In this segment, a person of faith who is also the director for the
National Center of Science and Education explains why the separation of church and state is
good for both education and religion. However, we could see that divide being
challenged through legislation in some states. ELI. How can such laws impact our
classrooms? Well, I'll summarize the bill for you here. This is a
surprising stance by a religious science educator to be honest in this article about the
West Virginia Senate Bill two point eighty, recently signed into law by Governor Jim
Justice. The bill's stated purpose, as originally introduced, was to allow teachers
in public schools, including public charter schools, to teach intelligent design. The
approved version of the bill simply disallows public educational institutions from prohibiting teachers from discussing
or answering questions from students about scientific theories of how the universe and or life
came to exist. So the bill no longer includes any mention of creation or
intelligent design or any religious language. So, resolving exactly zero complaints, West
Virginia science teachers are now permitted to answer questions about science while teaching science and
their science classrooms. This story is from Scientific America by Amanda L. Townley
on April third, twenty twenty four. Well, I find it remarkable that
this director of the National Science National Center for Science and Education, excuse me,
is also a person of faith. She blatantly states that upfront in the
article, and for me, those seem like conflicting views. And so I
want to get your take on whether you think it's possible for a person of
faith to also be a professional in the scientific field but also be genuine about
it. What are your thoughts there. I would say that it certainly seems
to be. This article really surprised me, kind of like I said,
and she seems really genuine. I am thrilled to see a religious person who
has a significant who has significant control over science education to take this stance and
say no, keep religion out of science. And I have a difficult time.
I cannot reconcile scientific information with religious information. For me, the two
don't reconcile. And that's why I'm not a believer, because I tend to
lean towards what there seems to be more evidence for. And she, perhaps
she has a small little pocket of suspended disbelief where she can reconcile these two
things or ignore one or the other while performing certain well, you know,
while in church mode and believer motor. In scientist mode, I don't have
those two modes. I just have the one. And so it certainly is
possible, it seems because I think miss Townley is is genuine and I commend
her. But for me, I know it wouldn't be sure. You know,
it reminds me of a story I was in college. I had a
professor on day one had to give his disclaimer. This is for my historical
geology course, who said that, you know, we're going to be covering
some topics that might conflict with your personally personal religions, your deeply held beliefs.
And I just want to say that through the course of our study and
in the field of science, there is plenty of room for all of the
world's great religions. And I thought, man, that's impossible. I mean,
not only does one religion and science cancel each other out, especially when
we're talking about the creation story in the Bible, for example, but then
all of them. You know, I don't know how you reconcile that.
And so when I see things like this. When I see legislators trying to
create laws where they can teach the framework of their religions, I just look
at it as a loophole, a way to get their perspectives inside the classroom
to unwilling participants, children, you know, who can't defend themselves. And
I want to ask, Infidel, do you think that this is just a
loophole to introduce Christianity into the classroom. Without a doubt, I think that
their goal, even though they remove the intelligent design part. As Eli mentioned,
you know, they passed a bill so you could teach scientific theories in
science class. That doesn't make a lot of sense in in and of itself,
But in the Florida discussion of the sponsor of the bill, Amy Grady
did declare that as the bill was amended that it would protect the teaching of
intelligent design in West Virginia public schools. So they're definitely viewing it as giving
them that opening. So what blows my mind is how many Christians are cheering
for this but not thinking about how easy it's going to be for somebody who's
religious to open up their mouth and say something in class that's not compatible with
their version of religion, like you were talking about how they're going to fit
all the religion when they can't even fit just one creation myth to try to
be able to fit that into you literally thousands of different denominations and trying to
fit whatever that cojent definition, which there really isn't one, or whatever that
attempt at a cogent definition of some teacher of any sort, not just science.
This is going to ultimately open up for everyone to talk about things in
class. This is just opening up all kinds of doors that those who are
in small, minority, small groups of Christianity should be just as concerned about
this as we are, because this is putting them on the line in the
long run, too, right, And I think it's a misconception, Scott.
I know that you may have some thoughts about that this idea that the
author says studying evolution wouldn't compromise one's faith, But what is your take on
that. Well, I'm not really sure if I think that that's a misconception,
at least not in higherly, so science education really should be. You
know, the goal of science education is to learn the truth about the universe,
and more importantly, to learn how to apply methods that reliably lead to
truth. Right, And so that's kind of the main function of of the
of the science classroom. Now, let's compare this. In an earlier segment,
we talked about how Pope Benedict encouraged, in fact ordered his his uh
you know, flock to prioritize the needs of the church over the over the
needs of the individual. Right, And so he's saying dogma over reality in
the in in my opinion, in that case. And so here and I
think we do have to give props for doctor Townley here. She she is
a religious person, but she's not following the Pope's edict there. She's not
you know, taking the hit for the team. She's not you know,
placing her her faith above what she what she knows deep down in her heart
is real and more importantly, can back it up. Right. So that's
the difference. Want to So the science classroom should be focusing on reality.
