The war between science and religion rages on, constantly creating and perpetuating a further divide between Darwin and the divine.

If one remains uncertain about the qualifications regarding my previous statement, a reference to any contemporary media source will reinforce any doubts. In fact, Time Magazine‘s latest cover featured the title “God vs. Science,” an article in which a debate between biologist Richard Dawkins and geneticist Francis Collins argue the finer points and details of evolution.

I have no problem with the public’s interest and discussion about science and religion. I am charmed to see 21st-century America engaged in intellectual dialogue. It’s rare these days. However, the problem, at least for me, lies in the nature of the dialogue — that is, the framework on which the God vs. Science debate has been based.

It is sincerely unfortunate that the civic topic concerning science and religion has come to be a topic of either-or. Either one takes the side of science or one takes the side of religion. One cannot have it both ways, or so the media make it seem.

Therein lies the problem.

I firmly disbelieve, as a theist, in any innate conflict between science and religion. The more one discovers and learns about science and the complexities of our intricate universe, the more one discovers about God. I am in no way attempting to put forth a teleological argument for God’s existence because I am already convinced that he does and that is not at all the purpose of this column.

What I am getting at is that the framework of the public’s discussion regarding God and science is essentially faulty and does great injustice to both parties involved.

The first problem is “either-or.” This approach does nothing but unfairly put an enormously expansive topic into two tiny little boxes, leaving Average Joe pondering which to choose because he can only have one.

The second problem is that the media tend to choose extremists as their representatives for both science and religion. For example, Richard Dawkins has, for one reason or another, been crowned the poster boy for science. As Dawkins almost always focuses his efforts from an antitheistic approach rather than an engaging scientific point of view, it is hardly fair that the man on the street should make a decision based on such bitterly biased information from a scientist whose most recent publication is entitled The God Delusion.

On the other hand, those who take sides with religion face an inevitable consequence of being portrayed as scientifically and intellectually ignorant. That is, thanks to the media, which make it seem that religious belief is nothing more than superstitious fanaticism.

In my opinion, the fundamental creationists do nothing to help this problem but only add fuel to the fire by embarking upon ground where they simply do not belong. Just as Richard Dawkins does not properly belong in an academic theological discussion, neither do the literal creationists belong in an academic biological discussion.

If one is both a biologist and a creationist, then fine, he or she might belong, but as biologist Ken Miller noted in his lecture “Finding Darwin’s God” Nov. 6, the ratio of evolutionists to creationists in modern biology is 50-to-1.

In fact, St. Augustine in his work, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, admits that non-Christians who possess scientific knowledge alternatively from the Bible are potentially right and that for the Christian to speak out ignorantly against them is not only embarrassing but dangerous as well.

The danger lies in the fact that not only will the Christian look stupid, but more importantly, it will lead an unbeliever to greater uncertainty regarding Christian doctrine and thus further from salvation. That is, according to St. Augustine.

C.S. Lewis, another noted Christian apologist, makes a more declarative and outright case for science and evolution. When asked for his position on evolution, he states, “If you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection.” When asked about his thoughts regarding the Creation account found in Genesis he maintains no difficulty in accepting the belief that it was simply derived from Semitic stories of a Pagan and mythical base.

The point is, one doesn’t always have to just choose science or religion. I believe to do so is to remain wholly ignorant of the other unchosen. I find that science does not drive me from God but rather brings me closer to him, whether the media want it to or not.

Send Warren your thoughts on science and religion at [email protected].