Using survey/response writing assignments to
stimulate classroom discussion
Loren Haarsma, Physics and Astronomy Department, Calvin College
American Scientific Affiliation – Annual Conference -- July 28-31, 2006
Contributed talk at the symposium: ěModels for the Teaching of Originsî
Dorothy Chappell and
Uko Zylstra, organizers;
Monday, July 31, 9:45 – 10:15 AM
Abstract
In general physics courses for
science majors and education majors at Calvin College, some time is dedicated
to perspectival issues. Because of
the limited time available, it can be difficult to induce many students to
participate in classroom discussion – or even to share their
opinions. For the last several
semesters, I have used brief survey/response writing assignments on topics such
as methodological naturalism, scripture and nature, determinism and chance,
historical science, philosophical interpretations of science, looking for
scientific evidence of miracles, and the development of first life on
earth. Students are presented with
statements or questions (e.g. whether
they would prefer that abiogenesis of life on earth would ultimately be shown
to be scientifically explainable, or would ultimately be shown to be
scientifically impossible) and asked to write their opinion in one or two short
paragraphs. The statements and
questions are crafted to induce a substantial amount of disagreement amongst the
students. I have found that when
students begin discussion with their own writings in front of them (I donít
collect the writing assignments until the end of class), many of them are far
more likely to share their ideas and opinions, and they seem more engaged with
the subsequent discussion and lecture.
Outline
1. Context
… Christian liberal arts college
… General physics courses which do not deal directly with origins. (calculus- and algebra-based Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism; physical sciences for education majors)
2. Goals
… We discuss science in general (understanding science, doing science) in a Christian perspective.
… We lay groundwork for discussing origins in other courses (astronomy, geology, biology) by confronting some common misconceptions and points of debate among Christians.
… Students practice expressing their own ideas.
… Students practice analyzing points-of-agreement and points-of-disagreement.
… Students see a range of opinions among their peers (fellow Christians).
3. Format of survey/response writing assignments (see sample handout)
… Students are given a handout – a brief introduction to a topic followed by a statement.
… Typically, students rate how much they agree/disagree with statement (scale of 1-9). Statements are crafted so that they usually produce a wide range of numerical answers.
… Students write a few sentence to explain their answer. Typically, they are asked to explain both any sense in which they agree with the statement (even a little) and any sense in which they disagree with the statement (even a little).
… The next day in class, I first survey how students rated their agreement/disagreement. (How many students rated their agreement in the range 1-3? 4-6? 7-9?)
… I then ask questions to get students to share and discuss their answers.
… That same day or the following day, I give a brief lecture on the topic, wherever possible connecting my ideas to the student answers given earlier.
4. Topics of discussions and lectures
1. Is science ěmethodologically atheisticî? Scientific explanations of natural processes do not directly refer to God. However, a biblical worldview provides a philosophical foundation for doing science, that is, for studying nature systematically and expecting to find regular patterns of cause and effect. Scientific explanations for events do not exclude God.
2. Scientific vs. personal knowledge and scientific reductionism. Scientific knowledge augments, but does not replace, reliable knowledge gained from other sources (historical, personal, etc.) and other levels of description (psychological, social, spiritual, etc.)
3. Reason and faith. ěFaithî and ěreasonî are not opposites.
4. Nature and scripture. God created nature; science and philosophy are human attempts to understand it. God inspired scripture; hermeneutics and theology are human attempts to understand it. We believe that God does not contradict himself in nature and scripture, but we can make mistakes at the human levels.
5. Determinism and chance. A scientific use of the word ěchanceî does not exclude God. God can work through events which appear random at the human level of understanding.
6. Experimental and historical science. Each branch of science has unique features; but itís also true that experimental, observational, and historical sciences blend into each other and have many similar features (building models, testing predictions, etc.).
7. Philosophical interpretations of science. Many things which science has discovered (e.g. that the universe is vast, that the earth is not at the center of the universe, that humans and plants and rocks are made of the same types of atoms obeying the same laws of nature) allow for multiple – and sometimes very different – philosophical worldview interpretations.
8. Orbital stability & looking for miracles. In the time between Newton and Laplace, it was scientifically uncertain whether planetary orbits were stable for very long periods of time, or whether they were unstable and needed to be corrected every few centuries. If you were alive at the time, which way would you prefer that the scientific question would be settled?
