Betty White and Science Education: Taking Steps for A Healthier Future

It's almost axiomatic that the media focus on bad news and conflict rather than on more uplifting stories. "War Breaks Out" or "Fear of War At All Time High" are headlines that invariably capture attention. Rarely do we encounter a headline like "Peace Breaks Out!"

The same is true for areas far removed from international politics. The media, for example, has promoted the myth that there is a war between religion and science and every little skirmish is highlighted. When Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, proclaims that evolutionary theory and Christianity are incompatible, his comments receive significant coverage in news outlets around the country. On the other hand, when almost 13,000 Christian clergy sign a letter stating exactly the opposite view, urging society "to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge" it's all but impossible to gain any media traction.

You choose. Which statement is more newsworthy, a single fundamentalist minister saying what he has said many times before or almost 13,000 Christian leaders representing myriad denominations saying peace has broken out between religion and science?

Reverend Mohler simply asserted, "You cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time," while the 13,000 boldly noted,
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests." You choose.

These same clergy members, and many hundreds others who are not Christians, have come together to form The Clergy Letter Project. Their goals are simple. They want to demonstrate that religion and science can comfortably, indeed intellectually profitably, coexist. They want to prove that the fundamentalist voices arguing that religion and science are at war are not speaking for thousands upon thousands of other religious leaders. And they want to raise the quality of the discourse on this topic. They want to move beyond name-calling and sound bites to meaningful discussion.

Though you may not be aware of it because the media hasn't considered the peace that has broken out between religion and science to be newsworthy, such serious conversations have already begun. For the past five years, The Clergy Letter Project has sponsored an event called Evolution Weekend and thousands of congregations in every U.S. state and from 20 countries have participated. The sixth annual Evolution Weekend is scheduled for February 11-13, 2011 and I'm asking you to join with me in challenging both the media and citizens of the world to take notice.

What's happening is a major paradigm shift. Clergy from a host of religions have decided to declare the war between religion and science over. They are stating, categorically, that their deeply held faith is not challenged by the findings of modern science. Indeed, they are saying that the exciting new scientific discoveries that arise from evolution enrich their understanding of the world and of their faith. They are proud to assert that they can accept both religion and science without having to compromise the principles of either.

This is very real, very important news whether the media recognize it as such or not.

Join with me in ensuring that we capture their attention. Thousands of people, using social media outlets, banded together to catapult Betty White onto Saturday Night Live and into a resurgence of her career. If we could do that for Betty White surely we can do that for science education.

Take a moment and send an e-mail to one of the national media outlets asking them to cover Evolution Weekend. Tweet about Evolution Weekend and ask your friends to do the same. Join The Clergy Letter Project's Facebook page and write a comment.

Spread the word and transform the world. Isn't high quality science education and a more robust respect for religion worth a moment of your time? Turn the end of the war between religion and science into the new Betty White.

Contact anyone you feel comfortable, but here are some suggestions:

1. NPR's Talk of the Nation Science Friday - fill out suggestion form at http://www.sciencefriday.com/about/contact/
2. NPR's Fresh Air - fill out suggestion form at http://help.npr.org/npr/includes/customer/npr/custforms/contactus.aspx?sid=3
3. NPR's The Diane Rehm Show - contact via [e-mail]
4. MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show - contact via [e-mail]
5. MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell - contact via [e-mail]
6. Fox News's Fox & Friends - contact via [e-mail]
7. Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor - contact via [e-mail]

Take this simple step and make a difference -- a difference that can have a lasting effect on our understanding of both religion and science as well as on the very nature of science education for years to come.

 

 

 

Follow Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mzclergyletter

Comments

[ChaCubed]

04:37 PM on 02/05/2011

In this section of "Religion and Science" there are multiple articles about religion which have nothing to do with science, but there isn't one scientific article which has nothing to do with religion. I think that pretty much says all that needs to be said on the subject.

[Daleri Rileda]

06:22 PM on 01/27/2011

Don't make me cry.

Evolution has no foundation so how can it be a foundation when God's word is our foundation.

Apostate teaching that seeks only to undermine the true teaching of Scripture also has no foundation.

Evolution is utter nonsense in a world where scientific principle is supposed to prevail.

Send your scientists, send your PhDs, send your geologists and biologists. None of them can offer any basis for evolution at all because it is nothing but speculation, conjecture, imagination and fantasy.

