Unlike Joe Bellina, I do not think this discussion is off topic.
We have a conflict between what many scientists believe should be taught
in science classes, and what many fundamental religious groups think
should be taught.
If we are interested in getting the ideas and methods of science taught,
there are some things we must do...
(1) We need to make sure the public understands the situation well
enough that they don't out-vote us. We can't teach science in the
public schools if the public legally kicks us out of the public schools.
(2) We need to make sure our message is received by the children we are
teaching as opposed to having our message ignored because the children's
parents turn the children against us.
Riding on top of our basic differences is the additional baggage that
some scientists are practically zealots for atheism just as some
religious groups are practically zealots for Bible inerrancy and literal
interpretation. These two groups don't want to coexist; they want to
wipe each other out.
The typical scientist has been very frustrated by religious zealots who
seem to be forcing religion into public education, but the religious
folks have also been very frustrated by science zealots who use the
science classroom to preach atheism. The subject line for this thread
has been god friendly science. Recently we also heard the suggestion of
science friendly god. Perhaps these are both good ideas.
One thing that has surfaced often in the discussion on this list is that
there are people who realize the difference between the scientific
process and the faith process and acknowledge both can exist. I think
this is important. I called it compartmentalization. I am now aware
(thanks to Larry Woolf's contribution to this list) that Stephen Jay
Gould called it "nonoverlapping magisteria." Gould, a staunch supporter
of evolution, embraces better understanding and better dialogue between
these separate compartments. If you haven't read that essay you really
should read it. Here is a repeat of the link that Larry gave us...
<http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html>
This year's commencement speaker at Bluffton University was Owen
Gingerich, senior astronomer emeritus, Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory, and Research Professor of Astronomy and of the History of
Science at Harvard University. His recent book about Copernicus, "The
Book Nobody Read," has received wide acclaim. Owen has Mennonite ties
and graduated from one of the US Mennonite colleges (of which Bluffton
is one).
Over lunch, the science faculty was privileged to have an extended
dialogue with Owen. Additionally, he has been here before, and some of
us met him and had dialogue with him at that earlier time.
In his address Owen said the Bible is a better guide to wisdom than a
guide for knowledge. "After all, the writers of the Bible never heard
about global warming, stem cell research, or nuclear warfare, and some
of their attitudes about what we would now call ethnic cleansing, or
about the role of women, leave a lot to be desired. But Jesus, through
his life and teachings including the way he interpreted scripture, shows
us what conscience should be about, and that is truly the foundation of
wisdom."
In his conclusion, Owen Gingerich hoped the graduates would carry their
knowledge and a love for learning, but in addition said, "...I hope you
will also find wisdom, because our world desperately needs conscience
and good judgment."
I think Stephen Jay Gould also alluded to this type of idea. Whether
one finds wisdom and conscience from religion, or from secular humanism,
or from whatever... it is something we need in addition to knowledge.
As a science teacher I don't want to stifle a student's search for
wisdom and conscience any more than I want the religious zealots to
stifle the science.
In order to make my science more God friendly, whenever there is a
possibility that what I say might be construed as anti-religious, I make
a point of saying it isn't necessarily so. At the same time, I am
honest. Thus, when I am teaching astronomy and discussing the formation
of stars and planets, I say something like this. "If you believe in
six-day creation, then what I am saying is at odds with your belief.
However, what I am saying should not be construed as atheistic. I am
not going to talk about religion and I am not going to tell you whether
I am a theist, agnostic, or atheist. But I do want you to realize that
what I am teaching about how scientists believe the solar system formed
is not at odds with either atheism or theism. Science does not prove or
disprove God, and science does not prove or disprove that God created
the universe." I also offer to talk individually with any student who
wants to talk about this some more. Only a few ever do, but there are
some.
Therefore, without imposing my beliefs on the students (except to admit
that what I teach is inconsistent with 6-day creation) I try to be
honest that science is not god unfriendly. I continue to hope that the
fundamentalists will join me part way by allowing a science friendly
god. I admit I am frustrated by them and I do not hold high hopes that
they will move in this direction. But I think we must remain open to
the dialogue.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Chemistry and Physics
Bluffton University
Bluffton, OH 45817
(419)-358-3270
edmiston@bluffton.edu
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l