This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what this program meant to you.

Submit Your Reflection about "Quarks and Creation."

Beauty and John Polkinghorne (June 2, 2008)
I was particularly interested in John Polkinghorne's views about the beauty of mathematical equations. He said that beauty resided in elegance and economy. Scientific beauty is also characterized by comprehensiveness, the more different things it relates, and also by objectivity. Scientific beauty must ultimately be capable of objective verification. In this sense, beauty is a delicate dance between the subjective and the objective, the mystical and the mathematical, form and function.

John Polkinghorne also thought that the intelligent design people are asking some interesting questions. He was apparently unaware of the recent movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed. The movie asserts that Intelligent Design (ID) is better than Richard Dawkins' "blind chance." "Expelled" claimed that "Big Science" fired advocates of ID. However, it ignored that fact the leading ID proponents have not been expelled. Prof. Michael Behe is at Lehigh U. and Prof. William Dembski at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The either/or approach polarizes the science and spirit dialogue. The scientific evidence is that nature's creativity arises from the interplay between chance AND design (laws). As expressed by the British biochemist, the late Arthur Peacocke, Darwinian evolution is characterized by the interplay between variations (chance) and the natural selection law (design & necessity). Recent advances in complexity theory and Madelbrot's "Fractal Geometry of Nature" confirm that Darwinian processes characterize nature. As chaos theorist Joseph Ford put it: "God plays dice, but the dice are loaded."

This interplay can be extended to science and spirit. Spirituality, the source of religious meaning, provides the 'why,' which complements the 'how' of science. The complementary beauty of spirit and science is needed to prevent terrorism and materialism. Spirituality without scientific validation can lead to religious extremism, as in 9/11. Science and technology without spiritual and moral constraint can result in the exploitation of nature's intrinsic beauty, the environmental challenge.

Paul Carr
Bedford, NH (WBUR, 90.9 FM)

We Determine the Bloom (June 1, 2008)
It was interesting how John Polkinghorne point of veiw about God not knowing quite what the outcome of our choices is. God is not totally all knowing really shook me. It's as if he was saying that God was just throwing out some seeds and said, "Now let me see what is going to come up." It's like the scene in the movie The Color Purple when Ms. Nelly prepared a wonderful breakfast after Mr. had served Sug a couple of horrible meals. She shoved it in the room and hid on the stairs and said: "Now let me see what colors are going to hit the wall." That is the feeling I got from that comment that God give us much good and what we do with that good is done according to our own creative spirit. We determine the Bloom. If it is a Good bloom, it has done what it is supposed to do Create Good. That is what God knows and expects. But the expression of how is our chioce. I really never thought of God in that way!

Normally I would have been offended, but listening to him I realize that there may be a degree of truth there. Why? Because we as human beings do have a free will and we are not mechanical beings. You are either one or the other and God's role changed today for me. Taking nothing away from the might, power, protection or love of God just another side or possibility evidence of the God's provision of Good witout intimidation. What we do with it is our choice. The master is not controlling our choice — or the bloom — but just faith in the maintaince of good for all. That holds true for nature as well.

Joy Ramza
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

Expanding Human Understanding (June 1, 2008)
Seems to me that to speak of the conflict between religion and science is to take an arrogant attitude that only the Christians are right. I read on one Jewish website that the Jewish rabbis regard science as the progressive revelation by God to man as man is able to understand these revelations. The Jews are far closer to God than we, Christians, and clearly they understand the question better. They continue today to add to the Torah and find no contradiction between the older passages and the newer revelations as simple expand on human understanding as we are able to understand and accept it.

In a similar way, I have come to regard other religions as revelations of other aspects of God that we find incomprehensible in our Western understanding. It is highly arrogant to assume that only Western Christian religion has an exclusive hold on all knowedge about God.

Vicki Kobayashi
Anaheim, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)

The Possibility of God in an Impossible World (June 1, 2008)
I listened to this morning's program with great interest. I grew up in the Lutheran church in the 50's and was confirmed in 1963. In my late teens I left the church and my faith and for the ensuing 40 years have been a person who doesn't believe in God.

During my growing years in the church, I was taught a God of absolutes. One either believed in a God who controlled every aspect of life or one didn't believe in God at all. This absolute position left no room in which to fit the parts of life that seemed somehow not attributable to God and yet needing an answer for their being — I guess the existence of bad or evil. God was responsible for it all.

It was hard to trust and believe in a God that permitted so much bad in the world and so I ceased believing at all. John Polkinghorne's conversation about how he views the role and place of God in the world is interesting to me because it makes room for those things that aren't absolute. On one level I reacted to it as another way of explaining the unexplainable.

Many years ago I read Freud's "The Future of an Illusion". In it Freud tries to explain the existence of religion as a necessary function of humankind needing an explanation for that which can't otherwise be explained — God is an invention of necessity… "The gods retain the threefold task: they must exorcize the terrors of nature, they must reconcile men to the cruelty of Fate, particularly as it is shown in death, and they must compensate them for the sufferings and privations which a civilized life in common has imposed on them."

On the other hand, Polkinghorne's thoughts about a God having creating an evolving, not complete world is a very interesting way to look at the possibility of God in an impossible world. I was very taken with this idea because my disbelief is framed in the same absolute that my faith was raised in. To believe absolutely — or not — leaves out all of the possibilities in the middle.

Mark Kramer
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Kudos for Quarks & Creation (June 1, 2008)
I was not previously familiar with the work of John Polkinghorne but I will be seeking it out. I was thrilled to hear his thoughtful and intelligent discussion of Christian faith and its relationship to science and epistemology. His perspective lent greater depth to my own thinking about prayer and about God's relationship to suffering.

Mark A. Lackey
Baltimore, MD (WYPR, 88.1 FM)

Why Do We Need God? (June 1, 2008)
While there are many things to learn from John Polkinghorne — forgive me if I call him John in the rest of this reflection — I was left surprisingly disappointed. I was struck by how such a mind can be so human-centered.

The notion that God created a universe in which people can make themselves, is empowering and perhaps in that sense, useful to us. But doesn't it rasie a few interesting questions?
Accept: God created a universe that allows people to make themselves.

1. "God created" sounds so much like a metaphor drawn from our own human experience. "And Man was made in God's image." Of course, all we know for sure about that quote is that a man wrote it. That the line was inspired by God is an act of faith, of course.

2. If God created the Universe just for us — did it exist at all before us? And was there a precise moment at which our chimp ancestor became human? Does that mean at that moment— we in fact created God? Not a new idea, I know. But it seems consistent with John's facts, if not with his faith.

3. Let's imagine that God is as patience as John believes. God, is he really patient or impatient? Aren't those things we are? Anyway if we are made in God's image, that expalins it doesn't it?

4. But let's imagine that John is right and God waited several billion years to exist in our minds. Was he lonely when the bacteria didn't know he was around? If he can be patient, surely he can be lonely.

   Will God exist when we disappear from the universe? We could be— in fact there is serious evidence to suggest we are — an evolutinary dead end.

5. Does this view of God as creator, patient, and needing us to exist, really jive with what we know? Or is this just another human-centered view of the world. Does the grass give a penny if we exist? Did the dinasours miss meeting us?

6. This seems consistent with everything science has come to reject.

   1. The sun revolves around the earth. Oooops.
   2. Man was given dominion over the plants and the animals? Oooops.
   3. And now, God created the Universe so man could self-actualize his self.

7. Is the universe nothing more than a sound in the forest that exists only if man hears it?

   John said a couple of strange things I thought. Why is it "inevitable that other cells will mutate and become malignant?" Why is that inevitable? It just seems the way it is now. When God made up the rules, did he have things he couldn't do? Why is suffering the only way to enightenment? Suffering just is, so we have to accept it, but I don't see why it has to be inevitable. Couldn't we learn from a kiss as well as from a pan of scalding water?

