Father George Coyne, an astronomer and former director of the Vatican Observatory, has won the 2008 Mendel Medal. The medal, bestowed by Villanova University, is named in honor of Gregor Mendel, an Augustinian friar and botanist who balanced his religious studies with his revolutionary research into genes and heredity. The award is given "to outstanding scientists who have done much by their painstaking work to advance the cause of science, and, by their lives and their standing before the world as scientists, have demonstrated that between true science and true religion there is no intrinsic conflict." Coyne will receive the medal during a ceremony at The Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia (which currently houses an exhibit on Mendel's life, work, and influence) on September 6.

Back in December, we told you about the case of Samuel Golubchuk of Winnipeg, Manitoba, whose family members were fighting a hospital decision to take the 84-year-old off life support because they said it violated the family's Orthodox Jewish religious beliefs. In February, a judge ruled in their favor, sending the case to trial.
Golubchuk died last week, "but the larger issue remains relevant," says Rabbi Dow Marmur, who writes about the case in his biweekly column in the Toronto Star. The case, which caused one doctor to resign and two others to withdraw from Golubchuk's care, not only set medical science and religion against each other in the courtroom, but also kick-started a larger discussion about the rights of the old and disabled, and the ethics (and cost) of caring for those who doctors say will never recover.
First, Marmur explains, from "the point of view of Jewish tradition, viewed in the abstract, they had a case. Judaism forbids humans to play God, however urgent the cause. Life, it's argued, is qualitative not quantitative—you're either alive or you're dead. Therefore, it's improper to assert, as the doctors at the Grace Hospital in Winnipeg seem to have done, that as Golubchuk only had minimal brain functions with no prospect of recovery, treatment should be discontinued, even though in some sense he was still alive." But he also addresses the issue of taking patients off of life support in general. "Though the general principle should be open to public debate, each individual case must be judged on its own merits," he writes. The decision, he says, should be based solely on what's best for the patient and what the patient would have wanted, and the process of making that decision "is usually more authentic than citing religious beliefs," he writes. "In most cases, medical opinion and religious convictions need not contradict each other. Recently, Orthodox rabbis in Israel have determined that medically determined brain death be regarded as the end of life. Turning cases like that of Samuel Golubchuk's into battles between science and religion to be adjudicated by law is a poor way of dealing with a human problem of immense consequences not only for the distressed family but also for society at large." —Heather Wax

Welcome to Dover 2.0: Governor Bobby Jindal has signed Louisiana's "academic freedom" bill, known officially as the Louisiana Science Education Act, which lets teachers supplement state-approved science textbooks with other materials about evolution, human cloning, and global warming. It's unclear when, exactly, he signed it, but the Louisiana State Legislature's Web site updated the status of the bill on Wednesday.
There's not much left to say about this bill. As we've highlighted on this blog many times, a great number of people see it as an attempt to undercut the teaching of evolution and sneak religious ideas like creationism and "intelligent design" into public school science classrooms, even though supporters claim the bill hopes only to promote an environment of "critical thinking" (and the bill itself claims not to promote any religious doctrine).
Many residents and scientists—including Arthur Landy, Jindal's own genetics professor at Brown University (where he was a biology major) and a group called the Louisiana Coalition for Science—had strongly urged the governor to veto the bill. And the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana threatened legal action should the bill be signed. Stay tuned for more on this developing story. —Heather Wax

A group of professors at Baylor University have published the results of a study that shows that a person's view of God's role in the world can influence how likely the person is to support a political campaign, read about politics, or vote. Evangelical Protestants and others who view God as directly active in world affairs were the least likely to vote in the 2004 election, most likely because they felt confident that God would choose the "best" candidate. "It can be reasoned that if one believes God determines worldly affairs, then there is little reason for individuals to participate in civic events," the researchers write in the current issue of Social Science Quarterly. On the other hand, those who are part of religious groups that tend to view God as taking a less active role in the world, such as Jews and mainline Protestants, were much more likely to engage in political activities.
The study also showed that people who pray about "general world concerns" and feel that actively seeking social and economic justice is an important aspect of faith are at least five percent more likely to be politically involved than those who don't. —Stephen Mapes

Gallup recently released a survey showing that Republicans are much more likely to believe in creationism—the idea that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago–than Democrats or independents are. Notably, Republicans are also significantly more likely to attend weekly church services, a factor that past research has shown is tied to belief in creationism. Yet, as the graph above shows, the majority of people in all groups believe God played some part in our origins, whether it was by creating humans or by guiding the process of evolution. —Heather Wax

We got a note last night from Denis Lamoureux, an assistant professor of science and religion at St. Joseph's College at the University of Alberta and the biggest name in this field up in Canada. Lamoureux is the author of the upcoming book Evolutionary Creation, and he responds to Ken Miller's opinion on the term "theistic evolution" and shares a bit about his own view of origins:

"I certainly appreciate Ken Miller's approach to the term 'theistic evolution.' For example, I practiced dentistry, and in the early years I was an atheist and later I became a theist (evangelical Christian). I never practised 'atheist dentistry' or 'theistic dentistry.' I practiced dentistry, period. I found that there was one good way to extract a wisdom tooth, and atheism or theism had nothing to do with my protocol. So in may ways I'm with Dr. Miller.
However, Ken Miller is a leading figure in the modern origins controversy, and the term 'theistic evolution' does assist us in understanding his position. Clearly, he does not embrace the views of Richard Dawkins, an 'atheistic evolutionist' or 'dysteleological evolutionist.' I think that in the context of this controversy these qualifications are necessary.
I must also add that I find the term 'theistic evolution' problematic because which 'theism' are we referring to? Pantheism? Panentheism? Traditional theism? Or even a deistic spin on theism? As well, and this is my personal twist, I don't like the inversion of priority in the term theistic evolution--a scientific theory as the substantive (noun), and God as a qualifying term (adjective). Consequently, I prefer 'evolutionary creation.' This term also seems to be emerging with those who accept evolution and have distinctly conservative Christian views."

Thanks, Denis, for introducing another term into the discussion. What do you think: Is "evolutionary creation" better or worse than "theistic evolution"?

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released the second installment of its U.S. Religious Landscape Survey yesterday, and, like the first time, the findings have been picked up—and apart—by nearly every major news outlet in the country. The survey, which sampled 35,000 Americans, hoped to get beyond religious labels to discover how people's religious views and affiliation shape their social and political values.
America remains a nation of believers, which comes as no surprise, with 92 percent of respondents—including one-fifth of self-described atheists—saying they believe in God. But here are two shockers: The majority of Americans who are affiliated with a religious denomination don't think their religion is the only path to eternal life; this includes evangelicals (57 percent), mainline Protestants (83 percent), Roman Catholics (79 percent), Jews (82 percent) and Muslims (56 percent). And 68 percent of Americans say "there's more than one true way" to interpret the teachings of their religion. The question now seems to be whether these findings reflect a trend toward growing tolerance among religious people or whether they show that religious people dismiss or don't understand the doctrines of their faith.
When it comes to the findings that might shed light on the relationship between religion and science, more than half of mainline Christians (56 percent), Catholics (67 percent), Jews (65 percent), and Muslims (51 percent) say their religion should either "adjust to new circumstances" or "adopt modern beliefs and practices." And while 78 percent of Americans say there are "absolute standards of right and wrong," only 29 percent turn to their religion to define those standards. The majority—52 percent—rely primarily on practical experience and common sense, while 9 percent look to philosophy and reason, and 5 percent use scientific information. —Heather Wax