Hammack’s View of the Science vs. Religion Debate

In May 2001 students in the Bollhorst/Rogers Combo Class, as part of a class assignment, asked me a series of questions about my views on the science versus religion debate, especially with respect to how it should be taught in public high schools. The following statement is my written response to their questions.

First, I am not an expert in this area- the legal area- but here we go. . . I must abide by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". This establishes the broad outline of the debate over separation of church and state. What does this really mean? What can I do or not do in the classroom? I try to be respectful of the tensions in this area and do not try to engender controversy- I don't think it serves any real purpose in the promotion of understanding between science and religion. Even though I am religious I do not try to promote my specific personal religious views in class; I don't think that is right and I would resent if someone did it to me (I try to follow the golden rule- “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you”). My biggest frustration in this whole controversy is the naïve view that people have regarding the controversy. The issues are quite complex and subtle. We live in a cultural and social context which few people even notice, critique, or question. Our culture in the Bay Area is secular and non-religious for the most part. This culture in many ways treats science as a "religion"; there is a word for this world view: scientism. It is the belief that the universe is based exclusively on natural laws that operate on matter, and that science can explain everything. In western culture, as a result of the scientific revolution ushered in by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton (and others), there has been a slow and steady movement away from religious explanations of the universe and our place in it. This has been replaced by a growing belief that science can explain everything. As a result science has eclipsed religion as a way to explain who we are and how we got here. It has become a grand "meta-narrative"- an all encompassing story that explains, to the satisfaction of many, all that needs explaining. Hence, one could say that science is now "worshipped" by many people. I see this everyday in the media, in conversations I have with people, etc. I personally don't like to see religious views promoted in the classroom. There are science teachers at high schools and universities across our nation who promote their “religion” of scientism. I am not sure that many of them are even aware of what they are doing- they think they are being "objective" and "scientific" when in reality they are promoting a materialistic philosophy, sometimes with religious zeal. They have little respect for other views and look "down" on religious explanations as superstitious or fanciful- with no validity in the search for truth or meaning. In the spirit of true objectivity, I feel we all need to look at how we know anything in the first place- the subject in philosophy called epistemology. In this way one can see that there are many ways to "know" truth.

In my viewpoint the basis of all knowledge is faith- faith of some kind. There is a famous theologian, St. Anselm, who described his search for truth as, “Faith seeking understanding.” In many ways this explains how we come to know anything- we begin with faith and then we proceed to a greater understanding working within this “faith.” This is how religious people operate- they begin with faith and then, once they embrace a faith, they can work within it to gain a deeper understanding of themselves, the universe, and their place in the universe- who they are, where they came from, how to act, how to treat people, etc. Scientists do the same thing. Every year I show a video on Einstein in my physics classes. At the very end of the program the narrator says, that at the core, Einstein had faith in the “natural harmony” and “order” in the universe. From this basic faith, he was able to seek understanding- to put his mind to the difficult problem of seeking to find this “natural harmony” and “order,” and as a result he developed the Theory of Relativity. Without the initial faith that the universe is ordered he would never have bothered to seek understanding. So, my point is, faith is at the beginning of all knowing, whether religious or scientific. Most scientific people don’t recognize this even though this is how they operate!

Another core belief of mine is that to have a truly comprehensive view of the universe and our place in it, I feel we need to embrace different ways of knowing. In reality the universe is not a universe, it is a multiverse. Suppose you are lost in the mountains. In order to find your location, you don’t just sight on one mountain- you triangulate- you take three sightings and find where they intersect on your map. That is your location. One sighting won’t do it; triangulation is the key. Or suppose you want to understand someone. You don’t just ask one friend; that would just give you a one-dimensional view of the person. Instead, you talk to a number of different friends, their parents, siblings, teachers, etc. and only then do you get a multidimensional view of the person. By triangulation you begin to see more truly who they are. My point is simply, to really know what this universe and our lives are really all about we need to embrace a variety of ways of knowing. Science can answer some questions and religion can answer others. No one has cornered the market on “truth.”

Since it is not legal, and I do not think it right, for a teacher to promote their particular religious view, I carefully avoid it. I am happy to talk to them outside of class about Christianity- I don’t discuss this in class unless directly asked. If I am asked I would give the talk I have just given you to qualify everything I say- to put it in a proper context for understanding. I do try to open my students’ minds to the issues of science versus religion in a way that is thought provoking. One way I do this is by showing the movie Contact in physics. The movie comes down pretty much in the middle concerning the issue of science and religion. It allows students to begin thinking about these things and see that the two views don’t have to be in conflict. What is nice about the movie is that it begins where things are today in our society- Ellie and Palmer represent the two sides of the science/religion debate. However, as the movie progresses they both grow to appreciate and respect each other’s views. It is a marvelous movie. Now this may sound sappy, but it is their love for each other which allows them to open up their eyes, break through their prejudices, and see the others’ point of view. Some cynics may say that this is just a Hollywood ploy- the romantic subplot that keeps us all interested in the story. That is certainly true, but it is also true that all deep and abiding reconciliation in the world comes through love. The religious traditions that have at their core the importance of love are resonating with a deep truth.

In conclusion, students always want to know how I reconcile evolution and creation. I don’t have any easy answers and I think any religious person or scientist who thinks they fully understand or can explain the relationship between evolution and creation is prideful and foolish. The Greeks have a word for this- hubris. We simply do not have enough information at this point. Science, as a way of knowing, is only about 400 years old, and, contrary to popular understanding, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection has only been widely accepted by scientists since the development of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940’s. However, I do have several things I would like to say regarding my views on this issue. I am not a religious fundamentalist and I believe the scientific evidence does not support a literalistic reading of the Bible. Furthermore, I feel the so called, “scientific creationism,” is not supported by good scientific evidence. I have read their work and, in my estimation, it is not based on good scientific standards. I cannot comment on any religious views aside from western views (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) since I am not deeply read in these areas. The creation story in Genesis is the basis for Muslim, Jewish, and Christian views of the creation of our universe. As long as Genesis is read in a non-literal way, I don’t believe it conflicts with the scientific view. It answers the who and why of creation, not the how. The goal of science is to discover the “how.” Finally, I am very encouraged by the progress made by the Catholic church in seeking to reconcile religion and science with regards to the issue of evolution. They have published two important statements (officially called “Encyclicals”) on evolution in the past 50 years. The most recent was released in 1996 and includes the following statement: Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

For those who might want to pursue this topic more deeply a good place to start is the book, When Science Meets Religion, by Ian Barbour. It is in our school library.