On the other hand there is never any function of any kind without having a Maker that orders 25 elements with a preexisting word. Life cannot exist without that preexisting word and life cannot exist without each and every one of those twenty five (25) working elements inside of us that are themselves an utter impossibility without having a Maker.

Stop spouting utter nonsense, please!

No function means no Creator. Function means that we have a Creator.

Truth is not relative to anything. We have a Maker that made us work in a fabricated world of relativity.

You have no evidence to present and no good reason to present no evidence.

[BFSkinnerFan]

12:39 PM on 01/30/2011

You mistake function for purpose. Typical sophistry of the creationist arguments. Function describes an apparent relationship. Purpose must pre-exist. The function of gravity is THAT bodies attract each other, not SO THAT bodies WILL attract each other.
The rest of your diatribe against evolution indicates an absolute lack of awareness of any of the process that resulted in the theory, or any of the 200 years of subsequent supporting research and inquiry. Rather, you simply boldly assert. You are the proverbial sounding brass.

[Rev David Huber]

05:19 PM on 02/08/2011

I... wait.. what?

That's incomprehensible. Your sophistry is without logical order, your claims are without backing. "No function means no creator" - what? "Function means that we have a creator" - how and why?

It makes no sense.

[Dave24]

12:40 PM on 01/27/2011

The reason why science and religion are fundamentally irreconcilable has to do with their respective methodologies. Science is evidence-based, and remains open to change in light of new evidence. Conversely, religion is based on faith, where belief in spite of evidence is considered virtuous.

The notion of God has filled the gaps in our growing knowledge, and it's done so incredibly poorly. As knowledge increases, the necessity for a deity clearly diminishes.

Just like there are natural explanations for the blossoming of a flower or the evolution of earthly creatures, so too will we discover a natural explanation for the birth of the Universe (this claim is supported by the fact that there is no evidence --- outside anthropomorphic literary fabrications --- that a supernatural realm actually exists).

Science is the best tool when it comes to listening to and studying nature, which in the most objective sense can therefore reveal the truth of reality. Inventing deities and pretending to know absolute truth --- which lie at the foundation of all religions --- have remained and will always remain in stark contrast with the scientific methodology. Hence why NOMA is complete nonsense.

- For comedic relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

- For intellectual relief: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFMmzKDonRY

[Indon]

08:56 PM on 01/26/2011

It doesn't matter how many clergy decide to stop attacking America's science teaching.

What matters is what those clergy tell their people - and clergy across the country continue to tell their people to undermine science and push their religious myths.

When that 13,000 clergy turn to their flocks and preach about letting science to itself instead of fearing or hating it, and interfering with its' teaching, then I'll believe they're serious about 'peace'.

[Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.]

11:15 AM on 01/27/2011

Please take a look at The Clergy Letters on The Clergy Letter Project web page (www.theclergyletterproject.org). Those Letters, signed by over 13,000 clergy say exactly what you have asked clergy to say. Please take a look at the list of clergy and congregations participating in Evolution Weekend 2011 (www.evolutionweekend.org) as well. Those congregations are doing exactly what you say you want them to do for you to "believe they're serious about 'peace.'"

All of these clergy, and thousands more like them, have a deep respect for science and that's exactly what they're teaching and preaching. They recognize that their religious beliefs, as strong as they are, deal with different issues and do not conflict with the knowledge gained by science.

[Indon]

11:55 AM on 01/27/2011

My point was that the letter accomplishes little to nothing.

I looked at the sermons section of that website - the part in which clergy would actually be conveying these sentiments to people who might be relevant to the issue. There are not 13,000 names there. I'd be surprised if even a tenth of the clergy who signed that letter even ever gave a sermon from or inspired by that list.

There are _literally millions_ of Christians (and people of other faiths, but predominantly Christians) so deluded by their religious doctrine that they believe blatant falsehoods about the universe, and actively seek to impose these falsehoods on others. A clergymember who wants to stand against those people is welcome.

But who's served by claiming that there is no war? There clearly is, and thousands of clergy have given millions of religious 'soldiers' their marching (well, voting and spending) orders. It's great that there are a lot of clergy not among them, but frankly, I don't care and I see no reason why a science advocate would care.

My concern is with the people who actively work against the integrity of science teaching in the US. Those people exist and are _undeniably_ waging a war on science, and they are doing so because it is secular and does not conform to their delusions. You can not deny those people exist, and pointing out you aren't among them does not stop them.

