When I saw the Oct. 16 viewpoint, "Don't believe me? Ask Galileo!" written in response to Christopher Wolfe's idea for a new university based on traditional Christian ones, I wondered if Galileo would be dragged out yet again into the public forums to be beaten like a dead horse—or, in this case, a dead astronomer—over what did not happen to him. Perhaps some points can be clarified with respect to science and religion.
To briefly touch upon Galileo's supposed "15 minutes of shame": the case isn't so black and white. In fact, as the British nuclear physicist Russell Stannard relates in his book, "The God Experiment," the chronology of events reveals that it was scientists who did not accept Galileo's findings at first.
On the other hand, Jesuits began to support his theory (Stannard, 106). When Galileo published his findings in a book he included a simplistic argument of the Pope. This argument was thoroughly demolished.
When the Pope "was doubtless advised that his very Papal office was being treated with contempt," he called the trial as a means of defending his honor (107). Therefore, this trial was first and foremost a conflict of personalities.
Another point that is unclear is how Wolfe's university would leave science out of its curriculum. In the Tribune's original article, Wolfe was quoted that his program would seek a genuine knowledge apart from science, but that is different from him saying that he would not include science. In other words, he wants to seek a knowledge that does not start from empirically tested assumptions.
Classical liberal arts institutions, such as the one Wolfe seems to be aiming at, aim to integrate theology, natural science and other disciplines into a complete system of human knowledge. Putting the Bible and science into opposition does not further this search for knowledge.
To give one example: one cannot look in Genesis for the explanation for "Lucy," the remains of the supposed first homo sapien. That is science's realm. Moreover, those first books of the Bible explain why the earth was created, not how.
Genesis, though, explains why humans do bad things—why they sin. The book of Job seeks to understand why humans have had suffering from the beginning of time. These sources, revelation, complete a Christian understanding of humanity's origins—the how and the why. It is a form of knowledge, of truth, received "firmly, faithfully and without error" as the Vatican II document Dei Verbum states (DV, no. 11).
This is not within science's realm to prove or disprove, for the simple reason that science is not concerned with revealed truths, only those that can be empirically tested.
There is no case of truth versus truth here. At least one scientist states that "the religious quest has more in common with a scientific investigation than most people suspect" (Stannard, 105). A lot can be gained if we keep a broad mind to both of these areas.