In a 1997 article, the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould discussed the interaction between science and religion. In Gould’s view, science and religion concern themselves with separate domains of knowledge and inquiry, and he summed up this idea with the phrase non-overlapping magisteria. The Latin word magisterium (plural: magisteria) means governance or jurisdiction (although this word is rarely used in any other context than the Roman Catholic Church, which terms the collective teaching of the popes and the bishops “the Magisterium”). In Gould’s own words:
The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry … .[1]
Not everyone agrees with Gould; Richard Dawkins is a well-known critic of this view, commenting that it “sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment’s thought”.[2] But to properly understand the issue, we need to understand what science is. This is a philosophical question, and a good place to look for answers is in the work of philosophers of science.
We will proceed by investigating four influential philosophies of science and commenting on their relationship to the origins controversy. The first two include thoughts on the demarcation problem—how to distinguish between “science” and “non-science”. The second two relate to how science progresses. Of these four philosophies, two originated from scientists, and two from philosophers.
[1] Gould, 1997, pp. 19–20.
[2] Dawkins, 2006.