THE RICHNESS OF LIFE The Essential Stephen Jay Gould STEPHEN JAY GOULD Edited by Paul MeGarr and Steven Rose With an Introduction by steven Rose and a Foreword by Oliver Sacks ot W.W. Norton & Company ‘New York — LondonSei apie © 50 Pt Mert a Se Re "hsb coh © ast een Be iscwat yn vars a ca me, Cope © 16! fe Ce ge rn hot emia: cin on hi ck oe rn Sr yx th eu, Now Yk NY 1110 anti by RR Donal Hai ‘onl een Dy. ie. rt eB etchant ee Inde isi een «Nala Btn Ge a quicinn er sotto 1 Noo on a 50h aN YN 010 {WW None 8 Campy Ed, Cn Hat, 9 Wel tr anon WH 9 CONTENTS Lise of Figures Foreword by Oliver Sacks Introduction act: Autobiography 1 Have Landed. ‘The Median Is the Message “The Streak of Seeks Seventh Inning Stretch: Baseball, Father, and Me ‘Trouble in Our Own House: A Brief Legal Survey from Scopes to Scalia (OF Teo Minds and One Natore Part: Biographies “Thomas Borne’ Battleground of Time ‘The Lying Stones of Maceakech “The Stnkarones of Osningen ‘The Raaumovsky Duce “The Power of Nasrative [Noe Necessly Wing ‘Worm for a Century, and All Seasons ‘The Darwinian Geneleman at Marx's Funeral: Resolving Evolutions Oddet Coupling ‘The Pildowwn Conspiracy 1s 26 9 6s 8s oy 17 3 166Isconckuots paces often inspite anomalous sores, In eatly 1984) 1 spent several nights a the Vatican housed in 2 hotel bul fr aera Priests. While pondering over such posing tues asthe intended fae tion ofthe bidet in each bachtoot, and hungering fr something more ‘han plum jam on my breakfast rolls (why did the bashes ony eon Funded of idenscl plum packets and not one of say, strawherey?, "encountered yer another among the innumerable sues of contrasting cultures that can make life so expansive and interesting, Out crowd (present in Rome to attend a meeting on nuclese wie, sponsored by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences) shared the hotel with group of French ad Italian Jest pists who were also professional seats: One day at lunch, the priests called me over to thir table to pose a Problem that had been troubling them. What, they wanted to ooW ‘was going onin Ameria witha thistalk about “inthe creations"? ‘One of the priests asked me: “Is evolution relly in some kind of !woubles andy if so, what could sch trouble be? I have always bean ‘aught that no doctrinal conf exists berween evolution and Catholic faith, and the evidence fo evolution sens both utr satisfying an taiely overwhelming. Have I missed something?” Q A lively pastiche of French, lalian, and English conversation thea | sued for half an hour or 5, but dhe pies al eemed seasuced by ‘iy ger answer—"Evoluion has encountered no intelectual roubles ‘ow argumens have been offeed. Creations is home grow phenomenon of American sociocultuelhistory—e splinter movement (unfortunately rather mote ofa beam these days of Protestant find ‘mentalists who believe that every word of the Bible mast be literally NON-OVERLABPING MAGISTERIA sor ‘ray whatever such chim might mean" We al lft sted but 1 crtiny fee bemused by the anomaly of my role as Jewish ago, ‘oping to reassure w group of priests that evolaron remained bth cue tnd entirely consitear wit zligious ble. Another story in the same mold: Iam often asked whether I ever encounter creationism as lve iste among my Harvard undergead tate sademts. reply that only once in thirty yeas of teaching, did ‘experince sucha incident. A very sincere and serous feshanstdent came to my office with a question that had clearly been troubling him deeply. He said to me, “Tam a devout Chistian and have never had any reason to doubt evolution, an idea that seems both exiting and ell documented. But my roommate 2 proselytizing evangelical, has been issing with enormous vigor that cannot be bath real Chistian and an evolutionist. So tell me, cana person belive both in God and in evolution?” Again, I gulped hard, dd my intelectual dy, and eas sured im tht evolution was both true and entirely compatible with ‘Chistian belief—a postion that Told sincerely, but sill an odd St ation fra Jesh agnosie. These wo stoves stata cardinal poin, frequently unrecognized but absolutely central co any understanding of the status and impact ofthe politically