Religion and Science: Respecting the differences
Let
me explain and provide some context. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I
believe that science is an incredibly powerful way of understanding the natural
world. Unfortunately, we live in a society that is largely scientifically
illiterate. By that I don't mean that most people don't understand the specifics
of any particular science, which is unquestionably true, but rather that most
people don't understand the nature of science. They are unable to distinguish
between science and pseudoscience or, as I like to say, among science,
nonscience, and nonsense. Collectively, we regularly suffer the consequences of
scientific illiteracy, from poorly conceived public policies to atrocious
educational practices.
Scientific
investigation is a process that depends upon hypothesis testing and demands that
scientific claims be offered in a manner that permits them to be falsified.
Simply put, if you can't phrase your hypothesis in a falsifiable manner, it
falls outside the bounds of science. Science is, therefore, one of the few
fields of human endeavor that has opted to limit its own scope -- and it's that
limitation that makes it so useful. -- Michael
Zimmerman
By Michael
Zimmerman
Just so there's no confusion, I
want to make my two main points right up front. First, I don't believe that
religion and science must be in competition with one another. Second, those who
disagree with my first point call me an "accommodationist," and while I don't
particularly like the term, I am perfectly content to fall into that broad
category.
Let me explain and provide some
context. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and I believe that science is an
incredibly powerful way of understanding the natural world. Unfortunately, we
live in a society that is largely scientifically illiterate. By that I don't
mean that most people don't understand the specifics of any particular science,
which is unquestionably true, but rather that most people don't understand the
nature of science. They are unable to distinguish between science and
pseudoscience or, as I like to say, among science, nonscience, and nonsense.
Collectively, we regularly suffer the consequences of scientific illiteracy,
from poorly conceived public policies to atrocious educational
practices.
Scientific investigation is a
process that depends upon hypothesis testing and demands that scientific claims
be offered in a manner that permits them to be falsified. Simply put, if you
can't phrase your hypothesis in a falsifiable manner, it falls outside the
bounds of science. Science is, therefore, one of the few fields of human
endeavor that has opted to limit its own scope -- and it's that limitation that
makes it so useful.
By defining its boundaries in
this fashion, science isn't implying that any question or endeavor that falls
outside its reach is unimportant. I doubt, for example, that many scientists
would dismiss questions of aesthetics as being unimportant or uninteresting even
while arguing that they are not amenable to scientific investigation.
Where does that leave religion?
Well, it depends what you mean by religion. When religion (or more likely its
fundamentalist adherents) begins to make claims in the complete absence of
evidence and in a manner that is not falsifiable, and when those claims are
passed off as scientific, the record must be set straight. Creationism, in all
of its guises, including intelligent design, regularly makes claims of exactly
this sort. Rather than addressing evidence, creationists simply make faith
statements and expect that those faith statements be taught in science classes.
While none of us should hesitate
to attack such activities, it's well worth pointing out that most mainstream
religions don't do this. Consider, for example, the resolution overwhelmingly
adopted by the United Methodist Church at its quadrennial conference in 2008:
"Be it resolved that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on
record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as
Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public
schools."
And consider that The Christian Clergy
Letter, a part of The Clergy Letter Project, signed by more than 12,500
Christian clergy members, says unequivocally, "We urge school board members to
preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of
the theory of evolution as a core component of human
knowledge."
Let me repeat my main point
here: these statements of support for evolution are from religious leaders. It's
unlikely that you could find stronger testimonials from any other segment of our
society. For those of us who care about science literacy and who recognize the
centrality of evolution, it makes sense to celebrate rather than criticize the
efforts religious leaders are making on this front.
There's very good reason to
believe that the voices of clergy are particularly important on this issue if
progress is going to be made in bringing a broader segment of the American
public to an acceptance of evolution. A 2007 Pew Research Center report noted
that "when asked what they would do if scientists were to disprove a particular
religious belief, nearly two-thirds (64%) of people say they would continue to
hold to what their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary scientific
finding."
The fact is, though, that the
teachings of most mainstream religions are consistent with evolution --
but the message has not yet reached congregants. There isn't any better way to
improve the situation than to praise religious leaders who continue to speak out
forcefully, and scientifically appropriately, on this
topic.
Unfortunately, however, in some
quarters, criticism has greatly outdistanced praise. (If you have any doubt
about this, just read through the comments on almost any Huffington Post
blog touching on creationism.) At times it appears that anyone who professes a
belief in religion is assumed to be indistinguishable from a fundamentalist and
is, therefore, assumed to be anti-science.
It is difficult for some to
understand how an evolutionary worldview may be compatible with deeply held
religious convictions. But this difficulty is no reason to attack those who
manage to comfortably balance the two.
Many, many religious leaders
understand that religion is not dependent upon a single interpretation of any
text. Instead, the overwhelming majority of the religious leaders with whom I
interact regularly believe that religion is about morality and spirituality
rather than science. They want to make the world a better, a fairer and a more
just place and they believe they can accomplish that within a spiritual
community.
I respect those goals and, as
I've said, I believe that religious leaders who understand the nature of science
and are willing to speak out about it deserve to be praised. I have no problem
being labeled an "accommodationist" for taking such a stand. I also have no
problem arguing vehemently when anyone, religious or otherwise, crosses the line
from science to nonsense.
Because the term
"accommodationist" was coined by critics as an expletive (see, for example, a
recent essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education and University of
Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne's blog), it says more about their intolerance than
it does about those of us who respect positions that fall outside the bounds of
science.
Source: Huffington
Post
9:40 PM
Sultan Shahin
0 comments:
Post a Comment