There are several points here.
First, I have some understanding of the mistrust which exists between the religious communities and the scientific communites. As far as I can tell, there is a fair amount of mistrust on both sides -- and I expected as much. But if we are serious about the complementarity of religion and science -- something which both the religious and scientific communities have been promoting to a lesser or greater extent, then we need the courage to live authentically by our words, we need to do so with integrity. Otherwise the claim by Fundamentalists that we simply bring God out whenever necessary and then stuff him back in a box as soon as possible will ring true. Science will continue to be perceived as anti-religion, and religion will continue to be perceived as anti-science. And both will be damaged in the process -- science by being exposed to the claims made by Fundamentalists, and religion by being made to appear increasingly irrelevant and backward in the modern age.
As for claiming that religious leaders have intellects approaching those of scientists, I certainly wouldn't make that claim. Frankly, I myself am in awe of empirical science and of the people who make it possible -- the dedication, the years of study, the hours spent staying up late trying to cram everything in that they needed to learn for that next exam. The hours spent in the lab, living without virtually any kind of social life. People in your profession have probably spent at least twice as many years in college as people who have entered the ministry -- and the last four years were probably far more difficult than the first four.
However, I myself try to approach everyone I meet as an equal -- whether that person happens to be the president of the company I work for, or simply the cashier at the corner store. But at the same time, I believe that this ability to approach clergy with mutual understanding and respect will be far easier for those
forty percent of scientists who are religious and belong to the same denomination.
As for the "fragile constructs," I have one question: would you agree that religion (and I am not speaking of the Fundamentalism that you are so used to encountering, but of the religion held by the clergy who have already come to the defense of evolution -- whether as part of the project I have mentioned, or as part of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) can and oftentimes does promote the intellectual courage to admit one's mistakes? Would you agree that some scientists are in fact religious -- and that somehow they still manage to be good scientists? Would you agree that there ethics is an asset to the scientific community? These "fragile constructs" are part of the bedrock of their characters. All I would ask of you is to grant respect to them for being good at what they do, and not penalize them for their religious beliefs or their participation in church.
Now with respect to the problem of overpopulation, if you are asking me how to convince the current pope that birthcontrol is needed in Africa, I am afraid that you have me there. However, the first point to keep in mind is the fact that the problems in the third world are interconnected. The growth of population in a country is a function of the poverty -- once the average annual income rises above 300 dollars (in 1964 dollars) population growth begins to decelerate. And the higher the average annual income the more the rate of population growth is lowered. This is what is refered to as the wealth effect.
Poverty in third world countries is a typically a function of several factors. I will list the three which I believe are most important. First, a heavily regulated economy with lack of transparency. Second, a burden of debt which is so great that additional debt has to be incurred simply to make payments on the interest for the debt which is already owed. And third, the existence of high tarrifs in First World countries which the Third World countries might otherwise be able to sell. Currently, we are seeing some debt-forgiveness, but the lowering of tarrifs has been postponed into several years in the future.
Now we also need to keep in mind the fact that the poverty in the Third World is responsible for the lack of basic sanitation, and moreover, with overpopulation continuing to be an ever-growing problem in an underdeveloped country, it is becoming increasingly necessary for people in the Third World to make further incursions into what would otherwise be prestine and very complex ecological systems. The incursions these ecological systems will expose people to organisms which have never been encountered before, which when combined with the lack of basic sanitation, the amplifiers of overcrowded cities, and jet travel will lead to epidemics which will threaten even the First World. As with the re-emergence of tuberculosis and with the increasing resistence of bacteria to antibiotics, the First World will pay a price for ignoring the conditions in the Third World. And the longer we ignore the Third World, the heavier the price is likely to be.
No, you probably can't convince the Catholic church to give up its opposition to birth control any time soon -- but I believe they would have an interest in seeing further debt-forgiveness and could even be made to care about high tarrifs. However, other churches may be more open to the idea of birth control.
Now will speaking in the basement of a church on Thursday night about problems in the Third World sway the opinions of an entire denomination? No, obviously not. But speaking in the basement as a member of that denomination who is also a scientist will give one greater visibility in that church -- which may grant one the kind of access which is needed to write short articles for church periodicals, and perhaps periodicals which have much wider circulation in that denomination. And the fact that the First World and the Third World are interdependent will serve to underscore the fact that the moral thing to do (helping the Third World with the problems it currently faces) is also the practical thing to do -- an unbeatable combination. If enough denominations are made aware of the problems which will soon face our world -- and to some degree are already facing our world, public opinion can be swayed and begin to affect both governmental and international policy.
But out of necessity, this will probably start small -- probably at the grassroots level. Some religious scientists visiting churches belonging to their own denominations, doing so because the feel free to do so without penalty, and because it is something they would enjoy doing.
Now I realize that the success of these more distant goals is much less probable than that of changing public perception regarding the relation of religion and science, perhaps only pie in the sky. But I do believe it is at least possible, and I do not see what we have to lose by trying.
™ Version 4.2