potent, fandamentaist doctrine known by its sel proclimed oxymoroa as “scientific cretioniin”—the claim thatthe Bible is itecally eu, tha all oeganims were ceeaed during sb days ‘of twenty-four hours, that the earch is only a few thousand years of, and that evolution mast eereore be flue. Creationism does nv pit science against cligion (as my opening stories indicate), for no sich confer exist, Creationism does not ive any unstled inellctal issues about the aatere of biology othe history of life. Creationism 1 Toeal and parochial movement, powerful only in the United States among Western nations, and prevalent only among che few sectors of American Protestantism that choose to ead the Bible ata inerant ‘document, literally tue in every jot and til do not doube that one could find an occasional num who would prefer to teach creationism inher parochial schoo! biology las or an ‘ccasional rabbi who does the same in hit yeshiva, but creationism based on biblical literals males litle sense iter to Catholics oF ‘ews, for neither eligion maintains ay extensive eration for reading the Bible as literal eh rather than illarinaing itratre based arly DetGadi cal datas tanl aeencaeets case‘nd demanding interpretation for prope understanding, Most eotestant coups, of course, ake the same postion—the fundasnenalis fringe owwthesnding The argument that I have just outlined by personal stories and seneal statements epresens the standaed ate of all major Western religions (end of Westra scene) today: (ant, shrough ignorance, speak of Eastern religions, chough I suspect chat the same positon would prevail in mest eases) The lack of conflict berwcen science en religion arises from a lack of overlap berween thet respective domains ‘of profesional expertse—science inthe empirical constitution ofthe universe, and eligion im the search for proper ethical values athe spiritual meaning of out lives. The atsnment of wisdom in afl ile requires extensive attention to both domains—fora great book tel ug both tac the wath ean make us fres, and that we wl ve inept harmony with our fellows when we learn todo jst love meee, and val unbly In the context ofthis “standard” postion, I was enormously purl by a statement issued by Pope John Pat If on October 235 1996 the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the same body that had sponsoeed ry etl exp tothe Vatican. In this document, tiled “Truth Cannot CContradiet Truth" the Pope defended both the evidence for evolution and the consistency of the theory with Catholic religious doctrine Newspapers throughout the world responded with frompage bead lines, as in the New York Time for October a5: “Pope Bolsters Chutes Suppoet for Scientific View of Evasion.” [Now 1 know about “stow news days,” and 1 do allow tha athing se was strongly competing for headlines at that pariclar moment. Sil, 1 coulda’ help feeling imnensely pale by al the attention pid to the Pope's statement (while being wely pleased, of cous, foe we reed all the good press we can get copecily from respected ouside sources). The Catholic Church does not oppose evaltion, aad as 90 reason to do so. Why had the Pope sued sich statement a al And why had the press responded wich an orgy of worldwide frontpage coverage? Toul only conclude at fest, and wrongly as 1 soon lemed, that ly journalists throughout the world mast deply misunderstand the cela: ‘lonship berweea science and religion, and must therefore be elevating 8 minor papal comment to uawatraned note, Perhaps most people «eally do think that « war exists beeen scence snd religion, ad tha NON-OVERLAPPING MAGISTERIA 393 voltion cannot be squared with «belief in God. In such a context, * papal admission of evolution’ eiimate satus might be epardd st Inajor news inded—a sort of modern equivalent for a story that never happened, bu would have made the biggest journalistic plas of x6yo ope Usban VII releases his most famous prisoner fom house aret and humbly apologizes: “Sorry, Signor Galileo». . the aun, ey sentcal™ But I then discovered that such prominent coverage of papal st faction with evolution had noe heen an eror of nom Catholic angle. Phone journalists. The