   "I believe that the elements of the earth clashed and behaved in accordance of their nature. They are allowed to be just as you and I are allowed to be." Do tectonic plates have a choice? I hear you say probably not. But we do? I wonder if John hasn't made a magnificent case for the absence of free will.

8. If God is not going to intervene in the colossal game he has created for us in any petitionary way — why do we need him?

9. Perhaps there is another explanation worth considering. Not so grand; so self-satisfying, but possible non-the-less.

   What if Man is no where near as important as he thinks he is? What if we are a biological purge —a destroyer of species — just like the tectonic plates and the astroids from outer space? We have three elegant and seemingly unique biological capacities — we reproduce geometrically; we make tools that extend our biological powers immensely; and we are never satisfied.

   A lot of powerful, usatistifed critters running around the world can kill off a lot of species.

Bill Smith
Arlington, VA (WAMU, 88.5 FM)

Science and God (June 1, 2008)
The fascinating discussion on May 29 with John Polkinghorne gave me a new insight into the question of free will. The fact that he is a scientist played a role in the revelation that struck me while listening.

The conventional thinking on an omnipotent and omniscient God was for me — an agnostic/borderline atheist — an irreconcilable contradiction with my free will. But he raised the possibility that God does not know all the future.

This at first was a startling concept. How could a God be omniscient and yet not know whether I would make the moral or immoral choice? And if he knows what I will do, am I not constrained by this knowledge?

But suppose that God chose to set up a universe where creatures with free will could act in ways that not even he could predict?

This means that for him, our universe, our existence, is, in effect… an experiment! With all the conditions and constraints of any human scientific experiment.

If we are in fact God's "experiment," that still leaves unanswered a number of questions. What were God's motives. Was he acting out of "scientific curiosity," or was it a desire to create beings that he could love and vice versa, or what? And while much of the universe does behave with the clockwork predictability of various scientific "laws," there is randomness, as in the behavior of subatomic particles. Does God know which state a particle will move to, or is that part of the universe that he chose not to know in advance? What else might God know or not know if we all are part of a grand experiment by a being whose nature and motives we can only guess at?

Anyway, the "light bulb moment" for me was the realization that even God might want to conduct an exercise where even he did not know the outcomes, i.e., an experiment. The desire to acquire knowledge through systematic, methodical methods including scientific trials is one of our most distinguishing human features. It is what raises us above other matter and creatures. The proposition that there is a divine equivalent to this basic urge allows me to feel a palpable connection between me and a posited supreme being.

I'm far from becoming a convert, but this certainly has given me something to think about.

John Mazor
Ashburn, VA (WAMU, 88.5 FM)

"On Line" (May 30, 2008)
I believe we are all of us downloading from the Source. I find the varying but consistent comments that are about the universality of the spiritual experience, whatever the roads taken, to be about the wonder and I look to the words, to the aural sense of the words, because WONDER is also to ONE der and we often forget when we use words about their deep, symbolic and significant "clang". As quarks are to quirks so it is that as described, our point of view does affect what we see. It is perhaps a POV erty of perception that some are not open to this, or not yet, because we are perhaps on different rungs of that ladder, which is the journey of soul, to and from the Source, the energy, that intelligence that fuels this magnificent universe. If Richard Dawkins is given to see a universe that is purely mechanistic and can be explained by reference to the blind watchmaker, this is what he will see, and is given to see. Why? well as Why is to Y, that fork in the path that leads in myriad directions, but always, in my mind, is that journey of soul, it's meant to lead for him, in this direction. Diversity is the "name" of this g ame, and as conflict is for fire, so it is, an echo of that original fire, that burning bush. As flame is to lover as also to ire and that fire that is all consuming. This story is about LOVE.

As is stated, we can perceive water as the waterfall, one sheet falling, and yet, there are surely individual droplets that do coalesce to form the whole. As in atoms and their circles, they do coalesce together to form molecules, with binding forces that are both positive and negative in this most "bipolar" most metaphoric universe. The Globe is a big round ball or sphere and it is spinning as in life itself we "spin" as in form a web and as being part of a weave that is divine and so remarkable in its myriad connects. This is a weave, it's a we've. It's what we have, what we are given. To perceive the universality that permeates the everything is to feel all awe, allah, G..awe...d. I am saying as in mystical Judaism, the acronym PARDES, which is for orchard, there is meaning within meaning and what we are all engaged in hee, is a peeling of that onion and what is pealing are the bells. Do you hear them? There is a melody that is running contrapuntally to all of our lives, in that hum and drum of everyday existence. Look to the language. Look to the letters! I am doing it with letters of all kinds. I am seeing that in the deconstruction of words and in the letters themselves, an entire hidden universe, a geode, that is revelation itself.

I am seeing how, in the beginning Was the Word. Now to be OPEN is to look at what's being written, what's being said, the old and new texts and also, perhaps, this Diary that is at The HAY library in a place called PROVIDENCE, at Brown University, because what is being recorded here, in a life of letters, is so deep it's wider than the sky and deeper than the oceans.

Ruth Housman
Newton, MA (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

But a Crumb (May 4, 2006)
One word with regard to your interview with John Polkinghorne: More! The show was but a tantalizing morsel suggesting a spirit-expanding banquet at which we all, religious and secular, might feast. As a pastor who struggles daily with appropriate ways to frame the ancient insights within a contemporary cosmology, I value every insight Dr. Polkinghorne offers. With people like him, we may yet turn the "dialogue" between religion and science toward genuinely civil discourse. While still profoundly hungry, I thank you humbly for the crumb.

James Hunt
Brandywine, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Still Many Contradictions… (May 1, 2006)
Very interesting,in the sense it generates new thoughts and more interesting questions — for example, if God really permitted a free-willed universe in the true sense as Mr. Polkinghorne puts it:

"If we live in a world of true becoming so that we play our little parts in making the future — and I believe God's providence also plays a part in making the future, and also the laws of nature that God has ordained play a part in constraining the form of the future — if that's the sort of world in which we live, then I think actually even God doesn't know the future."

S. Sharath Chandra
Mysore, India (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Cooperative Explanations (April 29, 2006)
We can explore creation, scientifically and religiously. Part of the human condition is to be curious of the workings in the world, and this program helps explain how faith and science can interrelate in harmony. Even if God's existence cannot be proven, scientific proofs and theories exist to aid understanding. When I first learned about the idea of evolution, I was conflicted in the sense that school teachers or religious teachers did not take the time to explain how these to aspects can coexist. Thankfully, this program is able to give answers to the doubts and questions that many commonly face. There can be successful teachings of science and religion, because together, the two allow us to construct the puzzle of creation.

Polkinghorne takes science and religion seriously, in that there is only so much that can be scientifically explained; there is this aspect beyond human mentality that even science struggles to make clear. Religion and science can evolve together. It is not simply a coincidence that the mind has come into existence, only to be calmed by religion.

Ryan Erlandson
Rogers, MN (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Elegance and Evidence (April 28, 2006)
Polkinghorne talks about scientific theories being judged by their beauty or elegance. But of course the other key factor is their explanatory power; that is they have to explain the evidence we see more effectively than other theories. While the God hypothesis might have some beauty to it, I don't see how it explains our collective human experience better than simpler and more elegant ideas like there being no true external god, and only gods in our minds that we wish existed. If we are to use hard evidence to discriminate between beliefs, I'm afraid we will have to reject the Christian concept of God as lacking any explanatory power for the evidence we have. Polkinghorne has jumped out of the scientific field that demands evidence to justify ideas and landed in the religious field which is happy to accept dogma as the determination of truth.

Daniel Morris
Pittsburgh, PA (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Saying What I Couldn't Articulate (April 27, 2006)
I love listening to your show. I wish you would rename it Speaking of Philosophy or Speaking of Theology, but that's a detail. Yesterday I heard your show with John Polkinghorne. Krista, you are doing a great job by getting people like this on your show. John Polkinghorne is an amazing guy. He put into words the theological philosophy I have developed over my adult life. It is probably a philosophy held by many other people also (but alas probably a minority). I could no more verbalize this philosophy than I could jump over the moon. Thank you and John Polkinghorne for doing that.

