Science vs. God: A layman’s opinion

You don’t need to look far to find discussions of God and science. We’ve all heard about the ID vs. Evolution brouhaha in Kansas, and if you are lucky enough to possess a sense of humor, you’ve probably visited the website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The discussions are not new; the debates have included Galileo, the Scopes Trial and more recently, the Grand Canyon. Late last year, in a 9 page article, Time Magazine wrote:

There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. God. The more familiar over the past few years is the narrower of the two: Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? In recent years, creationism took on new currency as the spiritual progenitor of “intelligent design” (I.D.), a scientifically worded attempt to show that blanks in the evolutionary narrative are more meaningful than its very convincing totality. I.D. lost some of its journalistic heat last December when a federal judge dismissed it as pseudoscience unsuitable for teaching in Pennsylvania schools.

As a child, I was dragged to church every Sunday and Wednesday where I saw nothing but hypocrisy, so today I cannot claim affinity to any particular god or religion. I have, on the other hand, felt very spiritual and close to my mind’s image of what God should be after eating a couple of mushrooms. My science education is limited to high school Honors Chemistry where my friends and I were more interested in whether we could make MDMA than learning about the periodic system. Like many people, I have strong opinions on the Science vs. God debate, but because my opinions were influenced by (sometimes altered) personal experiences, anecdotal evidence or books I’ve read, I generally only share them amongst my closest friends.

That changed today. I found a Science Blog discussing a Christian Science Fair that awarded first place to a project that was fundamentally wrong on the science. The blog is written by PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at UMM. He said:

It’s becoming a trend: Evangelical Christian institutions that try to do science inevitable demonstrate breathtaking inanity of their own. The latest victim is the Pawleys Island Christian Academy. Take a gander at the first place winner in biology.

Brian Benson, an eighth-grade student who won first place in the Life Science/Biology category for his project “Creation Wins!!!,” says he disproved part of the theory of evolution. Using a rolled-up paper towel suspended between two glasses of water with Epsom Salts, the paper towel formed stalactites. He states that the theory that they take millions of years to develop is incorrect.

“Scientists say it takes millions of years to form stalactites,” Benson said. “However, in only a couple of hours, I have formed stalactites just by using paper towel and Epsom Salts.”

This isn’t just wrong, it’s appallingly wrong. He’s wrong on the facts, wrong on the interpretations, wrong on the understanding of how science works. If we’re charitable and grant that a 14 year old has some reasonable excuse for ignorance, we can still indict his parents, his science teacher, and the judges at this fair on gross incompetence on multiple charges.

This experiment has nothing to do with biology.
Epsom salts are magnesium sulfate; stalactites are made of calcium carbonate.
Stalactite growth rates are estimated to be around 0.1-10 centimeters per thousand years. If we assume his ’stalactite’ was 10 cm long and use the slowest growth rate, that’s 100 thousand years, not millions.
Even if he had demonstrated an accelerated rate of stalactite growth, stalactite length isn’t the method used to date the age of the earth.
To quote the unquestionable authority, Terry Pratchett: “And all those exclamation points? Five? A sure sign of someone who wears his underpants on his head.” Mister Benson comes perilously close to the underpants limit in his title.

I’m all for parental choice in education and a Christian school is certainly free to teach ID, Epsom Salts and paper towels create stalactites, or even that Noah’s Flood created the Grand Canyon. But, please, let’s not call it science.

Why is it that we are bombarded with the Christian rewrite of science? Why is it even entertained by school boards and politicians? It’s not ok for Bible study to bleed over into public schools, national parks, and policy decisions. There is supposed to be a “wall of separation” between church and state.

This “Average Jane” believes that the place for “God” in science was described well by Albert Einstein when he wrote of cosmic religious feeling:

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion very different from the usual one. When one views the matter historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who interferes in the course of events – provided, of course, that he takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion. A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple reason that a man’s actions are determined by necessity, external and internal, so that in God’s eyes he cannot be responsible, any more than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes. Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.

It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.

Nope, I’ll never be able to flaunt my scientific prowess, but I do seek science information from reputable journals. I quit religion years ago and no longer look for spiritual experiences with mind altering substances. These days I am a mostly responsible mother. And being a responsible mother, I care about the world left for my children. Reading about that “science” project has changed my thoughts on getting into the debate. One needn’t be an expert in science to care about man’s progress being hijacked by a Christian agenda.

~ by Miche on May 24, 2007.