To the editor:

There are no better advocates for science than Leonard Krishtalka, and his regular assaults on the folly of intelligent design bring sheer joy. So I groan when I hear him venturing out of this strong position to offer sops to the moderately religious, thus: “There is no conflict between religion and science, as long as you keep the two separate.”

You may as well say there is no conflict between the cobra and the mongoose, as long as you keep them in separate cages. This ducks the question of why they are so reliably, bitterly antagonistic when together and assumes that there are two cages to be had.

In fact, there are not two cages, or at least for Krishtalka to suggest so is more than he and the evidence are warranted to claim. Rather, our accumulating understanding strongly suggests that every question and observation eventually proves amenable to scientific ways of inquiry – while religion has yet to show clear authority or special relevance in its alleged realms, outside the real, material universe. And to prematurely concede the expressive, emotive, value-based aspects of our humanity to the mystics, to keep science safe, is a disservice to artists, musicians, writers, secular philosophers, and good old decent people who find in material reality and human society all the “meaning” they require.

Krishtalka may as helpfully say that “sense and nonsense need not conflict, as long as they’re kept separate.” It’s an irrefutable (and useless) observation.

Bruce S. Springsteen,

Lawrence