9. First life. Today, it is scientifically uncertain whether first life could self-assemble out of simpler molecules on the early earth, or whether life is too complex to self-assemble via abiogenesis. Which way do you prefer that the scientific question will be settled?
5. Advantages of using survey/response method
… Students have their own answers/opinions in front of them during classroom discussion. Therefore, many of them are more willing to participate in the discussion.
… Students see the range of ratings (on the 1-9 scale) among their peers, and become aware that not all Christians think exactly the same way on these issues.
… Students hear new ideas from their peers.
… Students practice analyzing statements by explaining both how they agree with the statement (even a little) and how they disagree with the statement (even a little).
… Students seem (qualitatively) more engaged with the professorís brief lecture after the classroom discussion, since the ideas are directly connected to the opinions they wrote.
A Word document containing all the handouts, overhead
slides, and lecture notes is available by email request: lhaarsma@calvin.edu
Perspectives in science – opinion paragraph
ěMethodological Atheismî
Instructor: ____Sample Handout____ Due Date: ______________________
Please fill out the following form by typing in all the boxed regions. Print it out and bring it to class on the assigned day. (http://www.XXXXX.edu/xxxxxxxxxx/Survey_MethA.doc)
|
Your name: |
|
|
Course number: |
|
When we do science, the behavior of matter is described
purely in terms of natural causes and effects. We find that matter follows regular, repeatable patterns of behavior
which we call ělaws of nature.î
The laws of nature which we study in science (e.g. Newtonís Laws or Coulombís Law) do
not refer to God or the supernatural.
Because of this, some people – including some Christian scholars
– have described science as ěmethodologically atheistic.î This means that a scientist can still
believe in God, of course; however, a scientist acts ěas if God doesnít existî when
he or she is doing science.
ěMethodological atheismî in science is an acceptable tool for Christians,
so the argument goes, so long as he or she remembers that science is just a
limited tool for discovering limited truths about the ordinary behavior of
nature.
|
On a
scale of 1 to 9, rate how much you agree or disagree with the idea that
ěmethodological atheismî a reasonably accurate description of science: |
|
(1=Completely disagree. 3=Agree a little, but mostly
disagree.
5=Agree & disagree in equal amounts. 7=Disagree a little, but mostly
agree. 9=Completely agree.)
Briefly (about
2 to 5 sentences) explain any sense in which you agree with that
statement (even a little).
|
Sample
Handout |
Briefly
(about 2 to 5 sentences) explain any sense in which you disagree with that
statement (even a little).
|
|
Using survey/response writing assignments to
stimulate classroom discussion
Loren Haarsma,
Physics and Astronomy Department, Calvin College (lhaarsma@calvin.edu)
Summaries of
assignments given to students
Topic #1: Methodological Atheism
Introduction: When
we do science, the behavior of matter is described purely in terms of natural
causes and effects. We find that
matter follows regular, repeatable patterns of behavior which we call ělaws of
nature.î The laws of nature which
we study in science (e.g. Newtonís
Laws or Coulombís Law) do not refer to God or the supernatural. Because of this, some people –
including some Christian scholars – have described science as
ěmethodologically atheistic.î This
means that a scientist can still believe in God, of course; however, a
scientist acts ěas if God doesnít existî when he or she is doing science. ěMethodological atheismî in science is
an acceptable tool for Christians, so the argument goes, so long as he or she
remembers that science is just a limited tool for discovering limited truths
about the ordinary behavior of nature.
Question: Consider
the following statement:
ěMethodological atheism is a reasonably accurate description of
science.î
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate how much you agree or disagree with that statement
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you agree with that statement
(even a little).
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you disagree with that statement
(even a little).
Topic #2: Scientific vs. Personal Knowledge
Question: Consider
the following statement: ěThe
scientific method is the only way to get truly reliable knowledge. In science, experiments are done to test
theories, and people can double-check each otherís results to see if mistakes
were made. Personal experience is
a far less reliable means of gaining knowledge because one personís experiences
cannot be duplicated or double-checked by another. Beliefs based on personal experience should be considered
much less reliable than those based on science.î
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate how much you agree or disagree with that statement
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you agree with that statement
(even a little).
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you disagree with that statement
(even a little).
Topic #3: Reason and Faith
Question: Consider
the following statement: ěScience
and reason are primarily about believing things on the basis of evidence. Religion and faith are primarily about
believing in something without
evidence.î
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate how much you agree or disagree with that statement
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you agree with that statement
(even a little).