Vatican itself had issued the statement as major ‘ews release, And Italian newspapers had featured, if anything, even bier headlines and longer stories. The conservative I! Giornale, for ‘sample, shouted ftom its masthend: "Pope Says We May Descend from Monkeys, ‘Geary, Iwas out co lunch; something aovel or suprising must lark within the papal statement, but what could be casing all the fs? ‘specially given the accuracy of my primacy impression (a I ater ve fied) thatthe Cathoic Church vals scientific uy, views scene uno threat to religion in general or Catholic dctine in particu, and hat loag accepted both the legitimacy of evolution as 2 field of stay and the potential harmony of evolutionary contusions with Cathole faith Asa former constituent of Tip O'Neil, Leertanly know hat "al polities is local"—-and chat the Vatican "undoubtedly has its own inzeral ceasons, quite opaaie fo me, for announcing papal support of evolution in a major statement, Sil, I seasoned that T must be ‘ising some important key and fle quite feasted then remem bred the primary rle of ineclectal life: When puzaed it never hares ‘o read the primary documents—a rather simple andsell-evident pein. ‘ipl that has, nonetheles, completly disappeared from lage sectors ofthe American expesienes Tew that Pope Pus Xt (tone of my voit igre i swentieth eur history to say the last) ad made the primary statement in 4 1950 encyclical entitled Humani Genel | knew the main thrust of his message: Catholics could bie whatever scence determined sbout the evolution ofthe human body so Tong as they acepted that st some time of his choosing, God had infused the sou into such eereatae. 1 sso knew that I had no problem with this angament—for, whatever ‘ny private belies about sous, scence cannot touch such subject and {therefore cannot be threatened by any theological postion on such alegitimately and intrinsically religious issue. Pope Pius XU, in 2 words had pope sclaowlaged nt pected he sear doaeg sine and thal. Th I ound ysl neal spement oh an Geri thud neste docnat inl can of an mpedinee cating a opinion thse day) Tui gor the relevant writings fom, al places the nee {the Pope's prominent onl, a Le Heme eae 2 cyber amit to dee up the document Io lore te ture of seeping y fig egion sw hep ands sea ‘tne Haig ow ren ial ut ope Ps met Cenc o "so and Pope Jn Ps prolnton of Oober 96, ap understand hy he res statement see woe elegy of all those headin. And the mesage could not be me weeny {oc vlan and eens of bot eae and reigion The text of Huma Goer osss one tern Teaching Authorg) af he Church word deed ot fo ay cop Inj o angen awe, bt ft dle nn a sci, for magiter mane “teacher” im Lan, We may Wink dope word and contro exes the etal point ft ey pried elton of napposed “cof” ce ware” bere ‘cet and lion. No sich confi shod exit ees cach hava lpinate magi, or domain of techng aut an ‘hese magiera do not overlap he pin ta woul io deg tate a8 NOMA, o “non-veaping magiera The et fw cove the empl esi wht eth nese made of ac) an wi dest work tis way (hop The et of gon sends ove ur tons of moral mening at vale. These so maps dono ov nor do they ecompan al ng contr for sates te maple tram faa he ing fb), Tot easel ccs, fhe age of rocks an ligonrois h rock fe we S fw he heer oy ad thy dane how ogo to been, This rest ight renin ently Set and cea i the om overlapping magica of ence and religion td far apr sep tated by a exerie no-one the Wo magi bump heap aes each thes nic n wonton comple ‘ay along ther int border, Many feu depen qos cl spor berets ofboth git for ile para al snser and he ‘orig of ete domains an Become ute compen and di “Doce jo bed qos involving hth evelaoary ats a Jo MaGISTHRIA sor ‘moral arguments: Since evoltion made ws the only earthly creatures ‘with advanced consciousness, what responsibilities ae so ented for ‘ur relations with ater species? Whae do our genealogies tes with other onpanians imply about the meaning of human fe? Pius XITS Haman Generis (1950), highly traditionalist document writen by deeply conservative man, faces all the "isms™ and ey ‘ns that rode the wake of World War and informed the rrugele ‘coreild human decency from the