FROM THE DESK OF THE PRESIDENT……

 

            This is my last column as president of Oklahoma Academy of Science, and I want to say thank you to everyone for the help you have given me over the past two years. In particular, I want to thank David Bass, executive secretary-treasurer and the other members of the executive council, who serve the academy in various capacities. All have been helpful to me in my tenure as president. My appreciation is given to everyone in the academy for the opportunity to serve in this role. It has been gratifying to work with all of you.

 

            Thanks to Ulrich Melcher, David Nagle, and Greg Wilson, who drafted a protocol for the graduate student award. For the first time in the academy’s history, we will give an award for graduate student papers, in addition to the undergraduate presentations. We hope this will entice graduate students to become involved in the academy at an early stage in their careers. Finally, thanks to Sharon Young and Olivia Hanson for leading the effort to draft an updated statement on evolution and science education. We intend to present this at the fall technical meeting.

 

            The broad theme of my other columns has been science education. A couple of years ago, I was invited to be part of a panel at a symposium, and my assigned topic was to talk about science and religion in the context of teaching college students at a church-affiliated institution. The broad topic of the panel addressed whether “Christian Scientist” is an oxymoron. This assignment made me contemplate the fact that if we are to engage students with material that poses a moral difficulty for them, we should do so with both our heads and our hearts. It is important for us to have an openness to their viewpoints and to present data and the scientific approach as a foundation of discussion about topics that are controversial to them, even if not controversial to us.

 

            The conflict between science and religion is an old one, starting with the theories of Copernicus that removed Earth as the center of the universe to the European explorers sailing around the world to modern-day scientists dealing with an array of issues from stem cell research to euthanasia to evolution. At one level I think that the answer about science and religion is very simple. Einstein wrote fairly extensively about these two topics and made the very strong argument that the two are not in conflict. Many other scientists, including OAS past president, Sharon Young, have argued similarly, and emphasized the point that science is based on empirical data that is falsifiable. However, as Einstein stated, religion requires faith and seeks to address the “why” of phenomena, not the “how.” It seems to me that “Christian scientist” is not an oxymoron, especially if one is trying to live by the teachings of Jesus. I read a survey a few years ago that summarized the religious views of scientists concluding that a majority of scientists professed adherence to religious tenets. Clearly, most scientists do not recognize a conflict between science and religion. To once again invoke Einstein, he states that even though the realms of religion and science are “clearly marked off from each other,” he also acknowledges that science and religion are part of the same human need to achieve unity and wholeness.

 

            Many scientists struggle early in their careers because they have been raised in religions that are doctrine-driven – the ones that teach fear and blind adherence to rules. One has to be lucky enough to be exposed to ideas and readings that will allow a broadening of his or her views and to develop a philosophy that allows for science and religion to coexist. As a science educator for twenty-seven years, twenty-four at a church-related institution, I have learned that it is incumbent on us to provide those opportunities for young scholars to find their own paths. Their religious beliefs must be respected, particularly if they are struggling, and we need to find ways to help them reconcile the two worlds of science and religion because a direct conflict does not have to exist.

 

            Our youth deserve to be scientifically literate, and our society sorely depends on their scientific literacy and understanding. We live in a technological and scientific world, and it seems to me that it is our duty for to expose students to the idea of consensus in science and to the theories accepted based on consensus.

 

            Because I have mentioned Carl Sagan in every column, I will quote him once again: “Science is based on a willingness to challenge old dogma, on an openness to see the universe as it really is.” Sometimes it takes courage to be a science educator and to challenge the dogma. It is my hope that we are up to that challenge in our increasingly complex world. 

 

Susan C. Barber, OAS President

sbarber@okcu.edu