After I stated there are zealots on both sides (scientists teaching
evolution implies no god as well as fundamentalists pushing "creation
science") John Clement questioned whether there are really many
scientists pushing atheism. Are atheism-preaching scientists an urban
myth perpetuated by the fundamentalists?
I am personally aware of only a couple "scientists" who vocally claim
evolution implies no god, and I certainly do not have any statistics.
John Clement is correct that it would unprofessional for scientists to
bring atheism into the classroom. I would add that it would also be bad
science.
After sleeping on this, I am wondering if part of scientists' struggle
with fundamentalists has been our lack of clarity about what science can
and cannot demonstrate. In the discussion on this list we have seen
various statements about models versus truth and about nonoverlapping
compartments in which one compartment cannot prove anything about the
other compartment.
Have we been getting this message across to our students and to the
fundamentalists? If fundamentalists claim our teaching of evolution is
akin to preaching atheism, are we vigorously claiming that we are
implying no such thing?
I would think the discussion we have had here on this list (about what a
scientific model is, about what science is and is not, etc.) should be
an important part of science education. Should it then be a part of
science education for us to explicitly teach that science models are
completely different from faith-based beliefs? This can get pretty
tricky, but it is science education, and it ought to help the struggle
against all but the most extreme fundamentalists.
I have been reading the Ohio Academic Content Standards for science
education in grades K through 12. One of the six overarching standards
is labeled as "Scientific Ways of Knowing." Under this heading the
standards state, "Students realize that the current body of scientific
knowledge must be based on evidence, be predictive, logical, subject to
modification and limited to the natural world." It seems to me that
when we teach what something is, it is also good technique to give
examples of what it is not.
At the college level I can mention religion in class, describe the
difference between religion and science, and affirm that the science we
are learning yields no statement about the existence of a god. Can we
do likewise in grades K through 12? I notice that the Ohio standards
state that by high school graduation students are supposed to be able
to... "Describe the ethical practices and guidelines in which science
operates.... [and]... Explain how societal issues and considerations
affect the progress of science and technology."
It seems to me these Ohio benchmarks are going to be tough because they
demand that the science teacher leave the realm of science teaching and
become at least moderator, if not teacher, of ethical and sociological
ideas. This is going beyond the explanation of the separation of
science and religion what I was advocating above.
Michael D. Edmiston, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics and Chemistry
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