Introduction

Secularism and Science in the 21st Century

Ariela Keysar & Barry A. Kosmin

A s this book went to press in early 2008, the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board was weighing a request by a Bible-based creationist
institute to offer online master’s degrees in science education. The Institute for
Creation Research aims to challenge the standard teachings of evolution and
(according to its website) “equip current and future Christian leaders with
practical tools to effectively influence their world with the truths of Scripture.”
Its goal is to staff classrooms with science teachers sympathetic to religious
fundamentalism, educators who believe in the Biblical account of the world’s
creation. This is an open challenge to the normative model of Western science,
which is based on the secular principles of free inquiry and empiricism.
Evolution, once again controversial, is only one of the fields of science that
has become freshly embroiled in conflict between religious and secular segments
of society. Stem cell research, cloning, neuroscience, and paleontology are others.
Emotions are strong and the stakes are clearly high. And not for the first time,
for in today’s battles there are echoes from centuries past. What is surprising is
that this “culture war” is fiercest in the United States, the world’s first secular
state and its oldest and most powerful democracy.
As the eleven essays in the present volume demonstrate, the nature of the
conflict over science at the dawn of the third millennium has metamorphosed in
important respects. A new divisive factor is the emergence of post-modernist and
cultural relativist ideas with a critique that also challenges scientific rationalism.
Much has changed since the great battles of the past were fought. This is not the
era of Socrates, or of Galileo and the Inquisition, or of the Scopes monkey trial.
New thinking is required.
The most important change is that the conflict matters more now than it
ever has before given a highly competitive and inter-connected world. Science
is a bigger prize today. It is the foundation and sine qua non of today’s high-tech


 Secularism & Science in the 21st Century

global economy, which has produced greater material wealth than has ever been
seen before. In light of this sweeping achievement, many secular individuals,
even those who are not scientifically adept, feel that faith-based challenges to the
primacy of scientific reason are deeply threatening to the health and progress of
modern society.
Many religiously minded people, for their part, often feel uneasy and even
threatened by the growing importance and power of science in society. While
scientists claim that their research is value-neutral, religious conservatives assert
that scientific advances have made it possible for people to “play God” in such
fields as genetic screening and enhancement. What is more, scientists are actively
seeking to explain phenomena that were long thought to belong to the realm
of religion and the spirit. They are searching for a brain chemistry basis for
altruism, for example, and evolutionary origins for belief in a higher being and
the supernatural.
Secularism and Science in the 21st Century grew out of work done under
the auspices of the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture
(ISSSC) of Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. ISSSC is a non-partisan and
multi-disciplinary institute established in 2005 to advance understanding of the
role of secular values and the process of secularization in contemporary society
and culture. In May 2007, ISSSC organized a workshop and a roundtable
discussion on “Science Education and Secular Values.” Leading scientists
from various universities in the U.S. contemplated topical issues such as the
competing influences of secularism and religion on science education as well as
scientific literacy in a postmodern world. Simultaneously, during the academic
year 2006-07 ISSSC faculty fellows designed new undergraduate courses, as part
of the ISSSC curriculum development program, under the theme: “The Secular
Tradition and Foundations of the Natural Sciences.” And in the winter of 2006-
07 ISSSC sponsored a unique essay contest among Connecticut high school
students asking their opinions of why most American students are not interested
in science education.
This book has three parts. The first contains four essays with differing
approaches to dealing with the ongoing conflict over evolution vs. creation. The
second part offers strategies for the pedagogical challenges of teaching science.
The book concludes with a public policy concern, scientific literacy, an issue
which has major political and economic consequences for society and culture.
Jon D. Miller and Robert Pennock, in addressing the conflict over evolution
vs. creation, say the “center must hold” in order to sustain the democratic
system of government. Their political strategy is a call for centrists to resist the
attempts of what they call “the religious extreme to undermine sound science
 Introduction 