If the religion goes against that, then it should be called out. Then
it should there should be conflict between the classroom and religion if there is,
and if there is, you know, we've been we've been using the science
classroom to learn about reality. If you have a conflict in that, then
that's because you're wrong. Okay, Well, you know, I want to
stick with this idea of a misconception because my perception, my opinion of this
is that she's trying to balance two things that are mutually exclusive. Okay,
and so, Eli, I kind of wanted to get your take if I
were to ask you, do you think that this teacher or excuse me,
this the director, the author of this article, do you think that while
she says teaching evolution won't necessarily erode her religious beliefs? If you will,
do you think that that's actually happening to her by her inclination to keep her
religion out of schools? What do you think that that goes against the fundamental
basic tenets of what she's supposed to be doing as a Christian? That could
be argued the famous one is, you know, Matthew twenty eight, nineteen
twenty the Great Commission, go and make disciples. So you could say a
Christian could argue with that, by not not pushing for a religious curriculum in
public schools, for creationism in science class, that she is not following the
Great Commission. A Christian. I think could argue that reading the full quote
that you took a part of the first misconception is that learning about evolution threatened
students' faith, she says. She goes on to say, in that same
line, same paragraph, evolutionary biology, like any area of modern science,
is simply a body of knowledge about the natural world. And instead of methods
and procedures for attaining, refining, and testing that knowledge, nothing in evolutionary
biology denies the existence of God or places constraints on divine activity. And those
are all true things. I completely agree with all of that, and I
think it's because of that piece right there that I think I'm comfortable saying that
just because she accepts what you know scientific consensus to be, she uses that
to base the majority of her views about the world and determine, you know,
what she thinks is true. That does give her that pocket, like
I mentioned earlier, of perhaps that suspended disbelief to accept this claim, this
God claim, these divine claims, whichever hers are. And I think she
is both genuinely. I think she's genuine in both her educational front and her
religious front, and I don't think it's eroding her views necessarily. Okay,
Well, she does make a common argument, one that we've seen since the
foundation of our country. In fact, it's said that a group of Baptists
actually advised our founders to keep church at states separate so that one religion didn't
get too powerful and kind of edge out all of the other ones. And
I think the author makes that kind of point saying, you know, perhaps
other creations stories or myths. She listed a few herself, maybe taught in
the classroom alongside these other ones, and there has to be a line drawn
somewhere, infidel. Does she have a valid argument there? Would that necessarily
take away Christianity or would it strengthen the position that they should put Christianity in
schools if they also included these other myths stories. I think that there actually
could be a spot for Christianity, not in science class and literature class.
If you wanted to talk about comparing you know, creation myths or flood myths,
or a variety of different things in the Bible, so on that aspect,
I think that that would be one way I'd find it far more tolerable.
But not in science class. Having said that, though I was a
believer who accepted evolution. I was not a creationist, So I think that
for some of us, you know, the Catholic Church accepts evolution as well,
and as Eli pointed out, that evolution doesn't negate the existence of a
God, it doesn't even address that. But for the people that this bill
is for those people, to them, what we accept is scientific fact,
it really is heresy. So to them it would be something that as a
whole you probably wouldn't find a much of Pope followers either, because most Catholics
that I'm aware of a good percentage of them at least accept evolution. So
but among these reactionarys that this bill is far, yeah, they're they're looking
for the sixth Day. God, God said it, Bang, it happen,
and that's that's that's the end of the story. So I think that
this is one of the dangers of it. And I would love to see
the creation story place right next to half a dozen other ones in literature.
It might open some eyes in that perspective. Sure, definitely not in science
class. Absolutely, I couldn't couldn't agree with you there more So I kind
of just want to recap here, you know what you said. I think
it's important that you talk about maybe the motivation of this science teacher or this
scientist, and then the motivations of elected officials for wanting to put religion in
schools. They're different, right, They're different. We can never really know
how many elected officials would be behind something like this and what each of their
individual motivations are, but I do want to highlight that there it has to
be some kind of dividing line. And that's what I think this teacher is
getting at, or the scientist is getting at. And so I want to
turn to our resident teacher of the show tonight and ask Scott, you know,
where do we establish a line between reality based and faith based education?
