Sources:  the sources of information for answering these questions are:

 1. Gould, S.J. Nonoverlapping magisteria. In the 3/97 Issue of Natural History (available on reserve at the UTM Library)
 2. Position statement of the National Academy of Sciences (reprinted here):

  " Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature.  Religion provides one way for human beings to be comfortable with these marvels.  However, the goal of science is to seek naturalistic explanations for phenomena - within the framework of natural laws and principles and the operational rule of testability.

     It is, therefore, our unequivocal conclusion that creationism, with its accounts of the origin of life by supernatural means, is not science.  It subordinates evidence to statements based on authority and revelation.  Its documentation is almost entirely limited to the special publications of its advocates.  And its central hypothesis is not subject to change in the light of new data or demonstration of error.  Moreover, when the evidence for creationism has been put to the tests of the scientific method, it has been found invalid.

    No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation should be admissible as science in any science course.  Incorporation the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum stifles the development of critical thinking patterns in the developing mind and seriously compromises the best interests of public education.  This could eventually hamper the advancement of science and technology as students take their places as leaders of a future generation."

Terms to know: scientific method, hypothesis, theory, nonoverlapping magisteria

Questions:

1. According to the National Academy of Sciences, creationism (explanation of the origin of life based on religious explanations such as those in the Bible) is not science.   Explain why not, with reference to the scientific method.
2. Gould discusses the "nonoverlapping magisteria" (NOMA) of science and religion.  What is meant by nonoverlapping magisteria?
3. According to Gould, and to Pope John Paul II, what is the magisterium of science?  What is the magisterium of religion?
4. How do the Popes (John Paul II and Pius XII) reconcile religion and the possibility of evolution?
5. Write a question about the origin of humans that, according to Gould and Pope John Paul II, would be appropriately answered in the magisterium of science, but not the magisterium of religion.  Now write a question about the origin of humans that, according to Gould and Pope John Paul II, would be appropriately answered in the magisterium of religion, but not the magisterium of science.
6. According to Gould, and the principle of "NOMA," are science and religion equally valid ways of addressing all questions?  Or is one is alway superior to the other for all questions? Or does Gould's concept of "NOMA" mean something else? Explain.
7. In what major way does Pope John Paul II's 1996 statement with regard to evolution differ from Pope Pius XII's statement with regard to evolution?
8. What does Pope John Paul II (as cited by Gould) regard in particular as a significant argument supporting the theory of evolution; how does this affect the main point he makes in his statement.
9. What did Gould see as the greatest strength of the nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion?  What does it permit?
10. Who was Stephen Jay Gould?  In what area (what magisterium) is he a well-qualified authority?  In what magisteria is he poorly qualified?
11. Gould's position on nonoverlapping magisteria has been criticized for both religious and scientific reasons.  Think of a religious reason that magisteria could overlap.  Think of a reason based on evolutionary biology that magisteria could overlap.