education.”
Daniel G. Blackburn maintains that creationism represents the most public
manifestation of a broad-based and well-financed effort to replace secular society
with a theocratic state. For creationism to be true, he claims, most of what was
learned in natural sciences, and much of what was learned in humanities and
social sciences, would have to be untrue. Thus it is, he says, “an assault on
knowledge and on rationality.”
Austin Dacey finds merit in the arguments of one of the most militant
atheists, Richard Dawkins. He identifies what he calls “the Dawkins effect,”
which by highlighting the conflict between science and religion actually raises
awareness of messages of science-religion harmony and encourages the moderate
middle to try to solve the conflict.
Frank L. Pasquale observes that wholesale conflict between advocates of
“religion” and “science” is more intense in the United States than elsewhere. It
is largely absent, for example, in Asia. He bemoans the tendency for each side
to take a monolithic and unyielding approach, and suggests that many forms of
religiosity are compatible with science.
In teaching science, one of the challenges is if, and how, to present both
sides—evolution and creationism. William Cobern criticizes “philosophical
secularism,” which is difficult for religious students to accept, and advocates
instead “methodological secularism” as a tool to defuse the controversy over
science education in public schools. He calls for teaching science, not scientism.
Cobern suggests that students be allowed to explore their own ideas even though
he realizes that this approach might open the classroom door to creationism, and
might be counter to standard science.
David E. Henderson reflects on his experience developing college science
courses and implementing methodological secularism in the classroom. His
detailed examples of a new pedagogy, Reacting to the Past, demonstrate how the
rules for teaching science proposed by Cobern could be put into practice in
college courses.
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi reviews the historical struggles and culture wars
to secularize the American education systems, from the ivory tower of academia
to the public schools. He discusses why evolution became the contested issue
between what he labels as “warm religion” and “cold science.”
Juan Antonio Aguilera Mochón contributes an international perspective
to the volume by exploring the teaching of science and religion in Catholic
Spain, arguing strongly against mixing the two domains. His purist approach
is to keep the doors firmly closed to accommodating unscientific teaching in
public education.
 Secularism & Science in the 21st Century

Jeffrey Burkhardt challenges the Science Establishment, arguing that its

members have a “vested interest in Scientific Literacy.” He argues that one ought
to respect the right of others to believe in creationism, astrology, and Scientology,
even if these are all (scientifically) wrong.
In debating the role of scientific literacy, Barry A. Kosmin and Juhem
Navarro-Rivera assert the close relationship between secularism and democracy
particularly regarding crucial decisions related to the common good. Kosmin
and Navarro-Rivera claim that only well-informed citizens can fulfill their
responsibilities in a democratic society when the public is asked as voters or
jurors to weigh in on issues such as bio-medical treatments, DNA evidence, the
environment, and energy consumption. In this they disagree with Burkhardt,
who cites an imaginary “Ralph the barber” who is happily—and successfully—
ignorant of science. Burkhardt poses a philosophical question: will having
more knowledgeable people make America a better place to live? This is
a critical dilemma. In an economically developed U.S. there is a division of
labor and division of skill of expertise and indeed many “Ralphs” can live a
productive life.
In addition to their point about “holding the center,” Miller and Pennock
claim that the poor performance of U.S. high schools in teaching science
and mathematics contributes to American adults’ minimal understanding of
biological education. Americans, they claim, are unprepared to progress in
scientific research and so maintain the nation’s technological advantage into the
future.
Ariela Keysar and Frank L. Pasquale focus on individuals. They make use
of the rare opportunity to hear directly from young people, potentially the next
generation of scientists, expressing their ideas about their own generation’s lack
of interest in science education. Some of the critical observations that the high
school students make shed light on the perceptions of contemporary young
people regarding science and science education. The students’ blunt criticism
directed towards their own generation as well as the educational system ought
to be seriously reviewed. For those who are interested in brainstorming some
alternatives or options for the U.S. to compete internationally in science
education, the students’ opinions and suggestions are enlightening.
The current contest between secular and religious values raises a number
of questions. How can science education serve a population of students with
diverse values, concerns and life experiences? What educational and pedagogical
tools are needed to introduce such a model to the classroom in the 21st century?
What should research scientists and educators do to assume a leadership role in
debates about the values of science, and the value of science to the well-being of
 Introduction 

individuals and society?

The reader will find liberal religious responses and a range of “soft” and
“hard” secular responses presented in this volume, and the voices and insights
of both Americans and non-Americans, trying to reconcile to various degrees
faith and reason. While not necessarily agreeing with each other, the scholars
offer useful intellectual frameworks as well as advice and practical solutions in
all three of the areas covered by this book: ideology, pedagogy, and public policy.
We hope that the reader finds each essay a provocative and positive contribution
to important on-going debates, and that the whole is greater than the sum of
the parts.