Distinguishing between science and religion
My faculty at the University of Colorado had an elegant and noncontroversial solution to the problem articulated by Rabbi Neil Amswych on religious influence in science education (“Inexact science?” Sept. 24). The solution is applicable to all of public education.
Everyone agrees that it is beneficial that students learn certain basics in public education — math, writing, human health, psychology, economics, history, etc. When a student takes any course in a field such as science, the expectation is that the student will learn the material of the subject.
No one should, or has the right, to ask the student to believe, or advocate for, the material. The student is required only to be able to recall the information. Subsequent use of the content is up to the student. Hopefully, the student will use the information, if needed, to determine, for example, whether his or her grandfather is having a heart attack. The student doesn’t have to believe that using algebra will be beneficial in understanding how electrical power works in a house, or the speed of a vehicle will crush a car crashing into an abutment. Although foolhardy, he can choose to ignore the facts.
No one requires a student to believe the science; scientists in education hope only that the student will employ the knowledge wisely. In Colorado, we adopted this view when I was the coordinator and designer of a university course teaching 1,200 students per year; a course in which we taught basic biochemistry, classic and molecular genetics, and evolution to science majors, such as those becoming physicians.
As we told the students, there are many religious versions of the origin of life on Earth, and the theory of evolution is the one that forms a major facet of science. Other views of creation are encountered in courses in religious studies. No teacher of those courses is going to require the students to know the science of the theory of evolution. Likewise, no one in biology is going to require the students to know creation concepts found in religion courses. “Never the twain shall meet.”
Everyone knows that Colorado, where I taught, has an active fundamentalist Christian community centered in Colorado Springs, and many students raised in that religious tradition took our university courses. Yet, not a single time in the 22 years that I taught and coordinated our basic course did I or my colleagues encounter an objection to the teaching of evolution when we had made this distinction between science and religion.
Learn the science in the science courses; learn the religion in the religion courses. Don’t mix the two. The problem arises only when those who advocate for science say that a student must believe the concepts; or, when those who advocate religion want to introduce their views into science courses. When either side crosses that boundary, the conflict is endless, and becomes an endless distraction to the goals of society. If we as a society can’t agree on such a simple solution, perhaps we deserve the fate of rejecting scientific and technological advancement.
Learn the science in the science courses; learn the religion in the religion courses. Don’t mix the two.