ashes ofthe Holocaust. The encyclical bear the subsite “concerning some false opinions which eheaten to ‘undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine,” and begins with 2 statement of embatlment Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have slays been «cause of profound sorow to all {00d men, but above allt the true and loyal sons ofthe ‘Church, especially today, when we see the principles of (Chuisan care being attacked on all sides. Pius Lashes ou, in een, at various external enemies of the Church anti, exientaliom, dialectical materialise, historic, and, of ‘course and preeminent, communism. He chen nots with sadness chat some well meaning folks within the Church have fallen into a dangerous relativism —"a thedlogcal pacifism and efalitrianism, in which all points of view become equlyvalid"—ia order to include those who year for the embrace of Chistian religion, but do not wish eo accept the paniculaly Catholic magiterim. ‘Speaking a8 conservatives conservative, Pius laments: [Novelties ofthis kind have alzeady borne their desl fi in almos all branches of theology. Some question whether tngsh are personal beings, and whether mater and spiie Ailes esseatally...- Some even say thatthe doctrine of “Transubetantation, based on an antiquated philosophic notion of substance, should be 50 modified thatthe Real Presence of Chis inthe Holy Eucharist be reduced toa kind of symbolism. Pius frst mentions evolution to decry a misuse by overextension mong zealous supporters ofthe anatheratzed “isms”596 Retiaton Some imprudenly and indiacrealy hold that evoltion explains the origin of all things.» » Commits gladly ‘uber o this opinion so tha, whe ee souls of en have been deprived of every idea of a personal God they may the more elficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical atria, Ps prevents his major statement on evoation nese the end of the noylieal in paragraph 35 through 37. He accepts the standard model ‘of non-overlapping mayisteria (NOMA) and begins by acknowledging thar evolution lis in dificult area where the domains press hae ‘gains each other, Ie remains fo Us now to speak about those ges: tions which, although they pertain to the postive sienes, te eer theless more or les connected with the tuts ofthe Chesian ith”* Pius then write the wellknown words tha permit Catholics to enter tain the evolution ofthe human body (a factual ste under the magi term of sence, so longs they acept the divin xetion and ifion. Of the soul (a thclogical notion under the mogisterium of religion). The Teaching Authority ofthe Church dows not forbid that, in conformity withthe present sate of human sciences and sacred theology reearch and discussions, on the pare of men perience in both Fils, take pee with regard «0 the Aloctine of eveltion, ino fa a it inquires ito the ori fof the human body as coming fom pre-eistent and living + tseingy the i tht of tee paragraphs dos to adres eto ec bt fs in lating dita Pel “plygenin” oe ai Thomas anceey fom mule parnt—for be pds cha es oan le wih doce gals which reds sin aca omit {panda Adam and whch hog enero, sed all and Jeep bio” In hs ne inane, Posmay be angesing te NOMA, Piper 1 canot ji, fr I do aot endetand the deals of Cab Polya vhecoe do nt hw how symtaialysck semen ay Be fe Peeing that we care een toy abo dts fall ter ane fan acel oplatn xtethn fough an net i ‘ia fa pola ne sacha en would qui the deci of Saline tg onsen wold ele him otf ine Se Hi ‘he magia of eign Ste acelin wthin the mages of sien NON-OvERLAFPING MacisTERtA ser ratter—for the Catboli ath obliges us to hold that sous ae immediately created by Goal "had, up to here, found nothing surprising in Human! Generis, and nothing to relive my purlement about the noveky of Pope John Paul's recent statement. But I read further and relied that Pivs had said ‘moze about evolio, something Thad never seen quoted, and some: ‘hing that made John Pal’ statement mos interesting indoed. I hore, is foreeflly proclaimed that while evolution may be legitimate in pencpl, the theory, in fact, had noe een proven and sigh well be cily wrong. One gets the strong impression, moreover that Pak ‘was