Wally Klingensmith
New Berlin, WI (WUWM, 89.7 FM)

The New Kind of Thinking (April 25, 2006)
I applaud this program, not so much for the content (though it was great), but more because it represents what, in my opinion, is a relatively new development in the human story: "both-and" rather than "either-or" thinking. It's great to hear that our current explanations of the universe make room for a reality so rich as to support a spectrum of explanations and narratives. I for one am tired of a reality so bland that it can only be described in terms of diametrically opposed polarities of opinion.

Benjamin Cheek
Jersey City, NJ (Listens to SOF Podcast)

Part of an All-Encompassing Reality (April 25, 2006)
Krista's interview with Rev. John Polkinghorne was very interesting. He sounded more like a Vedic (pre-Dravidian) Hindu (and/or a Buddhist) than a Christian. Of course, Jesus himself was more like Buddha than most modern Christians. I have noticed that people with a spiritual bend of mind often have profound spiritual experiences irrespective of the religion (or no religion) they follow. It includes those who worship a statue, a tree, a rock or any other thing or nothing!

It may be because ultimately we pray to, worship or experience ourselves — beyond the ego. (Maybe the part of us called the soul that is connected to or is part of the Infinite, the Infinite Self.) We just project it outside. But the experience is inside. So the object (or no object) of worship does not matter. It just helps us to reach an appropriate physical and mental state for the spiritual experience. But because people are different what object (or no object) or method (or no method) will be most suitable for a particular individual will vary. That is why no one religion works for all its adherents. If people were encouraged to experiment with different religions and no religion, more people would probably experience spirituality. One of the greatest spiritual teachers of modern times, J. Krishnamurti, did not have any religion at all.

Our prayers are answered and our wishes materialized when there is no conscious, subconscious or unconscious reservation of any kind (like guilt, caution, fear, etc.) against it. When intention is 100 percent pure we create it almost effortlessly like God. ("God created man in his own image" and vice versa.) We are part of that all-encompassing reality that some people call God and we create and evolve together with yin and yang and good and bad like the chaos theory Polkinghorne mentions.

Wazir Sain
Akron, OH (WKSU, 89.7 FM)

Science and Religion United (April 25, 2006)
Thank you so much for your program. For the first time ever I really do believe that science and religion are complimentary rather than enemies. As a kid I had a lot of faith and little respect for science. Then as a teenager I lost my faith and turned to science. I had never thought that I had enough room in my life for both things. Only recently I've felt that my life doesn't feel quite complete without my faith, but I couldn't give up my belief in science. I now know that I can reasonably have both.

People in science say that religion is unsound because it has too many contradictions. But, as it turns out, science also has contradictions. It is hard for the individual to see past contradictions, but what is important is for everyone to decide for themselves what they know in their hearts to be true. For me, science and faith will always be true.

Stacy Forsberg
Champlin, MN (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Eastern Religion? (April 25, 2006)
I believe that the East has been way ahead of the West in understanding the interplay of forces, and seemingly contradictory ones, in what we call "reality." Polkinghorne surely has drawn on these sources. The Tao of Physics and the Dancing Wuli Masters are two exciting sources for the discussion on this subject. I sensed that "religion" in this particular interview dealt with Christianity. I wonder if your actual program brought in the broader context of eastern religion and philosophy?

MaryAnne Wilkerson-Sennett
West Fork, AR (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Prophets Who Go Unheeded (April 23, 2006)
After listening to the show, I was thinking more about prayer with regard to the tsunami. I think that it would have been great if prayer in that case could have taken place in the form of some sort of collective visionary action to prevent deforestation and over development of coastlines so that the impact of the tsunami could have been greatly diminished. I am still haunted by the many images in Banda Aceh and other affected areas of trees, probably native species, standing live and tall in the aftermath of the tsunami, when so many other things were destroyed. I am reminded of the book Collapse How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jeremy Diamond. He notes this deforestation and unsustainable development as a precursor over and over his recounting of the collapses of various civilizations in history. Interesting that his work has been among the best-sellers of recent times.

He mentioned in one interview on NPR that the tsunami was long in coming. The stage for it had been set years before. It would be nice if his kind of "prophecy" could take the place of that of Old Testament prophets. But I guess even then, many people didn't listen to the prophets. I think also of a 2004 issue of the National Geographic eerily predicting a Katrina-like catastrophe in New Orleans and explaining how it, too, was long in coming. It even mentioned the exact areas, such as the 9th Ward, that were so publicized in the news following Katrina. I wonder if our ideas about prayer need to be changed to a more empowering action to bring ourselves into harmony with creation, if that is what we are living in right now, rather than a passive supplication for God to help us. Maybe to know God is to know tectonic plates as they are, not as we wish they were, and to live according to that knowledge. I wonder if humanity will be capable of growing into that kind of foresight someday. If our collective conscious has that to look forward to and not just a few prophets who go unheeded. I hope so.

Grace Hill
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

Encore Please! (April 23, 2006)
Thank you for selecting Canon Polkinghorne for his insightful and provocative ideas. When you again have him as "our" guest on SOF, I hope he can extend his thoughts about God's original choices during creation. Polkinghorne suggests that God enables evolution of life, that He ordains Nature to proceed with Her processes as we perceive them today. This means a constant testing of the equilibria of the planet and of life forms. He implies there must always be some dead-ends, the dark side of randomness. I for one am quite pleased for having been chosen to be here and pleased with many aspects of this place, excepting the tragic events that visit populations and individuals. Polkinghorne says that the terrible calamities (tsunamis, etc.) occur when the chaos/randomness of mutations or tectonics prevail (cannot have the happy outcomes without occasionally suffering their opposites).

It's reasonable to imagine that God has a powerful pallet of physical conditions from which he can choose to establish any of His worlds. Maybe He can pick any of the variables like the density of irradiation and which wavelengths those will be, and select the elements themselves, planet mass, energy budget, biotics or no biotics, CGAT helix or other life mechanisms, geostasis, degree of chaos, etc. Naturally, a next question for John Polkinghorne is that if there were so many choices in His ordination kit, why do we have the particular combination God gave to us? And in his estimation, what are the indicators we have today that God made the right choices from his creation pallet for us and for our planet? Please keep up your good work with Speaking of Faith!

David Brooks
Troy, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

One Day Overlapping the Next (April 23, 2006)
Your program is invariably good, but your interview with Dr. John Polkinghorne exceeded even the usual standard. Thank you for this top-notch, intelligent presentation. As to the creative days of Genesis, there is good reason to assume that they were each of epoch length, that is thousands or millions of years long. That they were of 24-hour duration is discounted by the mention of the sun on the fourth day (Gen. 1: 14-18). The best scholarly thinking on this point is not that the sun (along with the moon and stars) was created on the fourth day but that it was made visible in the clearing atmosphere of the primitive world. It had undoubtedly been made eons earlier. (The light of verse 3 may have been a different phenomenon to that of the sun.) We may justifiably assume that each "day's" development overlapped into the next.

John Davis
Philadelphia, PA (Listens to SOF Podcast)

Full of Wonder (April 23, 2006)
What an amazing synchronicity to happen upon this program with John Polkinghorne this morning as I was getting ready to go to church. I serve life as a therapeutic harpist, playing for people in hospice and hospital care to offer a sense of peace and comfort. The idea is one of creating a gentle cradle of sound, to support individuals in times of physical, emotional, or spiritual distress. My playing partner and I are going to be giving a grand rounds on harp therapy to physicians and nurses at our local community hospital in June. We are paid through a harp therapy fund that was established by a family whose parents' had been in hospice care. To be able to actually share what it is that we do with physicians and nurses is something we have waited several years for.