[whirlpool]

12:47 PM on 01/27/2011

As a scientist but a lapsed church goer, I completely support what you are trying to do. I think of the books by Chet Raymo, Loren Eiseley and other scientists who manage to retain a sense of reverence towards nature.

[whirlpool]

12:51 PM on 01/27/2011

I think this may be changing slowly. I have coffee once in awhile with a Lutheran pastor -- a conservative who also has a degree in microbiology. He said his congregation is starting to reject young earth creationism because of the scientific evidence. I am surprised about how open minded he is on a number of things you would not expect from a conservative preacher.

[Indon]

06:17 PM on 01/27/2011

Well, that's sweet.

[TimNordloh]

03:08 PM on 01/26/2011

The NCSE parodies those scientists that doubt evolution, by composing a list of 'Scientists named Steve' that support evolution. It's quite a lovely way to express just how well accepted evolutionary theory is.

[Tykster]

02:10 PM on 01/26/2011

There is no longer a war, science won. That the religious *now* try to co-opt science is tantamount to an admission that their religious stance is untenable.

[whirlpool]

04:41 PM on 01/26/2011

As a social and political force, religion seems to be as popular as ever. I think the war is far from over.

[Tykster]

08:03 AM on 01/27/2011

Popularity isn't an indicator of victory per se, but I agree, the subject has still got plenty of mileage left in it.
Let me put it this way then, the results are in, but the losers are reluctant to admit it, hence the continued dialogue....

It's like the Black Knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail", limbless after being annihilated:

"Come back here and take what's coming to you! I'll bite your legs off!

[Naturalist1]

02:08 AM on 01/26/2011

30 years ago, watching 700 club I heard Pat Robertson voice the only truth I've ever heard him say. "If they're right about this" (Evolution, I'm paraphrasing) "we're out of business" They've been denying Science ever since. Unfortunately I must also agree with Rev. Mohler when he says " "You cannot coherently affirm the Christian-truth claim and the dominant model of evolutionary theory at the same time". I can well understand that 1,300 Christian Clergy, by means of Faith and a strong vested interest, can reconcile the Supernatural phenomena of Jesus Christ (or any other Faith Based doctrine for that matter). As a scientist without Christian, or any other Supernatural bias, I cannot reconcile a clearly natural Universe with any form of Mythic origin history, regardless of how institutionalized in a given culture it might be. For every "responsible" person of faith who fits that faith into a rational universe, there will always be those who believe that they can be "better" at that faith by a more strict interpretation of it's tenants. The surge of fundamentalization in both the Civilian and Military wings of America are a testament to this fact and proof that there is no successful "middle ground" to be struck. As a Nation, and as humans on Planet Earth, we will either supplant myth with fact, eventually, or destroy ourselves and possibly the Planet in the effort to prevent that progression from taking place. This is Man's greatest challenge, and all others are secondary.

[MagicManDoneIt]

12:48 AM on 01/26/2011

I'm glad that there are Christians who accept evolution, but that doesn't make science and Christianity compatible. The fact that some people can compartmentalize their minds to hold contradictory ideas doesn't make them equally valid. Science doesn't take things on faith, it doesn't accept things as true without evidence. Faith is all that religions have as a foundation. How does that make them compatible?

[Sirius Knott]

11:20 PM on 01/25/2011

Dr Zimmerman,

Once again, you thatch together that moldy straw man that anyone in Christendom believes that religion and science are a war. They are not. Demonstrably, creationism has its scientists and clergy just as evolutionism has its scientists and alleged clergy. I say alleged clergy because I still note that you inflate the numbers of your Christian Clergy Letter with Unitarian Universalist signatures at the expense of the UU Clergy Letter. As we've discussed before, I doubt the majority of your "clergy" could affirm the basics of the Christian faith. For example, "Rev" John Shuck of TN cannot affirm the existence of God or the bodily rsurrection of Christ [which disqualifies him as a believer much less a valid clergyman].

Those interested in a portrait of one of Zimmerman's "clergy" signators can visit http://kcsg.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/tennessees-rev-john-shucks-upcoming-evolution-sunday-what-it-means-portrait-of-a-pro-evolution-clergy-letter-signer/

There is no war between science and religion, but evolution and Christianity will be at war until Christ comes.