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you disagree with that statement
(even a little).
Topic #4: Nature and Scripture
Question: Consider
the following statement:
ěScripture, as Godís revealed word, is our standard for understanding
everything else. If a scientific
statement (or a statement in any scholarly field) contradicts our understanding
of scripture, then – regardless of any evidence to the contrary –
scripture must take precedence.î
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate how much you agree or disagree with that statement
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you agree with that statement
(even a little).
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you disagree with that statement (even
a little).
Topic #5: Determinism and Chance
Introduction: Newtonís
laws of ěclassical mechanicsî and Maxwellís laws of electromagnetism are
completely deterministic. If you precisely know an objectís mass,
position, velocity, and the forces acting on it, then you can mathematically
predict precisely what it will do at every future moment.
In the 20th century, scientists discovered
that they needed a new theory to explain the behavior of single particles and
atoms: quantum mechanics. Unlike Newtonís laws, quantum mechanics
is not entirely deterministic.
There is an element of indeterminism or randomness in the behavior of every particle and
atom. A million identical
experiments performed on a million identical hydrogen atoms to measure the
velocity of the electron in a will produce a million slightly different
answers. The average and the
spread of those million measurements are predictable, but the exact result of
any one particular measurement is
unpredictable. Similarly, quantum
mechanics can precisely predict when a million radioactive atoms will decay on
average; however, the exact time when
any one particular radioactive
atom decays is unpredictable.
Some people find this indeterminism in quantum
mechanics to be not simply unexpected, but unacceptable. Einstein — expressing his opinion
that the fundamental laws of nature ought to be deterministic — said on
several occasions, ěGod does not play dice with the universe.î Some physicists are trying to revise or
re-interpret quantum mechanics in ways which render it as deterministic as
Newtonís laws. But most physicists
today interpret quantum mechanics as implying that some events in nature really
are indeterministic, that is, some
events are fundamentally unpredictable and undetermined by the laws of nature.
Some people argue that if the laws of nature are
deterministic, then ěfree willî as we understand it must be an illusions
– because the motion of every atom in our brains, and therefore every
decision our brains make – must be determined by the laws of nature. Other scientists and philosophers
dispute the claim that determinism implies that free will is an illusion. Some people argue that if the laws of
nature include some indeterministic processes, this makes it easier to believe
that we can have genuine free will.
Other scientists and philosophers argue that the inclusion of
indeterministic processes in the laws of nature does absolutely nothing to
solve ěthe problem of free will.î
We donít yet know how these question will ultimately be
settled. We donít yet know whether
future discoveries will say that the laws of nature are completely
deterministic, or whether the laws of nature also include some indeterministic
processes.
Question: Do you
prefer that all the laws of nature ultimately be shown to be deterministic, or
do you prefer that the laws of nature include some processes which are
indeterministic?
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate which you prefer: (1=Strongly prefer fully deterministic laws of
nature. 5=No preference. 9=Strongly
prefer laws of nature which include some indeterminism._
…
Briefly (3 to 6
sentences) explain the reasons for your answer.
Topic #6: Experimental and Historical Science
Introduction: Some
people make statements like those listed below to argue that are fundamental
differences between ěexperimental sciencesî (such as physics and chemistry
which perform controlled experiments) and ěhistorical sciencesî (such as
astronomy and geology which try to figure out the history of some natural
system).
ěExperimental science is concerned with how nature
operates (now). Historical science
is concerned with reconstructing past events.î
ěExperimental science allows direct observations of
existing systems. Historical
science refers to unobservable past events.î
ěExperimental science deals with reproducible events
which are under experimental control.
Historical science deals with irreproducible events which are not under
experimental control.î
ěExperimental science theories allow you to make
predictions and directly test those predictions. Historical science theories only allow you to construct
explanations of existing data, and cannot be tested directly.î
The
intended implication of such arguments is that experimental science theories
are much more reliable than historical science theories. However, other people dispute whether
there is such a strong division in the sciences. They argue that while experimental and historical science
have some differences, at a fundamental level they employ the same sorts of
methods and are equally ěscientific.î
Question: Based on
what you have learned and read so far, do you agree or disagree with
this statement: ěThere are
fundamental differences in the methods and reliability of experimental science
versus historical scienceî?
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate how much you agree or disagree with that statement
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you agree with that statement
(even a little).
