today, we have had the tendency to separate Science from religion on this point because if we place Religion in a subjective, spiritual only box, then it really doesn't mean anything.

Wrong again -- "subjective" and "spiritual only" is not the same as "doesn't mean anything." Religion still makes claims about spiritual, personal, moral and philosophical issues.

A word about NOMA. It is valid in the sense that scientific claims cannot be based upon religious beliefs, but it should not be taken (in my opinion) to justify a compartmentalization of religion. To say that science and religion have completely separate domains of explanation is to reduce religion to custom and tradition.

Religion's "purpose" is not just to explain certain kinds of things, but to give a meaningful explanation to everything, including science. Science's magisterium is thus a proper subset of religion's (science being limited to the natural world and religion going beyond that). Science's findings (though they can only be validated or invalidated on the basis of scientific methodology) are properly interpreted in a larger religious context. This is as true for Christians as it is for those of atheist or agnostic belief systems.

For most religions, God is the creator of all that is. Therefore, anything discovered by science is pertinent information about God and God's creation. Where we (religious people) err is when we impose our preconceptions (often based on specific textual interpretations of our holy books) of what that information should look like on the scientific process. In a very real sense, what we are doing there is making God into our own image.

Also, thanks for linking to the St. Augustine quote. I agree that it doesn't represent quite the same view as NOMA. But what it does represent is this: Augustine was aware that humans knew very little about the physical origins of the earth and the life on it; and he was prescient enough to realize that one day we might - that though there was currently nothing to challenge orthodox thinking about Genesis, one day there might be. What he knew was that God is not a God-of-the-gaps: God does not only exist in what we do not know (something we hear these days from Dawkins and others), and that therefore we shouldn't hang our theological hats on theories about things we know little about.

Religion's "purpose" is not just to explain certain kinds of things, but to give a meaningful explanation to everything, including science. Science's magisterium is thus a proper subset of religion's (science being limited to the natural world and religion going beyond that). Science's findings (though they can only be validated or invalidated on the basis of scientific methodology) are properly interpreted in a larger religious context. This is as true for Christians as it is for those of atheist or agnostic belief systems.

I agree. Another way to put it is to say that science tells us what we can and cannot do; and religion (and moral/spiritual beliefs in general) tells us what we should and should not do.

If I may venture an opinion on the meaning of Augustine's words, I think he basically doesn't give a rat's ass about truth derived from reason, he's most worried about scaring away potential converts.

"The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scriptures are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinion about our books, how are they going to believe these books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"

Now, if one wishes to interpret this as "render unto science the things that are of the physical world, and render unto God the above mentioned 'matters concerning'," and that that basically is NOMA, I think that's a fair interpretation. One might also assume that Augustine is saying, "Let's convert them first, and then convince them that the spiritual perspective is more valid, and if the two disagree, we're right," but that's not what I read here. It sounds to me like Augustine is saying, "Let 'em have all that physical-world nonsense, we know it's all moot anyway."

From what I've seen of the ID crowd, I'd say Augustine has them pretty well nailed.

Science's findings (though they can only be validated or invalidated on the basis of scientific methodology) are properly interpreted in a larger religious context. This is as true for Christians as it is for those of atheist or agnostic belief systems.
----
I agree. Another way to put it is to say that science tells us what we can and cannot do; and religion (and moral/spiritual beliefs in general) tells us what we should and should not do.

To be honest, I think this is supernaturalist. I don't think there is a larger religious context, and appeals to it run into the same problem that any religious statements do - they suppose that there is more than there is for no good reason. I suspect there are plenty of rationales for what we should or shouldn't do, for our aesthetics and our learned morality within a naturalist framework without appealing to intangibles. But then I'm OK with determinism, so plenty of folk disagree with me voluably :-) That's why I'm more than happy to suppose that NOMA isn't so much an irreduceable wall as it is a yin/yang type setup with yang getting slowly swallowed.

In my humble opinion, natch.