In his recent State of the University address, Cornell President Hunter Rawlings discussed at length "the challenge to science posed by religiously-based opposition to evolution, described, in its current form, as 'intelligent design.'" Some have criticized Rawlings, a classicist, for weighing in on a matter of science. We disagree. The question "What is science?" is not itself a scientific question, but is a matter for the entire academic community. For better or worse, Intelligent Design (ID) is national news, as evidenced by front page articles not only in the Cornell Daily Sun, but also the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.

Students and alumni have been asking us at Chesterton House for assistance with sorting out the issues raised by Rawlings's address. On Friday, November 7, we hosted a panel discussion, "Intelligent Design, Intelligent Discourse," in which three professors and a pastor read short reaction papers. Without attempting to settle the question "Is ID science?" the purpose of the panel was in part to model respectful dialogue across legitimate differences of opinion within the framework of Christian conviction. As we continue to engage this topic, what follows is a brief summary of our thoughts on Rawlings's address and some of the issues it raises.

On the one hand, there are many aspects of Rawlings's address that we affirm: "This controversy raises profound questions about the nature of public discourse"; "When ideological division replaces informed exchange, dogma is the result and education suffers"; "Humanists and social scientists can--and should--move us beyond ridiculing or ignoring our opponents or claiming that, at some level, science is good and faith is bad." Rawlings makes good use of President Emeritus Frank Rhodes and Professor Glenn Altschuler on ideological imperialism, and he knows his James Madison.

On the other hand, there are aspects of Rawlings's address that we find problematic. First, calling ID an "attack on science and reason" is neither constructive nor fair. The ID folks may be mistaken, but they are not irrational. They are bright people working in leading universities.

Second, although Rawlings is honest in acknowledging that many scientists have contributed to the current polarization by promoting materialism "improperly disguised as science," his critique remains selective. He could have given weight to this concession by citing Cornell's own Will Provine or the late Carl Sagan as examples of irresponsible materialists. According to Provine, biology tells us not only that there is no God, but also no soul, no after life, and no free will. By emphasizing the "threat" of ID over against that of materialism, Rawlings slighted the concerns that animate the ID movement and missed an opportunity to truly transcend the entrenched positions on this issue.

Third, we were disappointed in Rawlings's uncritical appropriation of A.D. White's widely discredited "warfare" model to describe the relationship of science to theology. Indeed, as one historian of science wrote to us of Rawlings's address, "I know of no historian of science, atheist or theist, who would subscribe to such old-fashioned views of White. They were debunked 30 or so years ago." Another wrote, "As for the use of A.D. White, only at Cornell."

Fourth, Rawlings's criteria for religious discourse in the public arena--that religious arguments must be 1) clearly identified as such, and 2) supported by other arguments--are overly constraining and probably unjust. Discourse in the public square should indeed be secular in the broad sense of accommodating all but not privileging any partisan perspectives; it should not be secular in the narrower sense of privileging non-religious perspectives. To say that religious arguments need "other" arguments is to treat religious arguments as foul balls--they are tolerated but don't count because the rules render them out of bounds. Such rules constitute what the Supreme Court has called "viewpoint discrimination," and results in what we might call the naked public university.

Fifth, and finally, we were troubled by Rawlings's suggestion that religion naturally tends toward violence. "As we have seen all too often in human history," Rawlings writes, "and as we see in many countries today, religion can be a source of persecution and repression. As Pascal, the great French philosopher, said, 'Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.'" It's true, of course, that religion can be a source of repression, but an awful lot hangs on the word "can." Even setting aside the conflation of the world's many diverse religions, the statement is misleading. Not only does it overlook that secular ideologies have begat more bloodshed in the last century than have all the world's religions throughout all history, but also that religion often functions as an agent of peace and reconciliation. With all due respect to President Rawlings, implying that the folks who bring us ID are the same folks who brought us the Crusades and the Inquisition is specious logic. Violence is a human problem, and one that happens to find a compelling account in the Christian understanding of human nature as dignified but bent.

Turning our attention to the Christian community's response to the current controversy, we suggest the following. First, let us confess that the culture war rhetoric on the part of many Christians has been not only ineffective, but downright dishonoring to our Lord. Second, before demonizing the scientific establishment as irreligious, let us confess that the church has not pursued the study of God's world (science) as vigorously as the study of his Word (theology). Third, although concerns about a theocratic conspiracy are overstated, let us not dismiss such concerns too quickly; the New Testament church is scattered among the nations, and talk of establishing a "Christian nation" is always wrongheaded. Fourth, let us remember that Christian theology distinguishes between primary and secondary causes; God has delegated causal efficacy to the created order, but the operation of those secondary causes in no way denies their ultimate dependence on God as first and final cause.

Fifth, and finally, given that the current controversy is in part about publicly accessible evidence for God, we can do no better than to affirm with the apostle Paul and the historic confessions of the church that God is knowable by the Book of Nature (Rom 1:20), and that Christ is knowable by the Book of Scripture. Christianity is an historical--and historically verifiable--religion. Our faith is grounded in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. When Paul encountered Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in Athens (Acts 17:16-34), who were sophisticated materialists, the topic he pressed was the public evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Jesus appeared to Peter, to the Twelve, "to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living," to James, to all the Apostles, and last of all to Paul himself (1 Cor 15: 4-8). Regardless of the questions entailed in the current controversy, if the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection is strong, then materialism is discredited, and we have ample evidence to commit ourselves to Christ as Lord and God.

Although our quarrel is not with Rawlings's assertion that ID is not science (we believe rational people may disagree on that), we find that his address largely fails to accomplish his own goal of rising above dogma and ideological division. Our concern, which we hope proves incorrect, is that just as A.D. White's warfare metaphor had the unintended consequence of further promoting the notion that science and religion are incompatible, Rawlings's caricature of religion also may result in increased hostility to the academic establishment--presumably not his intention. As Cornell University Trustees embark on a presidential search, we hope they will select a candidate who can speak more constructively about religion in academic and public life.

Earlier this fall, Chesterton House director Karl Johnson and board member Bob Fay were interviewed by a reporter from the BBC about the role of religion on campus. The airing of that segment was preempted by Hurricane Katrina, which may be just as well given that, as David Brooks, Christian Smith, and Phillip Jenkins have all recently noted, religion reporting is riddled with secular bias.

Thanks to our growing list of faithful supporters, we are making progress on our goal of raising the $200,000 necessary to trigger the full $100,000 challenge matching grant offered by Cornell faculty members. This match will remain in effect into 2006. Information on how to give, our 2005 annual report, and details on the matching grant are all available at http://www.chestertonhouse.org/funding.

We are now able to receive gifts on-line through Cornell, either by automatic transfer or credit card. The site is very user friendly. Go to http://alumni.cornell.edu, click "Make a gift," designate "Student and Academic Services," and enter "Chesterton House." Gift checks can always be sent to Chesterton House, PO Box 6878, Ithaca, NY 14851.

"It is ironic that [A.D.]White should have succeeded infallibly in that which he so deplored, 'in thrusting still deeper into the minds of thousands of men that most mistaken of all mistaken ideas: the conviction that religion and science are enemies.'"