rooting pretty hard fora verdict of flit Continuing dzely from the lst quotation, Pius advises ws about the proper study of evolution: However this must be done in such a way that the seasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and chose uala- ‘orable to evoltion, be weighed and jged with the neve ‘ty seriousness, moderation and measure... Some howeves, rashly tansgess his liberty of discussion, when they act a8 ifthe origin of the human body from preexisting and ving rater were aleady compleay certain and proved by the ‘ae which have Been discovered up now and by reasoning, fom those facts, and ae if thete were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest noderation ‘nd caution in his question ‘To mumarig, Pa generlly accepts the NOMA prince of nom ‘overlapping magitra in pernitig Catholics o entrain the hypothesis ‘of evoluon forthe human body 50 Jong as they accepe the divine if sion of the sol Bur he then offers me (hol) ftherly advice to scien ties abou the satus of evolution ata scenic concept: the ide not yee proven, and you all ned co be especially cautious because eveluion ‘iss many troubling ies rght onthe border of my magisteram, One ‘ay red this second therein wo rather diferent ways: eter as ri ‘tous incursion ino a diferent magsterium, o a a helpful perspective {om an ieligent and concemed outsider, As « man of goodwill and in the interest of eaeiton, Tam content to embrace the later reading ‘any case this rarely quoted second clam that evolution semanboth unproven and a bie dangerous)—and not the familias Fis ag sent fr the NOMA peincile (that Cathoies may accept the eval tion ofthe body so long astheyembeac the creation of the sol}—defines the novelty andthe interest of John Pauls recent statement John Pal begins by summnsng Piss older eneyclial of 1950, sna partculal by eafleming the NOMA peincple—nothing new here, tnd no cause for extended publicity lo hs encyelial “Humani Generis" (2950), my predecesoe Pius XIU had already stated thar there was 90 opposition eeween evoation and the doctrine ofthe faith about man and his yeation, To emphasize he power of NOMA, John Paul poss a pores problem snd a sound resolution: How can we posibly reconcile science’ claim {for physical continuity in human evolution with Catholii ins tence thatthe soul must enter at a moment of divine iafuion? ‘With man, then, we find oueslves inthe presence of an ono= logical ference; an ontological leap, o2e couldsay. However, does not the posing af such onvological discontinuity sun ‘outer to that physical continuity sich seems to be the ‘main thread of research ino evolu in the ld of ysis tnd chemist? Consideration of the method used inthe various branches of knowledge males it posible to cecon- ciletwo points of view which would seem recone. The sciences of obseraton desebe and measure the multiple manifestations of lf with increasing precision and correlate them withthe time line. The moment of transition 10 the spiritual cannot he the nbjet ofthis kind of observation. “The novely and news value of Jon Pals saterent Hs, ates, in his profound revision of Pi second and rately quoted claim that, croton, while conceivable piaiple and reconclable with religion, ‘in cite litle persuasive evidence in support, and may well be fale John Paclstater—and Lean only say amen, and thanks for noticing ‘that the hal entry between Pus surveying the runs of World Wat IWand his own pontificate heralding the dawn of» new millenium hat witnessed sacha grovth of data, and such a refinement of theory th RON-OVERLAPPING MAGISTERIA 399 cvolution can no longet be doubted by people of goodwill and keen Intliece Pius XIL added... that this opinion (evolution shoul! not be adopted as though ic were a certain, proven doctrine Today almost hal a century after che publication of the “encylial, new knowledge has led tothe recognition of the theory of evolution a more than a hypothesis Ii indeed remarkable that chi theory as been progressively accepted by eeszarchers, following a series of dncoveries in various fetsof knowledge. The convergence, either sought nor fab: cated, ofthe cess of work that was conducted independ: cal ia ela sigaican angament in favor of the theory. In conclusion, Piss bad grudgingly admixed evolution as lei mate hypothesis that he regarded as only tentatively supported snd potentially (ase clearly hoped) une. john Paul nary ity years Tae, effirns the leiimacy ofevoltion under the NOMA pncple— no news here—but then adds that additonal data and theory hive placed the facwalty of evolution beyond reasonable doubt. Sincere (Christians mast now ecepe evolution not merely 26a plausisle pots bility, but aso at an efecvely proven fact. In other words, oficial Catholic opinion ot evolution hss rove frm “say i ain’ 50, but we can deal with it foe have to” (Piss grudging view of 1950) to John * Ting rca pov facings esas Aodiahetanbes ie eet oe language im antes elton a fe the del falls ning at en sve an a og fo vey unerandsl esns. The Pope cial ve ie statement a Frey Ine ths hae ed” denwtli courte cndast soe dat [thr deol plane pstse* 'Oucraie Roman oe al ‘aa ewan elated hs usage a “new knowledge aed othe ‘ton of oor tan ene hypo i the thy of rlton” Te vr ot fase he of Vitam ser) thn appeal agin cornet, inci he gal wenion of tien "ince hs aga wanton, bt spun rd: Why shel he Pope perk fer ppss within the nce vlan to? Brads ee este ck ed ht th Poe ed ay fil ue einen afc mint a ag ‘owl om snl ee saat ened econ a de ‘un imu mechan, we ter bere ae 9 pom ‘eon600 netioton Paul’ eatiely weleoming “ic has been proven trae; we lay elbrate nature factualiy, and we look forward to intersting discussions of theological implications.” 1 happily endorse this turn of events as sospel—tterally good news. may represent the mapsteriam of since, but I welcome the support ofa primary leader fom the other major rmagiterium of our complex ives. And I reall the wisdom of King Solomoa: “AS eold waters to a dhisty soul, soi good news fom 3 far country” (Proverbs 25225) Tost as religion must bear the cross of its hardiness Ihave some scseti colleagues, including 3 few in prominent esough postions to ‘wil influence by thie writings, who view this rappeochement ofthe separate magisteria with dismay. To colleagues like me—agnoatie wen the rapprochement especialy the Popes lates statement—ehey say, “Cimon, be honest you know that eligi ivaddepated, superstitions, ol fashioned BS. You're only making those welcoming noises Because religion is so powerful, and we need be diplomatic in oeder to buy public support for science." 1 do not think tha many sientss hold this view, but such a postion fills me with lseasy—and I therefore end this essay with a personal satement about religion, asa testimony to what I regard asa viral consensus among, thowghtal scientists (who support the NOMA principle ax frmly a8 the Pope does tits who weleooe and elebrat ‘tet a an wer cl a aig ng ada ranon of probs a erin anon ny of wood te a Rd wet say l'ho echo cet Lown ta eda tent find in i Frech, The poe th nity no a ‘rie ncn sic Fesch-nfr ne ne) an ma ete See Clay te Pps bed mest he they ron Bd ow be ong coup oa "ore tan pet pe ewe Ppa “cts oath rad mets" nd ve eat pet eo RE ‘han one ype Cvs emp. Hoorn srapdcs fo pig shi ro ad he Vd xing, men pal pt eRe of Ath ‘eu ao cetyl ed ec dit {EG Nt Cn Cai Ht Cir oe “ale Byte NOMA py wine“ ob ow {Ge raaty cp te os ewes ce eign i Een oe Caste wat pd Tee ot he a {ose papal coef th yo woe weg esi ition 3) ‘Senate Stason pre yur hen eae NON-OVERLAPPING MAGISTERIA for 1am nor, personaly a believer oa religious man ia any see of insiuional commizmene or pace. Bue Lhave great respect fo rel ion, and dhe subject as always Fascinated me, beyond almost all thes (with a fw exceptions, like evolution and paleontology). Much ofthis fascination les in the tuning historical paradox that oganized eligon ‘as fostered, thoughout Ween hiory, both the most unspeakale horrors and the most heartening examples of human goosnes inthe {ace of personal danger (The ei, eli, lis in an occasional cont cece of religion with secular power, The Catholic Church has sponsoted its share of horrors, fom Inguisitions to liquidations—bue ony beaise {his sion held ret secular power daring so much of Westen history. ‘When my ols bel such sway moze bre and in