The interface that exists between science and spirit has been perceived as nebulous, and how does one prove the existence of God or of love or anything that cannot be measured in a test tube? To actually have scientists who are theologians, a bringing together of seeming opposites, is quite wonderful. I am printing out this morning's talk now and hope to get this book. Someone said to me, "Trying to prove the validity of prayer is like trying to catch a moon beam." If we are speaking of the nature of light as wave and particle and the excellent metaphor given this morning of a field and smaller parcels, maybe we are closer to being able to reconcile science and spirit than many people realize. I felt the energy of connection and life and wonder and curiosity in listening to the portion of the program I got to hear. I look forward now to reading all of it and Sir John's book.

Sarah Schwartz
Medina, OH (WKSU, 89.7 FM)

Applying the Same Logic to Religion (April 23, 2006)
Dr. Polkinghorne clearly doesn't apply the same logic or methodology to his religious views as he does to his scientific investigations. In science, as Dr. Polkinghorne knows, one looks at the facts first and then constructs a possible hypothesis that would explain them. In his religious views, he first decides that there is a God that must be explained and then he works backward to try to interpret the facts in a way that they might explain his conclusion, rather than asking whether a God or gods are needed at all to explain nature. This is poor science, indeed, and poor religion as well.

To decide a priori that there has to be some supernatural force behind nature's mechanisms is simply irrational and absurd. He may have a deep need to believe in the supernatural, but many others, including the vast majority of other Nobel Laureates, do not. This is not the first time that a Nobel Laureate has tried to use his fame in one area to intrude into areas that only demonstrate that expertise is not a fungible skill. William Shockley was another Nobel Prize winner with similar ambitions. Polkinghorne, in spite of his religious training, is clearly no more convincing in his support for religion than is any other decently educated religious convert and his arguments for how plate tectonics and tsunamis might match with the hidden purposes of supernatural entities are so strained and convoluted as to be comic.

Lloyd Davidson
Evanston, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

Presumptuous (April 23, 2006)
I listen to NPR many hours a day and enjoy it very much. But I have a couple problems with Speaking of Faith. Faith is believing in something with no proof. Does this deserve so much radio time? "Gods" are pretend, invented to explain the unexplainable. I have a real problem with the guy on now (John Polkinghorne) presuming he knows the mind of god. How ridiculous! Every person seems to bend their faith and beliefs to their own needs. This doesn't give it much credence. And please, don't even suggest that religion is anywhere near any real science. Thanks.

Gary Wilson
NE Maryland (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Confusing Human Values with Theoretical Science (April 22, 2006)
I was surprised when Mr. Polkinghorne debunked "God is in the gaps" in a biological context and then almost immediately put God back in the gaps in a physical context. I was also surprised that he seems to never have read British philosopher of science Peter Medawar who clearly delineated the limits of science. Medawar says that science is a "house with empirical furniture" that "science does not answer first and last things," that is science cannot tell us why we are here, where the world came from or where it is going. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science does not have the faculty to perceive God. So, from the point of view of science, there is no God. But that has nothing to do with religion, faith, or non-empirical reality. Mixing up religion and science is an unnecessary confusion. I was surprised that Mr. Polkinghorne used teleological explanations (explanations of physical phenomena as if it has a purpose) when a rudimentary knowledge of philosophy of science shows the folly of that. Finally, I was surprised how Mr. Polkinghorne confused human values with theoretical science. Columbia's Ernest Nagel clarified the "goal of theoretical science is to determine the relations among things, irrespective of their impact on human values." If Copernicus and Darwin had not been operating thusly, we would not have the heliocentric theory and the theory of evolution.

Frank Vitale
Tomkins Cove, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

A Surprising Turn of the Radio Dial (April 22, 2006)
I stumbled across your show while flipping between my usual talk radio themes: sports and politics. I figured anything had to be more interesting than either the hockey playoffs or listening to yet another defense of the war in Iraq and I was right. I was immediately hooked by Mr. Polkinghorne's credentials — here is someone who has done the "hard science" and therefore has earned the right to have an opinion on this topic. I have always struggled with reconciling the beauty of the rational world with the mysteries of faith and have always felt that there must be a way to reconcile these apparently contradictory views of the world. In fact, the lack of discussion in the Christian world about this very topic has in effect turned me off to Christianity. Mr. Polkinghorne's thoughts are exactly what I've been searching for — so much so that I immediately ordered his book, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity. Thank you for a truly enlightening broadcast!

Don Koscheka
Colts Neck, NJ (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Hoped for Deeper Discussion of Theological Implications (April 22, 2006)
Thank you many times over for allowing me to hear the voice of John Polkinghorne, whose books have stretched me mentally and spiritually for several years — most recently, his book, Science and the Trinity, The Christian Encounter with Reality. Today's was an excellent program in every way, but I wish Polkinghorne could have had time to discuss more of the theological implications of his search for truth. Perhaps you could invite him sometime to delve more deeply into the science and theology interactions he develops in such works as Searching for Truth and The God of Hope and the End of the World. Incidentally, I am grateful, too, that your program is aired here on Saturday morning, since Sunday is such a busy morning for people like us who serve in our church's teaching ministries. Again, many thanks to you and to NPR.

Barbara Wilkerson
Nanuet, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Fine Tunings Unlikely Random (April 22, 2006)
I was surprised that a program on religion and science would not be focused on String Theory. There are Stephen Hawking's assumptions that lead to the requirement that our universe must have been created by a "sentient creator." Alternative assumptions lead to time travel options, and this could have been addressed in discussions about alternatives to a creator. These are important areas of scientific investigation about how order is implemented and enforced on a universe. In addition there are the issues of "fine tuning" of various parameters within our universe — that ultimately make complexity and processes and life possible — such as fine tuning of the carbon bonding mechanism, of the speed of expansion of the universe, of the strength of gravity, and so on. Odds that these fine tunings could have happened at random have been estimated by scientists to be between one in 10**500 and one in 10**10**30. It is too bad and counterproductive that ignorance of science and religiophobic arrogance within the legal system increasingly outlaws such fundamentally important scientific discussions.

Jim Gruhl
Tucson, AZ (Listens to SOF OnDemand)

Science and Religion (April 24, 2005)
Being a physicist, and attending church quite regularly, I was especially interested in your program about science and religion featuring Polkinghorne. He is a physicist of good renown in the scientific community, and is now an ordained religious minister. What impressed me was his intelligent (enlightened) verbalization of his views on how religion and science are indeed compatible with each other. The key is the indeterminacy (lack of a deterministic relation between cause and consequence) that has now been established in the world of physics, mainly through quantum mechanics. I am most grateful to your program for having made me aware of Polkinghorne's ideas. I think about them repeatedly, and discuss them occasionally with a colleague.

George Rawitscher
Storrs, CT (WPKT, 90.5 FM)

A Break in Thought (March 19, 2005)
Your "Quarks and Creation" program influenced my thinking so much as to disrupt my 50-year skeptical position of an atheist. Many kudos.

Paul Spreen
Cumming, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Reflections on Polkinghorne (March 20, 2005)
I once asked a neurosurgeon how he dealt with the tragedy in front of us, in ICU in the hospital, seeing a child, brain injured, from a fall from a tree, resulting in a subdural hematoma, and brain death. He said, as an afterthought "and well, we wouldn't really want the laws of physics suspended in individual cases, as we would then have chaos." I was reminded of that comment when Krista and Dr. Polkinghorne were talking about the recent tsunami horrors.

I found it interesting that recently, on Science Friday, Roger Penrose was interviewed, one of Stephen Hawking's colleagues. He has a new book in which he seems to think there is something wrong or incomplete about our current view with quantum mechanics. While he is not sure what that is yet and while he has always been a skeptic of certain areas of string theory, which has been around for a long time [and] now back in fashion, Penrose has a way of thinking about string theory in which he can agree.

