1. What does John F. Haught mean when he says (on p. 15 of his article) that: "it is worth noting that the ‘enlightened' evolutionary materialists are typically no less biblically literalist than the majority members of the Kansas Board of Education"?

2. Haught comments on Stephen Jay Gould's notion of "nonoverlapping magisteria."  What does Gould mean by this term? 

3. Gould's notion of "nonoverlapping magisteria" seems to be based upon an old distinction between facts and values.  Explain.

4. John Haught claims that "the real issue in Kansas and elsewhere is whether, in the wake of Darwin's ideas about nature, we can coherently claim – independently of our own valuations – that the universe is in fact purposeful."  What is the minor addendum I made in the margin (and in class) about finding the "purpose" of the universe?

5. In Haught's article, quotes Gould to the effect that "what makes Darwin so difficult for people to swallow is not the science of evolution as such, but the ‘philosophical message' that comes along with it."  What is that philosophical message?  

6. Why is Stephen Jay Gould not at all frustrated by the philosophical message that he thinks underlies evolution?  And why does John Haught find the position ultimately frightening, not only for religious believers, but for all ecological ethicists?

7. Prof. Gould maintains that "no scientific theory, including evolution, can pose any threat to religion."  Sounds nice.  But what is the underlying theory?  And why does his position drive John Haught to disagree with him?  (What, in other words, from Haught's point-of-view, "does not help his [Gould's] case"?)