Miller, however, was dead wrong in calling Paine an atheist--although one could argue that Miller's religious upbringing might have led him to think so. Paine was a Deist.

Paine's "The Age of Reason" laid to rest ecclesiastical claims that the anthology we call the Bible is literally without error. The book was published in two parts. Between the two, Paine sat for 11 months in the Luxembourg Castle prison, threatened with the guillotine. Some sources say Paine was imprisoned because he opposed chopping off the head of Louis XVI, but Paine's attitude toward organized religion and his general independent attitude likely played a role. He was saved only by the intervention of James Monroe, then Ambassador to France and later our 5th President.

Paine believed the principal gifts of Deity were a universe with natural laws and a species endowed with sufficient intelligence to use those laws for the good of all. He hoped for a hereafter, but he also said churches were "human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit." It was predictable that the Roman Catholic hierarchy of that day fumed about blasphemy and atheism. The charges persist, as Miller's statement shows.

In Paine's story, we can learn something about the unfortunate and counter-productive battle between the one-third or so of proclaimed Christians who see the Bible as literally inerrant -- and modern science. To that segment of Christianity, the entire Bible anthology is divinely revealed truth. Science -- with its focus on observable and measurable phenomena, its insistence on repeatable results, and its openness to peer review comes under suspicion...even attack. Intellectuals in general fare no better.

For Bible literalists, the earth is a mere 6000 years old, all its living inhabitants having been created in six days. They believe it not because of objective analysis of observable phenomena but through reading Genesis, the very words of God. Seen through that conceptual lens, macro-evolution seems improbable if not impossible.

If scientists are correct and our planet is 4.5 billion years old (750,000 times older than literalists believe) then macro-evolution is easier to understand. But accepting the idea that Scripture has at least that one error threatens to unravel the whole doctrine of inerrancy, and more relevantly, question the authority of those who preach and teach that doctrine--who predictably feel threatened, grow defensive, and often angry.

On the other side, I recall a spirited exchange with a gentleman who prided himself on his scientific objectivity. He said that if we know all the facts about an issue, the correct decision makes itself. That may be true if no moral issue is involved. Science is superior to revealed religion at judging scientific facts, but moral judgments are another matter. Science per se is neither moral nor immoral.

Scientists often err in equating the scientific method to something like moral superiority. And while one might make a good case that science has made our lives better, it would be an imperfect case. Knowing all the facts surely aids good moral judgment, but both science and religion have their moral Dr. Jekylls and their moral Mr. Hydes. And plenty of them -- individual and organized.

Perhaps the most commonly shared standard of human morality is the ethic of reciprocity, which the Judeo-Christian religion calls The Golden Rule. That is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." However, the ethic of reciprocity does not depend on belief in a supernatural being or beings, or an afterlife. Morality, as we define it here, isn't exclusive to religion. Not just one, but many religions do promote the ethic of reciprocity -- as do many modern and ancient philosophers, including many one might define as secular humanists, agnostics and atheists.

Summary: (A) Biology professors may not be religious authorities. (B) To be good people doesn't necessarily require holding to the scientific method or adhering to a supernatural religion. (C) Two groups are dismayed by the findings of scientific fact. 1. Those whose profits and power are put at risk. 2. Those whose religious certainties are made uncomfortable. Sometimes, the two become bedfellows:

Next time, the possible origins of the ethic of reciprocity.