Science is applicable to the physical, not the spiritual world. Scientists make observations, carry out experiments, define protocols that insure accurate results and can be reproduced by other scientists, analyze and interpret data, devise theories to explain observations and data, abandon ideas that are incompatible with empirical facts, and disseminate their findings to other scientists and the public. Scientists are skeptical and demand that ideas be rigorously tested against observations. Although individual scientists may not immediately accept new ideas that contradict their ingrained understanding, the community of scientists will eventually reach consensus regarding many aspects of the physical world. Such consensus, and the methods by which it is achieved, should be communicated to students and to the general public as scientific findings.

The method of science was a radical, disconcerting idea when it was introduced to human society and remains so today. Given the successes of science, engineering, and technology and their pervasiveness in contemporary society, it is easy for scientists to forget that science may seem threatening and be viewed with alarm by many people. Nevertheless, the idea that what one believes about the physical world should be based on consensus among those who have skeptically examined factual evidence can easily be carried into the spiritual world, thereby undermining faith in anything for which there is no tangible evidence. This is not to say that scientists cannot be profoundly religious or spiritual—obviously many are. It does say that scientific ideas can make many people (including students) uncomfortable with their faith, with science, or with both.

Such discomfort has led some to try to introduce religion into science teaching or to excise from science curricula subjects such as evolution, the age of the earth, or the big bang that appear contradictory to religious views. For example, a school board in Pennsylvania attempted to require biology teachers to say that “intelligent design” is just as good as the theory of evolution, students in a Georgia county were to be taught that evolution is not a consensus view by stickers affixed to their biology textbooks, and there are efforts to prevent teaching of evolution in Brazil and Northern Ireland, to mention only two other countries. The cover of the April 28, 2005 issue of Nature contained a sticker based on the ones proposed in Georgia but marked “Approved by the University Board of Regents, 2006” to emphasize how antipathy to evolution might affect scientists directly. An editorial and an article in Nature suggested that university-level teachers need to discuss these issues in their classes (1).

Even more insidious is the inhibiting effect such controversies have on science teachers (2). For example, Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which supports teaching of evolution, knows of many teachers who avoid the subject because “it’s just too much trouble”, or principals suggest that it should be left out, or parents or children object. According to the National Science Teachers Association, one-third of teachers feel pressured to include creationism-related ideas in their classrooms. Such pressures are not limited to pre-college education. I have felt them personally from students and textbook editors, as I am sure many other college teachers have. To help address this problem the American Chemical Society has issued a strong Statement on Teaching of Evolutionary Theory, as have most science organizations. (For examples, see the statements of the American Society for the Advancement of Science and National Academy of Science.)

It is easy to ask, “With so many other subjects to teach, why should a chemistry course include anything that might be controversial and potentially time consuming?” Isn’t the basis of chemistry and science the way we observe and learn about nature? What could be more important to teach than that? In fact we do severe disservice to our students and to society at large if we avoid teaching the scientific consensus on controversial issues such as evolution, global warming, environmental problems, or the origin of the chemical elements. Not only will students not learn about the importance and applicability of science to their daily lives and to society, many will also be confused about the nature of science and the differences between scientific and spiritual values. They deserve better than that.

(All Web sites accessed Jul 2005.)

Literature Cited

1. Nature 2005 434, 1053, 1062–1065 (accessed Jul 2005).
2. Dean, Cornelia. Evolution Takes A Back Seat In U.S. Classes. New York Times, February 1, 2005, p D1.