Religion in a Science Class?

How is science different from religion? More to my point: Why shouldn't religion be taught in science classes?

My stance is that they are completely different processes. And while evidence of one may affect belief in the other - they should not be taught in the same arena.

Here's why. Science is based on the Scientific Method. For those who don't remember 7th grade science class, it is as follows:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

It is a gradual, truth gathering process. Scientists across the globe are observing the world, finding things we don't understand, forming hypotheses about these subjects, testing their hypotheses, and then forming new hypotheses based on the information they gained.

The wonderful thing about science is that it takes into account the possibility (or probability, rather) that humans will get things dead wrong, probably over and over. And that is why for a scientific theory to stand, it must be able to be repeated. Scientists around the world try to recreate the experiment over and over again. If the experiment can ever be proven to be false - the whole theory is disproved and scientists go back to the data that they still believe to be true and start again.

Thus, with empirical data we as humans test what we know to be true to be certain that it is true, and then slowly branch out in every possible direction finding new and exciting things that we can show to be true.


Religion is a different animal. It is based on faith. There is no way to prove a religious belief. A religious experience can not be recreated in a laboratory to be tested for consistency.

Now, this is not to say that a religious experience or belief is NOT true - simply that it can not be proven to be so.


Now some would say, "Well, you can't DISPROVE x" (x being God or Zeus or Thor or any other religious belief). Well, this is true. You can't. You also can't disprove Santa Claus, but you probably don't believe in him. Or Zeus or Thor. But if you are a person of faith, you choose one out of the thousands of gods that have been believed in throughout history, and you have faith in that one.

Why? It's a matter of faith.

You still use evidence, just like a scientist. But your evidence is more intangible and unprovable. It's more like, "This is what my parents believed, and I trust them." Or "I felt God inside me." Or "I see the works of God."

Or it could be more of a logical argument. Like, "Look at the beautiful world around us. Where could all this have come from if there wasn't a God?"

Whatever the evidence is, it is evidence, just like a scientist would use. The difference is that it's not empirical evidence - and so, it can not be tested, repeated, or proven.


So, what's the point I'm coming to? Am I saying that religious belief is invalid? No. Am I saying that science is invalid? No.

What I'm saying is that they're not on the same playing field.

Science is based on slowly finding what we can and can't prove and testing everything, so that we can slowly grow our base of knowledge of the world around us.

Religion is based on faith, and what we believe about the things that we can't prove. Where do we go when we die? Where did things come from? These are questions that we all have to answer, and we answer them with philosophy and religious beliefs.

Science can shed light on these questions (Some believe that evolution is a huge key to understanding where we come from, for example.) But it is tied to what is testable and provable. It doesn't postulate about the possibility of things that are unprovable.


So, my point is this. Religion should not be involved in any way with the world of science. It doesn't have a home there. If you want your children to believe that God created the world, then share your beliefs with them at home or take them to church. Do not expect your science teacher to do it for you at school.

Separation of Church and State revisited

As my faithful readers will know, I covered the Separation of Church and State in a three part series awhile back (which started.... here: http://angryhooton.blogspot.com/2010/09/separation-of-church-and-state-pt-1-why.html)

So, you may be asking yourself, "Why would Mr. Angry Hooton revisit the subject? I thought he covered it rather charmingly."

Why, thank you.

But I revisit the subject because of this woman - Christine O'Donnell. Tea Party favorite, republican nominee for senator from Delaware. And this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg#t=2m49s

Watch the video. You'll see where I'm going with this.


Where does our idea of The Separation of Church and State come from? Is it in the constitution?

Not in those terms, as Ms. O'Donnell thinks she is cleverly pointing out.

It's based off of the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."


It's not stated that "Church and state shall be separate" but when it says that congress cannot pass a law establishing any religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion - the message is pretty clear. The government should keep its hands off of religion.

And as Mr. Coons pointed out - decisional law by the supreme court is the other way we clarify what the constitution means in our ever changing society. And throughout the years, the supreme court has ruled (thus clarifying this amendment) that church and state should be separate.


Let me be more clear, in terms of what these two candidates are saying. Ms. O'Donnell things that Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools along with established and widely respected, widely tested scientific theory. Intelligent Design - as Mr. Coons points out - is a religious theory, not a scientific one. And thus, under the first amendment, should not be taught in any government run public school. It should be left for churches or private schools to teach.

Why? Because teaching ANY religious belief (outside of an objective anthropological or historical view, such as a world religions class) is prohibiting the free exercise of religion to any children of differing beliefs.

For example, if you are a Christian and you want your children to be free to be Christians in schools, you would be very upset if they were taught, as scientific fact, that the Great White Spirit created the world? Or that it's possible that we're all alien souls deposited into volcanoes? Yes, you would be upset. Why? Because it affects your child's ability to believe his or her own religious beliefs, and it affects your ability as a parent to train your child up in the belief system you choose.

It should not be any different simply because it is the majority belief. We should view every issue like this as if the shoe were on the other foot. If they were teaching religious beliefs that were different from yours in a SCIENCE class, how would you feel?

This is why we have the separation of church and state, and once again, this is why it is good for all of us. It allows us to be free to have our own beliefs, regardless of what they are, regardless of who the current majority is, or what party is in office. We do NOT want the government pushing any religious beliefs in schools - because it will negatively affect our personal freedom to hold such beliefs.


Next post: The difference between science and religion: Why science needs evidence.