OM Testament ines ‘we commited similar atrocities with the sme rationales) Thetive, with ll my hear in a respectful even loving, concordat between our magisteria—the NOMA concept. NOMA represents 4 principled poston on moral and intellectual grounds, not a merely diplomatic ylation, NOMA also cus both ways. If religion ean no longer dicate the nature of factual conchsions residing propery within the magistecium of scence, then scent cannot claim higher insight into moral ruth from any superior knowledge ofthe world’s emp ical constiution. This mutual humility leads to importane practical ‘consequences in a world of such diverse pasion. Religions to0inportant fr roo many people to pez any dismisal ‘or denigaton of the comvfor sl sought by many folks from theology, [imay, for example, privately suspect that papal insistence on divine infusion ofthe soul represents Sop to ous feats, a device for main taining «belief in human superiority wihin an evolutionary world offering no privileged poscon to any ezeatare. But Talo know that the subject of souls ies ouside che mapsterum of sience. My world cannot prove or disprove such a notion, andthe concep of souls cannot threaten or impact my dormsin, Moreover, while Teannot personally accept the Catholic view of souls, Isurly hoaor che metaphoria vale ff such a concepe both for grounding moral discussion, and for expressing what we most valu about human poentilty: our desea, for care, and all the ethical and intellectual srugles that the evle tion of consiousnes imposed upon ws [As 2 moral position (and therefore not as & deduction from any knowledge of natures factual), I prefer the “cold bath” theory that ature canbe truly “ervel” an “iniffreat”—in the utterly inapprofon neLicion NON-OVERLAPPING MAGISTERIA 603 «an Lay claim co anyhing special, we evolved asthe only creatures shat rest ponder and tlk. Pope Joba asl Il would surely point ut eo me ‘that hie magiterium has slays recognized this uniqdenes, for Jobe ‘ospe begins by seating principio era verbuns—in the begining was the word. priate terms of our ethical discourse—because nature does not exit for us, didn’ know we were coming (we are, after all itelopers of the latest geological moment), and doesn' give » damn about as (speaking metsphoricaly). I regard suck » position a Hberating, not depressing, because we then ain the capacity to conduet tral scourse—and nothing could be more imporet—in ur own teen, fee from the delusion that we might eead moral truth pasively fom satuce’s factual, : ‘ur Trecogeize tae such a postion frightens many people, snd that 4 more spiritual view of nature retains broad appeal acknowledging the fatality of evolution, but sl secking some intrinsic meaning i human terms, and from the magsteriam of religion). | do appecat, for example the stages ofa man who wrote tothe New York Times ‘on November 5, 1996, to declare both his pain an his endorsement ‘of John Paal’s statement: Pope John Paul 8 acceptance of evolution touches the dubs in my heart. The problem of pain and suffering in 1 world created by # God who i ll lve and light is haed ‘enough to eat, evea if one isa creationist. But at last ‘reatioist can say thatthe orginal ereation, coming from the hand of God, was good, harmonious, innocent and sent, What can one say about evolution, even a sittual ‘theory of evolution? Paia and suffering, mindless cuelty and teor are its means of creation, Evoluton's engine i the grinding of predatory teeth pon the steaming ving flesh and bones of prey. If evolution be erue, my faith has rougher seas to sal 1 dow’ agree with his man, but we could havea teifie argument | would push the “cold bath” theory; he would (presimably) advocate the theme of inherent spictul meaning innate, however opaque the ‘signal But we would both be ealightened and filed with beter under standing of these deep and ultimately unanswerable issues. Her, 1 bulieve, les the greatest strength and necesy of NOMA, the no ‘overlapping magisteriaof science and religion. NOMA pernits—inderd ‘njoins—the prospect of respectful discourse, of constant input fom ‘both mapisteria toward the common goal of wisdom. If human beings