The Tricky Thing About Science

I’ll admit that in the past I’ve hyperbolically called the sciences evil. Not because I don’t accept the Theory of Evolution or because I see faith and reason as antagonistic, but because it’s often easier to be hyperbolic than to make real and meaningful distinctions. In that sense, I’ve been wrong. My retreat into overblown rhetoric and angry “science is the devil rants,” however, says something about the state of contemporary scientific endeavor.

The scientism of Richard Dawkins and his epigones is well enough known to need little explaining. In their view, science is essentially an ideology propagated for the advance of humanity; it is the light in the darkness of religion, superstition, and Kirk Cameron. But what of regular science?

Well, that’s where the issue gets tricky. Science is constantly advancing and changing, but we can say a couple things about it. At the least, it is materialistic and empirical. And as science advocates point out, these approaches are ignored by broad swathes of the country. This should concern us. Evolution, thermodynamics, and gravity are real phenomena, which should not be ignored. Insofar as science means an increase in truth, I am with it.

Unfortunately, science education doesn’t just mean that anymore. Challenging free will, casting religion in a negative light, and reductionism are all part of what could broadly be called “science education.” Neil deGrasse Tyson, for example, recently narrated a Cosmos redux, which spins the narrative of medieval history squarely against the Catholic Church. It’s anything but impartial. Similarly, Michio Kaku took part in a video entitled, “Why Physics Ends the Free Will Debate.” The video is not as polemical as it sounds, but the title itself points to a problem: is this “education” or propaganda? And how thin is the line?

And this is exactly what troubles me. Science is perceived as being impartial. Yet as a medievalist, I can say that deGrasse Tyson’s narrative is squarely off the mark. My protest, however, means nothing. And it’s unlikely the media will say anything. It won’t make the case against him because in our culture science has authority; science is impartial and wise. But, for those of us interested in the truth we cannot simply accept that. Scientific findings are theoretically impartial, but the spin they’re given in “science education” is not. In protest, we must say, “Fides et ratio, together, never separate.”