Rev Tony Breeden
http://CreationLetter.com - The Biblical Creationist response to the pro-evolution Clergy Letter Project

[jpfeil]

12:52 PM on 01/26/2011

I have not had much luck in responding to Michael's pieces by trying to convince the scientific naturalist crowd to listen to reason, so I guess I'll try to engage a Christian. I am really puzzled by your response. I am a United Methodist clergyman who believes in Christ and the historic Christianity reflected in the traditional creeds of the church. I was also one of the early signers of the Clergy Letter. I see no conflict between evolution and Biblical faith.

I have read a number of books on "creation science" and I don't know why I should go to all the trouble of working so hard to make the evidence fit a certain kind of literal reading of the Biblical texts when the texts themselves are so open to other readings. You state that "evolution and Christianity will be at war until Christ comes." I can't see the war. And I don't understand what is at stake. What does Biblical faith lose by acknowledging the great preponderance of evidence that leads to the conclusion that evolution or something very much like it--was, is and continues to be the means of divine creation?

[Sirius Knott]

08:24 PM on 01/26/2011

The HuffPo's comments guidelines require me to be brief. "What's at stake?" is a fair and reasonable question and the answer is two-fold: [1] The Bible as our ultimate authority. If we must re-interpret the Bible every time the interpretations of scientists with a presuppositional bias toward naturalism [that is, a methodology that precludes God's agency from all consideration, even if all the evidence were to indicate God's agency was the best explanation], and if we're consistent with this rather than arbitrary, we must also throw out anything else they dispute: OT & NT miracles, the bodily resurrection of Christ and anything else with a supernatural cause. The ONLY reason we would do that if we believe the Bible to be special [supernatural] revelation is if we did not feel we could trust the Author or we did not think He wrote it at all or we thought His testimony had been muddled by those who penned the Scriptures [and God was not omnipotent enough to overcome the frailties and limitations of those He created and inspired to pen His revelation]. It really comes down to who's word we trust: God's or man's. And if the Bible is a human artifact, Christianity and Judaism are frauds. If the Bible is imperfect, God is not omnipotent and we have no way to judge what's true and what is not, for men are fallible as a rule.

[Sirius Knott]

08:27 PM on 01/26/2011

to continue: [2] Evolution destroys the possibility of the historicity of Adam & Eve and destroys the foundational basis for salvation. Genesis is the Bad News that provides context and foundation to the Good News of Christ's deatha nd resurrection. Even atheists recognize this:

“The most devastating thing though that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of biological evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve never were real people the central myth of Christianity is destroyed. If there never was an Adam and Eve there never was an original sin. If there never was an original sin there is no need of salvation. If there is no need of salvation there is no need of a Savior. And I submit that puts Jesus, historical or otherwise, into the ranks of the unemployed. I think that evolution is absolutely the death knell of Christianity.” –[Frank Zindler, debate with William Craig, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996.]


“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” — Richard Bozarth, quoted from The American Atheist, September 1978, p. 30]

[Indon]

08:59 PM on 01/26/2011

Creationism does not have scientists. Like any known pseudoscience, it has proponents, and those proponents may claim to be scientists, but they have no esteem among the scientific community and are considered frauds based on the (nonexistent) merits of their work.

[Sirius Knott]

10:02 AM on 02/02/2011

Why do you continue to prop up that worn-out straw man, Indon? Creationism demonstrably has scientists and to deny this is simply to pull the No True Scottsman fallacy. Facts do not interpret themselves; they must be interpreted by scientists who do so according to their presuppositions: the evolutionists interprets the data according to his evolutionary bias and the Creationist according to his creationist bias. To say that creationists aren't scientists simply begs the question as to [1] whether evolution is true [which is the question] and [2] begs that only evolutionists can be scientists, which defies both logical consistency and the history of science [which was established largely by Bible-affirming scientists].

Twenty minutes of honest research would have prevented you from making such a silly accusation. For example: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Rev Tony Breeden
http://CreationLetter.com
http://creationsunday.wordpress.com - Celebrate a Creation Sunday this Feb 13, 2010 - Not an Evolution Sunday!

[JSwim]

11:16 PM on 01/25/2011

The attention to one anti-science person reminds me of the disproportionate attention given to a few climate change deniers relative to 1000’s of scientists who say the climate is changing and at least partially accounted for by human behavior. It may have something to do with the colorful story or the personal connection (or rejection) that can be made about a few specific individuals relative to the data driven, impersonal, and anonymity of large groups of people. Perhaps the letter project needs to profile specific people along with the number who have signed on.

