I admit that I've read little of the commentary on this subject. What
little I have read has followed the predictable progression one comes to
expect in such discussions. John's comments below are somewhat unique, ime,
and demonstrate an unusual level of common sense. Consequently, I'm
motivated to make a few comments of my own; ones I've made before in other
venues and at other times...
Science is, imo, a process that can help us understand how the world
"works". Religion is a rigid framework for giving the world some
context/meaning. The two don't HAVE to be in general opposition, and, again
imo, the factions that ARE truly opposed are relatively small. The ranks in
opposition, on both sides, however, have been swelled by the actions/words
of the opposing zealots. It need not be so.
On the one hand, we have a very vocal, but SMALL group of Christians who
insist in a literal interpretation of the wording of the Bible. On the
other, we have a vocal, but probably ALSO small, group of individuals who
feel it their duty to "debunk" the former group. Unfortunately, science is
the tool they choose to use in the debunking process. These two hard-line
positions are absolutely in conflict and will NEVER be otherwise. The trick
is not to expand the conflict to include individuals with moderate views
who, feeling under threat, are compelled to engage.
While Fundamentalist Christians may be plentiful in some areas of the US,
they remain a tiny minority of Christians in general, much less religious
believers, much less people in the US. I think it's easy to overlook that.
In the first and third quoted sections below, John points out the easiest
way to gut scientific opposition, leaving only the most zealous of science's
opponents. Don't allow science to become a blunt instrument of attack on
religion. Don't over-represent what science is. Explain how science works
and, yes, the limitations inherent in it.
I can understand the temptation to convert the "ignorant, ultra religious"
from their misguided beliefs, but it CAN'T BE DONE! This hard-core group is
simply going to counter-attack, and as the "scientific" response ramps up,
millions of moderate Christians are going to be forced into their camp,
reinforcing and expanding their influence. While you can contain a handful,
you can't contain ALL religious believers.
In the second section below, John refers to the limitations that a lack of
belief in evolution would impose on a biologist. I would point out that a
belief in the process of evolution, as in change over time, does not
contradict anything in the Bible. The conflict arises when one extrapolates
that into gross morphological changes over millions of years. One is
observable and is clearly fact; the other, however likely to be the case, is
not nearly as certain.
In the third section below, John outlines the blueprint for marginalizing
opposition. It comes down to not launching an all-out, scorched-earth
conflict, or over-selling the certitude of science. Instead, it suggests
that we do a better job of explaining what science is (and isn't).
-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
[mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 11:35 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Richard Dawkins Answers Reddit Questions
<snip>
So both religion and science have moved on. But some churches have retained
an absolutist Fundamentalist view of their writings. This comes up against
the scientific views and conflict ensues. To a certain extent this can be
defused by teaching students that science creates models of the physical
world not "truth".
One can be a good solid state physicist and believe that the world is only
6000 years old, because these do not come in conflict. But to believe in
geology and not in evolution is cutting the line finer. Essentially the
individual compartmentalizes the two things. But one can not be a good
astronomer and believe in the Young Earth idea. One can not be a good
biologist and disbelieve evolution. It might be possible to be a good
biologist and an anti-evolutionist if you were an experimentalist studying
say diseases that affect certain species. But a biological theoretician
would need evolution as part of their model for how things got to be the way
they are.
<snip>
On our part we need to teach students in such a way that they understand
where our ideas come from, and that these ideas are not absolute truth, but
provisional models. That would help students greatly, and at the same time
help defuse the anti-science rhetoric. Also, students need to learn how to
use critical thinking. Since the majority of HS and college graduates do
not test at the formal operational level, it is difficult for them to
understand science. The formal operational level is defined in terms of
scientific/mathematical tests.