The Political Inquirer

Physics. It’s what I studied in college, though it’s a subject that makes most people cringe whenever I mention it. Since I’m still interested in the subject, I routinely browse scientific articles on the web. So, when I came across an article in Newsweek about the search for the elusive Higgs Boson, nicknamed the “God particle,” I was pleased - until I realized the whole point of the article was to pit science against God. Does it always have to be this way in America? Why can’t the two coexist?

In the article, the Newsweek writer Ana Elena Azpurua interviews physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, who sadly is forced to answer questions that are mostly unrelated to the experiment. The questions start with “After this experiment, will we have a final theory of how the universe was created” but eventually degrade to the point of irrelevance:

At some point will it be possible to find proof that God or the Ultimate Designer does not exist?
I don’t think that we can ever prove that God does not exist. But if he does exit it might be possible to prove it.

It might be?
Well, if God did exist and suddenly made himself known by sending thunderbolts to all the people who don’t believe in him [Laughs], that would be pretty strong evidence that he exists.

Do you think he would send you one?
He hasn’t so far.

By the end of the article, the writer even flat out asks if Mr. Weinberg is an atheist. Why should it matter?

These may seem like harmless questions to some people, but it’s these ‘pitting science against faith’ segments, coupled with the religious nature of American politics, that are politicizing science and leading to travesties like the Kansas intelligent design debacle.

Science is not faith based and shouldn’t be treated as such. Why? Because you can question science, from every founding principal up to the most esoteric theorem. That doesn’t mean that major theories should be, or are likely to be overturned every time new things are discovered, but they do get changed and adapted. Religion and faith, on the other hand, often ask you to accept certain truths as unquestionable.

Sadly, this is also how science is presented to school children. Unfortunately, I’m not sure there’s any alternative- it’s impossible to explain a complicated mathematical derivation to most middle school students, but that doesn’t mean that science is a religion, either. Children are asked to accept lots of things on faith: the value of school and homework, the meaning of words and the structure of grammar, the importance of eating vegetables, and the authority or parents, for example. Yet once they’re older, they’re welcome to question those things or to change their habits. Many children grow up to be adults that use bad grammar, eat way too much pizza, and ignore the advice of their parents. Would the land of freedom have it any other way?

Don’t get me wrong, I would be happy to allow religion and philosophy to be taught in schools, as long as attempts are made not to overemphasize a single religious viewpoint or to teach religion as ‘better’ than the other subjects. I went to Catholic school for high school, in fact, and there was hardly any conflict between the religion / philosophy and science departments. People may have had differing ideas, but most of the teachers were happy living with both their science and their faith. The two can live together just fine, as long as you leave a little leeway in between. Why should Newsweek (or the Kansas school board) insist any differently?