[weisschr]

10:16 PM on 01/25/2011

The US continues to lag in its understanding and/or accpetance of evolution. The fact that evolution is still viewed as a hypothesis (layman's understanding of the word "theory") and not a theory shows how religion has been allowed to unduly influence the average American's understanding of science. Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. It must be taught in this manner.

The evidence for Genesis as allegory is overwhelming. Unfortunately, this cannot be taught in school. We still have young earth creationists who appear to seriously believe the earth is only 6k years old regardless of the facts in front of them to the contrary. This is a steep ideological hill to climb.

The problem with social media is that the messages are too brief. It is communication for the attention deprived. Enhancing the common understanding of evolution and refuting the misunderstandings by the young earth creationists and their peers is beyond the ability of people to process information from Twitter or face book. Try having an argument about fossil evidence or genetic evidence for common descent using tweets. It would take hundreds.

Unfortunately, I think a social media approach to support evolution and good science education would fall into snippet based sniping rather than a real debate and a discussion of facts. Each team would put on their robes and proceed to preach to their respective choirs.

[Indon]

09:01 PM on 01/26/2011

I daresay the theory of evolution is better-established than the theory of gravity.

We don't have a good grasp on how gravity works, really. We know pretty solidly how evolution works, however. Heck, a couple days ago a friend showed me a flash program that employs a genetic algorithm - a computer solving process that involves mutating solutions and selecting for fitness - to create a vehicle: http://megaswf.com/simple_serve/102223/

[merlinspinoza]

07:13 PM on 01/25/2011

a small slice of the science pie : Prof. Dr. Brian David Josephson, 2008 - 58th Meeting of Nobel Laureates
»Which Way for Physics?« http://www.lindau-nobel.org/publish/MediaContainer.aspx?ActiveID=0&type=lectures click on brian's picture among the 100 nobel winners

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/mm/articles/PM.html
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/871489

so understandably brain Josephson is helping to support a ashram in the himalayas

presumably because he doesnt know Betty white
http://www.vedic-science.org/fr/page5/page8/page8.html
http://www.vedic-science.org/fr/page6/page9/page11/page11.html

[Ben Daniel]

05:56 PM on 01/25/2011

Well said. Interestingly, John Calvin took on the conflict between science and the creation story in Genesis 1 in his commentary on Genesis, which he published in 1554. That was before evolution was an issue, but Astronomy had pretty much debunked the scientific accuracy of Genesis by the time Calvin was writing, and Calvin responded by praising Astronomy and by asking his readers to understand that Genesis was written for primitive people and shouldn't, therefore, be read as a scientific description of the origins of the world. Based on what Calvin says in his commentary on Genesis, I have now doubt that if he had the benefit of geology and evolutionary biology he certainly would have signed the Clergy Letter Project, as I have. Now, if we can get some folks on the Texas Board of Education to catch up to where Calvin was 450 years ago...

[whirlpool]

06:29 PM on 01/25/2011

At the time of Genesis, human experience was transmitted via stories and formal science was not yet invented. This is why it needs to be read as literature. Things must placed in context.

[pastorsamp]

12:56 AM on 01/27/2011

Those who denigrate religion are as out of touch with reality as the Texas Board of Education, more than 450 years out of date.

[merlinspinoza]

04:58 PM on 01/25/2011

taking steps for a healthier future how ? with betty white the great scientist or betty white the great theologian ?

how ? PHD in Maharishi vedic science , unpolluted stressfree science

[whirlpool]

03:38 PM on 01/25/2011

Those who keep the war going on both sides do so because it is profitable for them. This applies to some scientists who write popular books bashing religion to some tent preachers who want to fill the collection plate. Besides if the war was over many atheists and many religious fundamentalists wouldn't have anything to gripe about. You are right. If the Bible were read as literature as it should be and science restrained from trying to disprove god and reduce all spiritual experience to brain chemistry, there wouldn't be any conflict at all.

[Tykster]

02:13 PM on 01/26/2011

I think you misjudge science if you think it is out to disprove god....

[whirlpool]

04:39 PM on 01/26/2011

Yes you are right. I was thinking of some of the scientists who publish popular books that get entangled in religious issues just to boost sales.