Science vs. religion : what scientists really think - File PDF

Suppression or Engagement 83educators, these scientists are willing to devote at least some teaching time toengaging their students in broader issues of science and society, including theintersection of science and religion.“Religion Is a Threat That Must Be Addressed”: NegativeEnvironmental PushOther scientists who talk openly about religion do so in a pejorative way. Thesescientists are often those who would say that religion and science are irreconcilablyin conflict, and their actions reveal a negative environmental push arisingfrom public debates about science and religion. (Whether the push is definedas negative or positive, then, depends upon the reactions of the scientists whoare being pushed.) Though their responses are more derogatory, these scientistsare also addressing the question of what science is and what it is not. Theydiffer in that they intentionally talk about religion in a negative light, believingit vitally important to converse with their students about the irrelevance ordanger of religion to the scientific mission.Anthony,21the chemist we met in Chapter 2 , thinks that learning moreabout science led him away from believing in God. While he generally believesthat any personal expression of religion ought to stop at the university gate, hedoes talk about religion in his classroom and thinks that it ought to be discussedif it directly relates to the subject matter at hand, as intelligent designrelates to chemistry. Consequently, he actively brings up religion in his class,telling students he does not view the theory of intelligent design as science.No student has ever mentioned religion in Anthony’s class; he suspects thatthis is because he has “headed it off at the pass” by bringing up the topic first.He makes this effort because “intelligent design is rearing its head.” He wantsto specifically explain to undergraduate students the difference between scienceand religion, telling them that science is necessarily “hypothesis driven.”Religion, he explains, also has a hypothesis: “that there is a God that does everything.”Since this hypothesis is not testable and falsifiable through the scientificmethod, he expounds in class, intelligent design is not scientific and has noplace in the study of chemistry.In another clear example of environmental push, Anthony has begun readingthe Bible every day so that he can “react to all these other people quotingthe Bible.” His reading has shown him the danger of a literal interpretation ofthe Bible, what he refers to as “fundamentalism.”In light of the public debates about earth origins, I expected those in thenatural sciences to express strong opinions about distinguishing science