Two other thoughts about the "Quarks and Creation" program, and the discussion about time and free will. Almighty God exists OUTSIDE, as well as inside of space-time. Space-time is a creature, a part of creation. So to say God does not "know" the future does not really make sense, since all of creation is "present" to God, even as she chooses to "work" in the world.

Also, while I personally do not believe this, I think a really good case can be made against the Anthropic Principle, which both Penrose and Polkinghorne seem to accept without question. For example, 90 percent of the universe is dark energy and dark matter; science has no clue exactly what is making the universe expand. Also, for example, quarks or no quarks, no one can tell us what exactly IS a negative charge or a positive charge. We slap labels on things and pretend, "there we got that down," but the actual real physical essence of what the two opposing charges are, no one can explain. We have become fairly successful at predicting some things on a fairly "macro" level (i.e., electricity for example), while still lacking an understanding of its real essence. Perhaps its just arrogance, but we should wait a while to decide that we can understand the universe until we can say that maybe we know what 20 percent of it is made of, especially when clearly there are other dimensions "present" here (see Einstein's "Spooky Action at a Distance"). One could make a case for saying we know almost nothing.

Love the show, wouldn't miss it! Blessed Easter to you.

Thomas Ross
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

The Only Antidote Are Conversations Like This (March 17, 2005)
I can't tell you how much I appreciated the interview with the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne on last week's show. As a Lutheran pastor with some background and interest in science, it was gratifying and refreshing to hear someone finally express the viewpoint held by many, namely that science and theology are not mutually exclusive and the respective communities need not have adversarial relationships.

It's been said that one measure of a person's intelligence is the degree to which they agree with you; that quip aside, I nearly cheered out loud at Dr. Polkinghorne's comment that, ironically, those who seek to interpret biblical texts on the origin of the universe literally, out of respect for the authority of Scripture, actually do violence to Scripture, reading it in a way its authors never intended. We need more voices expressing this viewpoint; those faith traditions which see no inherent conflict between science and faith need to speak out more openly. I believe this is the only antidote to the increasingly strident and polemical debate currently being engaged, in which some vocal Christian groups paint the scientific community as pagan servants of evil while some in the scientific community paint people of faith as unenlightened Philistines.

Again, I thank you for your interview with Dr. Polkinghorne and for your broad, balanced, fair, and insightful examination of issues of faith.

Pastor Bob Ierien
Hibbing, MN (WIRN, 92.5 FM)

A Different Perspective on Genesis (March 18, 2005)
Creationists oppose evolutionary theory based on their literal interpretation of the Bible. If you haven't done so, look closely and critically at the first chapter in the Bible. In Genesis 1:6-7, God constructs an expanse or firmament or dome to separate the waters. The Hebrew word is raki'a and definitely connotes a solid structure. Water is above the dome, while land and water lie under the dome (Gen 1:9). The sun, moon, and stars are held in the sky and are supported by the dome on which they move (Gen 1:14). Rain and snow result from moisture released from above the dome (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10). And when God became angry with humans in Noah's time, the "doors" and "windows" of the dome are opened (Gen 7:11) to create the great flood.

This ancient understanding of the universe is a clever theory, explaining the blueness of the sky, how the sun and moon and stars stay in the sky, how the celestial lights move, where rain comes from, etc. Of course, subsequent science has not supported this explanation. If you find your careful reading disturbing, I pray you let go of your previous understanding and grab on again at a deeper level.

Probably the inspired writers of Genesis borrowed from a Babylonian creation story to tell another creation story with a far, far different spiritual impulse. Humans are created in the image of the one God rather than to be slaves of many gods. Humans are placed in a friendly world, a good world, or perhaps even better, an abundant world. In the evolution of ideas, the hopeful Genesis story survived natural selection by the human spirit. May we act so our children's children experience the abundant promise and truth of Genesis I.

Bruce Ackerson
Stillwater, OK (Listens via Web Audio)

Looking for That One Scientist and Theologian (March 18, 2005)
Before hearing your show the other night on my commute home, I was not familiar with Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne, nor the show itself. I was very glad I tuned in. I was raised in the buckle of the Bible belt and my father was a Southern Baptist pastor and also a trained psychologist. In my younger years, I accepted and believed everything my parents believed without ever asking any of the "hard questions."

I've since been to three colleges: a Presbyterian one, a Southern Baptist one, and one associated with the Church of the Nazarene. Part of the reasons for this was because I felt a "calling" in my own life to pursue the ministry. About 13 years ago, I dropped out of the Nazarene school and decided I wasn't "called" for various reasons, but the biggest was what I called a "crisis of faith." I have since gone back and forth on this issue, but now feel that "the calling" itself is of little relevance to my actual life.

What is important to me however is my faith. I have, for the last several years, referred to myself as a Kierkegaardian Christian with a nice dose of Hawking's physics thrown in. Basically, an existentialist who believes in science taking a "leap of faith" to arrive at my own semi-unique brand of Christianity. After living around the world, I am again living in the Bible Belt and am very active in my non-denominational church. My pastor, thankfully, is open-minded/smart enough to understand the basics of my beliefs and is one of the most non-judgmental people I have ever met, but at times I have a hard time expressing the minutiae of what I actually believe and have searched for a while to find a theologian/scientist that carries similar beliefs to myself. I believe Rev. Dr. John Polkinghorne is that man.

I am currently searching for and am going to purchase as many of his books as I can find. I especially enjoyed the discussion surrounding the questions of the nature of God and how it relates to seemingly random events of human suffering, i.e. the recent tsunami. I thought that the host did an excellent job of asking good, deep questions and she is obviously a well-educated woman. I've made a note of the day, station, and time that I stumbled into your broadcast and look forward to future shows.

Jerry Goodwin
Woodstock, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Science Does Not Discover Knowledge (March 18, 2005)
Polkinghorne dismissed the Genesis definition for a day without giving one of his own or explaining why were using the one in Genesis as the single most colloquial expression of this particular time frame. Does this mean we have to come and sit at John Polkinghorne's feet to find out when Jesus rose from the dead? or what a day means in all other situations?

Then to assert that God does not know the future "because it has not happened yet" completely undermines clear references all through special revelation to the contrary. Like "Christ slain from the foundation of the world." Christ opened the scriptures from Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms concerning himself after rising the scriptures say. What could Polkinghorne be thinking about such detailed prophecy, especially in Isaiah concerning Christ. If it's not all truth, who then is arbiter? God can create the universe I hear you say but then lose his own book. This makes God finite and frustrated, somehow we men have tampered with his revelation and now God has to put up with our fudging.

How silly for one to even quote or try to explain something from revelation if this is the case. How silly indeed for a mere man to adjust divine revelation and purport the stars need to come fist God, that the forth day is not correct. Good grief, Mr. Polkinghorne, remember your station man; your working with probability, in varying degrees.

Ken Wilson
Manitou Beach, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

Beyond Quarks (March 17, 2005)
I found your interview with Rev. Polkinghorne very interesting but at the same time I think he is a generation behind in mathematical physics. Although it is not (yet) universally accepted among physicists, the concept of super-strings or M-theory goes well beyond that of quarks and quantum mechanics in explaining the structure of the universe(s). Vibrating "strings" of energy are the building blocks of quarks (and everything else). This has been cleverly explained for the layman in Brian Greene's book The Elegant Universe and on the PBS NOVA series of the same name.

At the same time string theory expands our concept of the universe to include seven additional physical spatial dimensions beyond the three (plus time) to which we as humans are now limited. It is only a theory, however, being worked out through very complex equations for the purpose of uniting quantum mechanics with general relativity. What this does potentially for our theology (in my interpretation) is to perhaps explain in "physical" or "natural" terms our experience of "spiritual" or "supernatural" events, as well as provide a medium for communication through prayer. I find this comforting and in no way does it diminish my faith in God. It only enhances it.

In the interview I also wondered at the question and answer regarding 14 billion years of evolution. What percentage of eternity is 14 billion years?