Well, I think that's especially important in the science classroom. Like I said
before, so the whole goal of science is to address reality that's in front
of us here that we're all living in. Here. I have to give
kudos to this religious doctor who supports science even in the face of conflict with
her with her religious beliefs, and so, you know, so I think
that's a good first step. Where do we draw the line between reality based
education and faith based education? Well, you know, it depends on what
the class is, you know, in a science class, faith based teaching
has no place, has no place. I mean, imagine if I went
into my classroom and I wanted to teach math, and if I taught one
plus one is equal to three, and so obviously that's not the case.
That's against you know, reality, and it's just plain wrong. And in
fact, we could even say that I would be negligent as a teacher to
be giving that information to my students because it is incorrect and it is not
in agreement with reality. Now what if what instead if I turned around and
said, well, that's that's what I believe, you know, that's my
religious belief. Should I be allowed to teach that. I mean, under
this kind of bill, that kind of thing would be allowed. Or I
can't remember if the bill, this bill specifically addresses the science classroom, but
I'm sure it could easily spill into other types of arenas. And so in
the case where you're teaching a class where the goal of the class is to
address reality, I mean, you have to draw a hard line in the
sand. There a hard stop. No faith based Now, if we're talking
about something off, we're discussing literature, or maybe we're talking about art,
or maybe even a you know, a comparative religion class. Then you know,
in those cases, you're not presenting the information as if it were fact
about the universe. Right, then we're talking about the subjective, which you
know, subjects with which are just as valuable as the hard sciences and mathematics.
But it's the attitude of the student coming into it is not this is
reality. It's let's talk about these ideas, let's assess these ideas, let's
let's exchange our opinions on this. And so I think the difference is are
the students going into the class expecting to learn about what's real or are they
expected to go in to learn about how to think and how to analyze and
how to compare and that kind of thing. And so, to me,
that would be the difference. That would be the difference the objective of the
course and the attitude of the students coming into it. Sure, and you
know that is a good place to land for these conversations that we've been having
tonight, because science, right, that poses a problem. But for the
people that are trying to push these kinds of educational programs admitting that they their
education doesn't belong this kind of education doesn't belong in the science program, but
it might be okay in an art or literature course. I mean that could
potentially reflect them admitting that what they believe is not actually factual. And so
I don't think that we're likely to see them back off of science. I
don't think that they're interested in art and culture and literature. And on that
note, being that I've kind of taken all the points and wrap them into
one, I want to give everybody wrap them into a conclusion. I should
say, I want to give everybody a closing couple of minutes to get their
final thoughts out. I'll go with Eli, then Infidel, then we'll finish
up with Scott. So Eli, please applorse yours yes, So again,
I just well, I firstly, I meant to do it last time.
Thank you Scott for using the correct honorific for doctor timely, because I messed
it up and I got and I demoted her. So thank you for getting
that right in correcting me. My thought that I had that I didn't address
was I thought it was. I was surprised that the initial bill got rejected
because it seemed to me and I'm no law expert thankfully, because I would
have approved of this because it seems to me that it's just barely not unconstitutional
because they're just allowing teachers to teach intelligent design, not requiring it or adding
into the curriculum. But thankfully that got rejected and now they're just allowed to
teach science in science classrooms. It's like we had before, so all as
well. That ends well, excellent, Infidel. I think that one of
the things that was mentioned in the article that I touched on earlier, and
I believe you did as well, and that is the importance of how critical
it is for people who are believers, who are people who have a faith
that is a minority faith, be careful when things like this come up,
because you could be on the wrong side of this at some point. Not
everyone practices their faith traditions like you do. And that's the one thing that
I really hope that the people on even the other side recognize. Be careful
what you wish for, because it might not be what you expect. Scott.
Yeah, I'll just summ it up by saying that your right to believe
and practice your religion should not take presidents over my right to learn about the
real world. Well that those are great closing comments. I just want to
say that Scott, in no way, shape or form, would ever teach
anybody that one plus one equals three. Regardless of what you have to say
about him as a human being, he's a great teacher. Maybe for really
big values of one they would add up there. So I don't know,
we'll see. You know, this a great conversation. I think what made
this interesting is that we are not used to seeing scientists, excuse me,
we're not used to seeing scientists also be people of faith right and to support
the side of the scientist, and so you know, that is something that
is uncommon, and you know, I hope that we see more of