Re: Science teaching and religion: was Unorthodox science projects

[Hugh Logan <HloganPHY@CFL.RR.COM>]

Gonzalez-Espada, Wilson wrote:

> I am writing a paper on science and non-science in science fair
> competitions. Have you ever SEEN a science fair project from a
> "Christian" perspective?
No. I think there are many Christian perspectives between Bob Zanelli's
assertion that Christianity is anti-science ranging through some of
those that John Denker mentioned. I recall that Immanuel Kant wrote
something to the effect that "knowledge must be limited to make room for
God." (A philosophy professor said that was probably written to please
the nobility that was supporting him.) Fundamentalists and creationists
seem to have adopted this viewpoint. I have not seen any science fair
projects reflecting this or any other such religious viewpoint. However,
I was shocked to find an extremely articulate prescription for teaching
Christian science -- chemistry in this case. There can be no question
about Dr. Troy Milliken's credentials in chemistry, but he has almost
equally impressive credentials in theology. His essay on "Teaching
Philosophy" is quite explicit. ( http://www.waynesburg.edu/~tmillike/ ).
Among other things, he wrote, "There are manifold ways to bring
Scripture into the classroom in this context. By doing so, it will keep
scientific myths, such as evolution, from ever being believed." He gives
explicit instructions of how his teaching philosophy is applied in the
syllabi of his two Spring 2004 courses linked to this page. He exhorts
students to know the difference between science and scientism, even
encouraging them to write an essay on why theistic science is the
correct approach to science. There can be no doubt about his sincerity,
but just imagine being indoctrinated in this way.

James Mackey wrote:

 > And there are some students (most that I have encountered at these
> events) who are believers and are interested in discovering the
> principles that govern the universe we live in ; a process best done by
> science.  they just believe that the universe & life has some purpose
> that stems from a creator.  They do science just like everyone else.

I came out of retirement to take a one year temporary teaching position
at Waynesburg College, a Presbyterian college, in 1998-1999 -- before
Dr. Milliken arrived there. There was a written understanding in advance
that the one year contract could not be renewed. I was ineligible for
tenure, because I did not have a Ph.D. All prospective employees were
required to submit a statement of "the relationship between his/her
faith and the Christian education mission of Waynesburg College,
including a statement of philosophy of education as it pertains to
Christian higher education." During my interview visit, the then Vice
President for Faculty told me about the college's Christian mission,
saying that they had not reached the ideal, naming another college that
was the ideal that they were striving for. He said a prayer, which he
said for all applicants applying for teaching positions. I was advised
to read _The Idea of a Christian College_ by Arthur Frank Holmes. I did
not see any signs of fanatacism while I was there. They had a very
respectable chemistry department, with some student research that led to
the discovery of some high temperature superconductor(s).I don't
remember that religion ever came up in my Giancoli Physics class, and
certainly not in an algebra class. The only time religion was ever
discussed was when we were doing "Chapter 1: About Science" of
_Conceptual Physics_ by Hewitt in a one-term course for students with
little scientific background. Hewitt states, "While science is concerned
with the workings of cosmic processes, religion addresses itself to the
purpose of the cosmos. The two complement rather than contradict each
other." [Someone pointed out that creationists don't hold to this
distinction, and I have heard of a well-known physicist who attempted to
use physics and cosmology to prove the existence of God.] One student
blurted out that the big bang was a "terrible theory," apparently on the
basis of his religious convictions.
[According to Stephen Hawking, the Pope was willing to accept that time
had a beginning in the big bang, but he was afraid of what he would have
thought had he known that Hawking was working on a theory that removed
the singularity from the big bang.] Another student answered Hewitt's
review question No. 13 on p. 16 (8th ed.), "Why do many people believe
they must choose between science and religion?", with something to the
effect, "Science and religion do not work together." Not wanting to be
any part of discouraging his religious beliefs, I replied that they can
work together. In short, I was trying to subscribe to the philosophy
that James Mackey expressed. Weeks later, a philosophy professor called
me, having looked at Hewitt's book. He thought it was good that his text
discussed science and religion. I met the permanent physics teacher at
Waynesburg College, who is also interested in the dialog between science
and religion, having gone to Oxford to attend a seminar about that. He
seems to be a very moderate person, willing to consider
both sides of controversial issues. He presented a talk on this topic at
the recent AAPT meeting in Miami that received some applause. According
to the abstract, one of his points was how science/religion dialogs
"could be useful when responding to challenges such as Intelligent
Design." As I recall, he said something to the effect that the dialog
between religion and science is "high stakes" at his college. Although I
do not subscribe to Bob Zanelli's hostile view toward religion, I agree
that one should feel free to teach science independently of religion.

This is probably tangential to science fairs, but students taught
according to the "Teaching Philosophy" referred to above would probable
have it reflected in their projects. Scientific cosmology, most of
astronomy, much of geology, and probably all of evolution would be excluded.

Hugh Logan
Retired physics teacher