Dick Martz
Morrisville, PA (Listens via Web Audio)

A Second Chance (March 17, 2005)
While I enjoy all of your broadcasts, I particularly wanted to thank you for the interview with John Polkinghorne. I remember a very frustrating "listening experience" on NPR a few years back when Ira Flatow's Science Friday program attempted to address the subject of faith and science by interviewing two men who were neither scientists (at least not in the sense of "hard science") nor men of faith. Both guests were social scientists who seemed to assume that all believers are fundamentalist Christians and that the way to reconcile faith and science is either to ignore major parts of scientific theory or else to recast offensive theories in a more palatable form — often doing justice to neither faith nor science.
I found Mr. Flatow's program that day very disappointing and remember thinking, "Why didn't Ira interview someone like John Polkinghorne?" I'm so glad that you did! Keep up the good work. You wake up my brain every Sunday morning (which I am sure my congregation appreciates).

Cynthia Simmons
Allentown, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

The Universe Is Not Ready-Made (March 16, 2005)
I enjoyed the interview tonight. Particularly poignant was the discussion of the nature of God, and just what almighty is. (This is also similar to the Native American spirituality, which I highly resonate with.) The concept that was brought out about the nature of creation brings me great peace (like the tectonic plates being allowed to be what they are by nature). I have been in turmoil over the exact nature of God that allows the darkness/evil to exist, but as this theologian put it, the universe is not ready made nor magical. And it is amusing that God is patient, in that our world/universe is over 14 billion years old. Thank you. I am deeply impressed and grateful for these insights.

Nicola Anschel
Kennesaw, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Basic Assumptions (March 15, 2005)
My husband and I were fortunate to be a captive audience to yesterday's program, as we were driving through Wisconsin on the way home from Chicago. All too often I miss your program as I work the night shift and go to bed as soon as I get home in the morning — hearing it was a rare treat. However, like the listener Gary Wilson, I was dissatisfied with the discussion, due to Dr. Polkinghorne's implicit assumption that there is a supernatural entity — and not just any god, specifically the Christian God.

I was raised as a reform Jew, adopted the ultra-orthodox lifestyle (if not the beliefs) of Chasidism as a young adult, eventually settled into conservative Judaism once married, and now, at the age of 55, have finally concluded that I have no (apparent) "need" for a supernatural being in my concept of the universe.

Friends of mine, when we discuss this development in my thinking, assume that my recent atheism is due to the death, a few years ago, of our son. However, years before Daniel died, I had become a devotee of Rabbi Harold Kushner's theology. I explained what appears to humans as "evil" is actually the result of the chaos that remains in the universe due to God either "running out of time" or, possibly, His/Her/It choosing to leave creation unfinished. This, in turn, obliged humans to also either choose to partner with God to complete creation (tikun olam) OR choose not to, and, by doing so, encourage evil to survive (e.g., by not consciously working against war, injustice, tyrants, etc.).

Over time, however, I gradually came to question whether there was any need for the role of a god-like being at all. I have been doing a great deal of reading in science, a real interest of mine, and, of course, that exerted a real influence upon my thinking. This reading was limited, of necessity, to lay versions of physics, natural history, etc., but still has made a profound impression upon me. I now am very interested in WHY most humans feel that some type of supernatural being certainly exists. I am certainly not remotely as well-read or educated as your guest or many other scientists who have not come to the same conclusion that I have, and I find this very puzzling.

Opie Rosenfeld
Minneapolis, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Two Questions from a Creationist (March 15, 2005)
I've run across this program a few times, and I think it's great. There are two questions that may help provide answers to "How long were the days of Creation Week?" and "Where is God in human suffering?"

Question #1: "How long were the days of Creation Week?"
In listening to your conversation with John Polkinghorne regarding some of the issues surrounding Creation vs. Evolution, your question about the length of the days of Creation Week rang loud and clear in my head. I have often heard another related question that may help with the answer: If one year equals the earth's revolution around the sun and one month equals the moon's revolution around the earth and one day equals the earth's rotation on its axis, then one seven-day week equals what?

Most people will have learned the first three in school based upon movements of celestial bodies, but the last one is never taught — the ONLY basis for the world's seven-day week is found in the Creation story. So, I hold to the idea of literal, 24-hour days during Creation.

Question #2: "Where is God in human suffering?"
To this I ask, "Where was God in His Son's [Jesus'] suffering?" Too often we blame God for human suffering, but forget that there is an opposing force of evil as taught in the Scriptures. The events that occur on this planet (good and bad), and how we respond to them, are building evidence for a trial where God is the defendant, Satan is the prosecutor, and the Universe is the jury.

Jim Dwyer
Saranac Lake, NY (WVPS, 107.9 FM)

Is There a Gulf? (March 14, 2005)
GREAT SHOW! I was not previously familiar with Dr. Polkinghorne. I have often wondered if there is really such a gulf between modern science and Christian theology and suspected that there isn't. It seems people on both sides of the creation/evolution debate generate far more heat than light. They should all listen to "Quarks and Creation." The good physicist-pastor has encouraged me to explore my faith and nature more deeply, realizing I don't have to be a caveman to believe in God. Thanks for the good work.

Ron Laurenzo
Gaithersburg, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Why Blind Acceptance? (March 14, 2005)
I would have been interested to ask John Polkinghorne why he needed to believe in a god. The assumption that there is one was puzzling to me. I would have been fascinated to hear the thoughts of a man trained in physics and seemingly able to accept the theory of evolution. I would love to have asked him why the life on earth, indeed the universe itself, has to rely on the apparent whim of a god for its existence. Best wishes.

Lisa Harrow
South Woodstock, VT (WVPR, 89.5 FM)

Becoming Christed (March 14, 2005)
John Polkinghorne misses the mark when discussing the connectedness between science and religion, that is the nature of consciousness. Science has barely begun to explore this field, yet it is here that we will find evidence of God-in-man. Consciousness is evolving, expanding, as Teilhard de Chardin suggests, to becoming Christed, as Jesus demonstrated.

In addition, Mr. Polkinghorne unwittingly ascribes humanness to God — as having thoughts and feelings, even raising questions of morality. The God that is the creative power and the source of all that is surely is beyond such human qualities. The conversation was certainly interesting, but I wish he'd have given us more about the very nature of God itself.

Elizabeth Mass
Asheville, NC (WCQS, 88.1 FM)

The Theology of Origen (March 14, 2005)
I listened to your interview with Dr. John Polkinghorne and found it quite interesting, but since he referred to Origen of Alexandria's view of prayer I felt encouraged to add a comment about his view of creation. Origen's teachings allowed the Platonists of his time to accept Christianity without giving up their logic and knowledge of the physical world and the spiritual one. God's creation of the material world in which we live is only a small part of the larger drama played out in the Bible and also in the works of Homer and Plato. Origen called it the apokatastasis or the "restoration of all things."

Within the framework of the "restoration of all things" none of the questions about God's love asked during the interview would be uncomfortable to answer. Also, the question of "evolution or creation?" is replaced with an evolutionary creation tending towards goodness and beauty, with the final goal of perfection. For Origen, the last 14 billion years were only the start of the restoration for an act that occurred many eons prior: The Fall.

Shawn Murphy
Hamilton, Ontario (Listens via Web Audio)

A Disciplined Form of Editing (March 14, 2005)
This is a brief note of heartfelt thanks for your vision and your program. I happened across Speaking of Faith a few months ago one Sunday morning. I'm a 54-year-old, long-time "agnostic Christian" (reared Southern Baptist in West Texas), who in recent years — and, especially, in recent months — have been blessed with to begin to understand the message of grace in Christ. Many, many questions persist. And that's okay. Many, many people have helped me, directly or indirectly, in my journey. And one of those, Krista, is you and your vision of Speaking of Faith.

As with many Sundays, yesterday I bound out of bed at 7 a.m. to tune in your show as I prepared for church. I then was captivated by your introduction of and discussion with John Polkinghorne. In my explorations, I had become familiar with the Templeton Award though I had not studied it — or particle physics! — sufficiently to be familiar with John and his work. What a thrilling discussion of ideas and possibilities! My mind was churning deep into the night last night as it pondered some of the ideas you two discussed, along with other ideas of God, Christ, and my role in it all. I could not restrain a light belly laugh at the end of your show when you laughed in your closing exchange with John. It surely seemed a laugh of an adult schoolgirl who is sitting in wonderment that she has come full circle of sorts — conversing on profound ideas with the person whose late-night BBC conversation 20-something years earlier most certainly must have helped shape your own delightful life's course. Thanks for not editing out such a precious expression of yourself!

I look forward to learning more from John's thinking — and, of course, to learning more from your Speaking of Faith explorations!

Robert Moore
Columbus, OH (WOSU, 820 AM)

Nothing New (March 14, 2005)
I found John Polkinghorne's explanation of meshing Christianity and science as nothing new. Basically it is "God's will" and that's that. When you can't find God directly in your science, just push him back to a safe distance where he can remain mysterious, but still existing. His interpretation of God is closer to the Hindu idea than a classic Christian one. Nowadays, incorporating science into religion is quite common in all religious traditions. First was the Tao of Physics, now Buddhists, Hindus, and Christians are all explaining how their particular beliefs fit with science. Deepak Chopra is a perfect example of reinterpreting Hinduism in modern and scientific terms.

Most dissatisfying were his dodges on moral questions. He did not answer why God tortures living beings, unless one accepts his argument that "tectonic plates do what tectonic plates do" as an answer. Sounds like a scientist's answer to me, not a theologian. I think even he was beginning to realize his God is useless and he finally brought up the soul, afterlife, and the resurrection. Nothing new here and he contradicted himself in saying not to read poetry as prose all the while stating the historical fact of Jesus and the resurrection! He is taking as fact his symbolic image, as told through a specific myth, for that unknown of why we are alive.

As always, the unasked question "who created God." And if God can just exist, since that is his nature, then the universe can just exist and needs no creator. After all, it's the nature of the universe. Finally, as far as only the time frame in Genesis being off, which he did refute, saying the order is wrong. My guess is that the hostess, like other Christians, takes "let there be light" as proof of God's big bang, science right? But just read the lines before that. "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters" (Gen: 1:2). Then comes the light.

Matthew Kosuta
Gettysburg, PA (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Similar Issues at the Smithsonian (March 13, 2005)
My wife and I were deeply impressed by your conversation with John Polkinghorne. We too have been searching for ways to understand how modern science and theology can explain our world and the human experience of it. Your interview shed much light on how one can approach these questions.

Coincidentally, I had attended a Smithsonian seminar the previous day on the origin, development, and fate of the universe given by the astrophysicist Mario Livio, and some of the issues you discussed came up in that forum. Livio gave somewhat different answers to them from Polkinghorne's, but I feel much enriched by both experiences. We very much enjoy listening to your program. Keep up the great work!

Pierre Shostal
Alexandria, VA (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Teaching Difficult Subjects Like This (March 13, 2005)
I just finished listening to your program as I usually do every Sunday morning. I have come to love your program because it speaks so personally to me. I am a high school science teacher and am currently on the subject of Darwin and evolution. I, as many teachers in my field, are cautious of the way we have to present this material as not to offend. I share some of the same philosophies as your guest today, not as scholarly obviously. But I have felt that same sense of wonder that he spoke about.

I have studied all of the sciences and I think that knowing more about science makes the world so beautiful and I have found that as I know more I believe more strongly in a Higher Power. I also share the belief that God started the ball rolling and then stepped back to let Nature take its course. I will use excerpts from your program today to discuss in my class this week when we hit those touchy topics of Darwin.

I love teaching to kids because they still have that wonder and still question and do not yet have too many hard, in-set, ideas of their own. They still see wonder and still question everything, which is cool and challenging as an educator. I really appreciate your show. I find it intellectually stimulating. I love your wide range of guests and your interesting topics that are sometimes controversial. I am so glad that someone is not afraid to discuss some of these topics publicly because there are a lot of us out here that also want to talk about it. Thanks.

Sue Tracy
Blissfield, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

Science and Religion Walking Together (March 13, 2005)
Today was my first experience of your program, and what a fine experience it was. I was raised an Episcopalian, so I was delighted to hear an interview with a member of the Anglican church, who was/is also a particle physicist. As the years have gone by I fell away from organized religion and felt more and more at home with a scientific and intellectual approach to the world and its mysteries. However, I have never given up my faith in God nor my belief that we could choose to have a personal relationship with him. I have also always believed and experienced the tiny and not so tiny synchronistic events that I believe God or "the force" artistically sprinkles into our lives, if we are only open to recognizing them.

The excellent interview with Rev. John Polkinghorne reinforced my belief that science and theology could not only walk together but enhance the wonder and beauty of one another. I appreciate the confirmation of these facts and the hope that I know it will give to others.

Sonnie Albinson
Wauwatosa, WI (WUWM, 89.7 FM)

Reassuring to Hear (March 14, 2005)
An unexpected pleasure, listening to Anglican priest John Polkinghorne talk about science and religion, and a fine introduction to your show Speaking of Faith, which I'd never heard before. Thank you, Krista Tippett! I'm heartened knowing that you're out there creating intelligent programs about belief and meaning, and I will become a regular listener.

Bertrand Vogelweide
Richardton, ND (WUWM, 89.7 FM)

The Role of Religious Myths (March 13, 2005)
I have been exploring the interface between science and religion for many years, beginning with Teilhard de Chardin, whose writing now has been surpassed by that of Ken Wilber. De Chardin was, as Polkinghorne is, too encased in the Christian view — the Christian myth.

One of your listeners complained that Polkinghorne spoke of a god. That was a problem I also had with an otherwise attractive exposition. His references to God came uncomfortably close to regarding It a humanlike individual, particularly when he was talking about the universal laws limiting even God. How can we be sure that the laws of logic in this universe would apply to a different universe created by the Source we call God?

The scientists and theologians who address the question rarely speak of myth, which is key to explaining why religion and science are mistakenly assumed to be in contradiction. (I liked Polkinghorne's use of poetry and prose to show the difference.) Religious myths tell the truth but are not factual. They give us images to think about the Transcendent Mystery out of which come all physical things and all spiritual things — all thoughts and ideas, all consciousness. It is those images that people worship. To say it another way, it is not God that most people worship, but gods.

Jeanette Clancy
Avon, MN (KNWF, 91.5 FM)

The Capriciousness of Nature (March 13, 2005)
I listen often to your show. I especially found the show today with John Polkinghorne very interesting. I so appreciate the opportunity to find out about him and his point of view. I intend to read some of his books. He has such a sensible way to explain God. I have a friend who used to be a priest. I asked him about how God could let my sister die from cancer; he said that nature is capricious, and God is there but not in charge. I liked that and I also like the ideas I heard today. Thanks for a good show. I enjoy it every time I hear it.

Beverly Bortolussi
Salt Lake City, UT (KUER, 90.1 FM)

Comfort in Scripture (March 13, 2005)
I LOVED this program. It is so enjoyable to hear a scientist with a connection to what is spiritual — with an idea that this world runs as much on spiritual energy as much as on physical. There are many of us Christians who feel very much attacked and sneered at by the scientific world. I loved the connection to a thinking, brilliant Creator who wants us to use our mind, to know the difference between poetry of religious writing in the Bible and scientific prose; Who expects us to use the intellect given us. I have recently experienced the death of my beloved father; my faith made this occurrence a time of purple velvet — rich, meaningful, deep, and beautiful. It is amazing the comfort that comes from the ancient words of the Scriptures.

Maxine Bergh
Mendota Heights, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Boxing the Debate (March 13, 2005)
I was blown away by this program. Your questions and John Polkinghorne's answers articulated what I've grown to feel is true. Those who debate creation versus evolution miss the point. It's both! Thank you for producing these thoughtful programs that have become a favorite part of my Sunday afternoons.

Mary McNeill
Lauderdale, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

A Question That Should Have Been Asked (March 13, 2005)
It was interesting; the reporter did ask the guest how could God have allowed the tsunami to have killed so many people. I thought the guest had a reasonable answer. But my question is: how could God have allowed the murder of six million Jews in Europe during the late 1930s and the first half of the 1940s. Just a small change or so would have greatly mitigated this crime, namely, a strong protest by the United States, or even front page reporting of the events on the pages of the New York Times. But it didn't happen. So where was God in all of this?

Shalom Fisher
Greenbelt, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)

A Missed Opportunity (March 13, 2005)
Thank you for your recent program on "Quarks and Creation." As a particle physicist who, like John Polkinghorne, works with quarks and quantum mechanics on a daily basis, I found it very interesting. However, I was in the end deeply unsatisfied with Polkinghorne's ideas, and a little dissatisfied with the style of questioning.

A specific example was the way Polkinghorne got away with drawing an analogy between the wave/particle duality of quantum mechanics with the human/divine duality of Jesus. There are two big holes here:

1. Quantum mechanics is NOT dual: there is ONE description for everything. If you try to translate quantum mechanics into everyday language you have to choose between particle-ish and wave-ish terminology, but this duality is not an essential part of the theory. It's as if you tried to explain an airplane to someone from the 17th century, and you ended up saying that it was in some ways like a bird and in some ways like a cart. That would not mean there was some strange duality in the nature of airplanes.
2. Quantum mechanics does offer us a very strange picture of the world, one that is very hard to accept, but this acceptance was won by a huge mountain of experimental evidence, obtained over decades by thousands of scientists. That is the reason why it is taken seriously. The human/divine nature of Christ has no analogous support. Nor does the divinity of Christ, the factuality of the gospel accounts, etc.

Mark Alford
St. Louis, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

A True Forum for Questioning (March 13, 2005)
I've been aware of your program for about year, and caught pieces of it now and again. But today's interview with John Polkinghorne opened doors I have been knocking on for months if not years. Stuck at home recovering from major cancer surgery, I've heard few comments that even begin to make the sense his did out of the evil and suffering that pervade God's world and invade our lives. More broadly, your approach to religion is exactly what the mindless certainties of present-day evangelical protestantism demand from intelligent, educated, liberal individuals who nevertheless find questions of faith central to their lives: a forum for questioning and seriously considering what it all means. You are a breath of sanity in a world that too often seems absurdly split between atheists and true believers. Thanks for a wonderful addition to the public space.

Terry Deibel
Potomac, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)

God as Interested Bystander (March 13, 2005)
Today's program with John Polkinghorne showed how important it is to accept ambiguity in science, religion, and in life itself. It showed that the rules of the universe are themselves in evolution and that God is the ultimate democrat.

This suggests to me why the presence of improvisation in drama and music have become so significant and make better art — they permit everyone to contribute, not just the comptroller of the master plan. In this life we have no great scriptwriter or composer; we make this life together, including the butterfly beating its wings in another hemisphere.

Michael Rabiger
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

Teilhard (March 13, 2005)
I am surprised no mention was made of Teilhard de Chardin. He had a vision of evolution as a form of God's plan back in the 1920s. He saw evolution as a constant spreading of intelligence with the implications for the species that will eventually replace us.

Richard Bresden
Chicago, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)

An Hour Zipping By (March 13, 2005)
I first listened to your show when you explored the meaning of the Eucharist, and I thought your program would never top that experience. But I was wrong. This morning's discussion of quarks and creation was fascinating. The hour went by much too quickly — I could have listened to the two of you converse all day, and into the evening. Thank you so much for the fine work you do!

Kristin Berkey-Abbott
Hollywood, FL (WLRN, 91.3 FM)

Weak Answer (March 13, 2005)
You asked an excellent question: Given the 14 billion years of the nature's evolutionary process, what does this say about the nature of God. I thought your guest's answer was very weak: "God works slowly."

Robert Kirk
Indianapolis, IN (WFYI, 90.1 FM)

At the Intersection of Science and Religion (March 13, 2005)
I absolutely love your show. I listen every Sunday morning and am always amazed at the variety of views brought forth and the depth of the questions asked and answers given. I really enjoy the programming where theology and science are explored together because I truly believe this can bring us closer to an understanding of how God intended both to work together.

Diana Walton
West Palm Beach, FL (WLRN, 91.3 FM)

Faulty Logic (March 13, 2005)
Polkinghorne's logic is faulty. He blindly assumes there is a god and goes from there. His assumption is baseless, therefore what comes from it is faulty. Why can't he test his own assumption of a god? Why can't he consider the possibility of no god? I guess just being a renowned physicist doesn't make all he says right.

Gary Wilson
North East, MD (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

A Tool for Family Discussion (March 13, 2005)
Today's program with John Polkinghorne was wonderful! In fact, in my opinion, it ranks second only to the one with Dr. Mehmet Oz last fall. I am a pharmacist and Christian and mother of four teen-aged daughters, and I often use your program as a springboard for discussing matters of faith and science with my children. I am entranced with your choice of guests; keep discovering them for the rest of us!

Heather Karlheim
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Aid in My Rehabilitation (March 13, 2005)
As a recent visitor to your program I was particularly impressed by the lucidity of Polkinghorne and how it made recovery from an Achilles tendon injury tolerable as I went through a less strenuous rehabilitative exercise. Bravo and this person shall stay connected even after the injury has healed. Kudos to Ms. Tippett for her insightful inquiries. It makes being a Christian less stressful knowing that there is intelligent thought that accompanies faith.

David Alexander
Rydal, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

A Nice Beginning to Sunday (March 13, 2005)
Speaking of Faith is my favorite program. It is the most inspiring, illuminating, and uplifting hour that I look forward to every Sunday. It is like anticipating a meeting with a most cherished friend. Today's conversation with John Polkinghorne was just amazing. I loved everything that he said. His explanation of "Creation" makes sense to me, and I am not what you would call traditionalist or conformist when it comes to religion. Knowing that there are scientists like him gave me HOPE in this "apparently" confusing world. Oh, what a way to start a day. Thank you Krista Tippett.

Duska Woods
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

A New Listener (March 13, 2005)
I just discovered your program and I love it. Your interview with Dr. Polkinghorne this morning was enormously thought-provoking and inspiring. Thank you so much, and thanks to NPR. I will be a regular listener.

George Spectre
Bethesda, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Science and Religion (March 11, 2005)
For years I've considered religion involving a concept of a god requires a significant leap of faith, especially when we consider the fact that God cannot be seen or heard by most of us in a demonstrable way. As I began my career in botany and science I have come to realize that scientists, whether they admit it or not, also have a strong faith in their understanding of how things work and how their method of testing questions makes science different from religion.

Then I was influenced by one of our university philosopher's concepts that the laws of nature were designed by God and that he would not manipulate those laws just because someone wanted him to. So, what I have come to believe is that both religion and science seek truths, and we may discover that both come to the same conclusion about a truth. By way of illustration that there may be greater acceptance of such truths, the Pope has altered his vision on the questions of the earth revolving around the sun and some scientists seem to be probing questions that heretofore have been only in the realm of religious beliefs such as some comments made by Einstein and more recently Stephen Hawking. I imagine that some of your thinking may be following some of the same sort of logic.

Dan Pittillo
Sylva, NC (WCQS, 88.1 FM)

Helping Me Along My Exploration (March 11, 2005)
The best thing about your show is the unexpected lessons that can be learned regardless of the subject being discussed that week. The problem of pain and suffering has always been a big problem for me, yet in the context of this show Mr. Polkinghorne's explanation went a long way toward helping resolve the subject in my own mind. Thank you.

Paul Gremillion
Forest City, IA (KUNI, 90.9 FM)