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain any sense in which you disagree with that statement
(even a little).
Topic #7: Philosophical Interpretations of
Science
Consider
the following scientific claim: ěIt used to be thought that living
organisms had some special ëvital substanceí which made them alive, different
from ordinary physical objects.
However, it now appears that all of the characteristics of life (e.g.
metabolism, reproduction) can be
explained in terms of the complex chemical reactions which go on inside living
cells, without the need for some ëvital substanceí to animate the organism.î
Question: How
do you understand the implications of that claim? Which one or more of the following
comes closest to what you believe are the implications?
1) The scientific claim has unacceptable philosophical
or religious implications. The
claim must be incorrect.
2) Life is reducible to matter. Living organisms are nothing more than
collections of atoms obeying the laws of physics. Philosophies or religions which claim that life is ěspecialî
are in contradiction with the scientific facts.
3) Life is reducible to matter, but we can still
choose to believe that living organisms have more value than ordinary physical
objects. Philosophies or religions
which claim that life is ěspecialî are a moral/religious choice which each
individual can make, and such choices are outside the realm where science can
make claims.
4) Life is explainable scientifically in terms of
complex chemical reactions, but the ěspecialnessî of anything derives from the
value given to it by its Creator.
Philosophies or religions which claim that life is ěspecialî recognize
that the Creator holds life to be special, and this is independent of whether
or not living organisms depend on some ěvital substanceî for their
capabilities.
5) Life is explainable scientifically in terms of
complex chemical reactions, but it is precisely the complexity and the
capabilities of living organisms which make them valuable to us – and
their value to us is what makes them special. Philosophies and religions which claim that life is ěspecialî
recognize the value of living organisms to us, and their value to us is
independent of whether or not they depend on some ěvital substanceî for their
capabilities.
Consider
the following scientific claim: ěIt used to be thought that the earth was
in a unique position, at the center of the universe. Now we know that the earth orbits a fairly ordinary star,
that lots of other stars have planets, that there are about a hundred billion
stars in our galaxy, and about a hundred billion galaxies in the visible
universe, and maybe vastly more beyond.î
Question: How
do you understand the implications of that claim?
1) The scientific claim has unacceptable philosophical
or religious implications. The
claim must be incorrect.
2) The earth and everything on it are cosmically
insignificant. Philosophies or
religions which claim that we are ěsignificantî are in contradiction with the
scientific facts.
3) The earth and everything on it are cosmically
insignificant, but we can still choose to believe and act as though we have
significance, if only to ourselves.
Philosophies or religions which claim that we are ěsignificantî are a
moral/religious choice which each individual can make, and such choices are
outside the realm where science can make claims.
4) The earth is a tiny piece in a vast universe, but
out significance depends not on our size or place in the universe. Our significance depends on the value
our Creator places on us.
5) The earth is a tiny piece in a vast universe, but
our advanced capabilities – our ability to think, and learn, and explore,
and relate – are what make us significant.
Consider
the following scientific claim: ěIt used to be thought that each
individual species was relatively fixed in form, and was separately made or
generated. Now, the evidence shows
that species are constantly adapting and changing, some species going extinct,
other species splitting and developing into multiple new species. The evidence also shows that all modern
species are related in a chain of common ancestry going back in time.
Question: How
do you understand the implications of that claim?
1) The scientific claim has unacceptable philosophical
or religious implications. The
claim must be incorrect.
2) All species, including humans, are just the latest
result of a random, material process which has no purpose. Philosophies or religions which claim
that any species, including humans, have a ěpurposeî to their existence are in
contradiction with the scientific facts.
3) All species, including humans, are the latest
result of a random, material process which has no purpose. However, we are here now and we can
make our own purpose. Philosophies
or religions which claim there is a purpose to human existence are
moral/religious choices which each individual can make, and such choices are
outside the realm where science can make claims.
4) It does not matter whether each modern species was
separately made in a fixed form, or made through a process of adaptation and
change from a chain of common ancestry going back in time. The purpose of any species, including
humans, is determined by the Creator who designed and oversees these processes.
5) It does not matter whether each modern species was
separately generated in a fixed form, or made through a process of adaptation
and change from a chain of common ancestry going back in time. We are here now, and we have advanced
capabilities which let us do good or evil, help or harm. This is what gives us our purpose.
Question: Briefly
(2 to 5 sentences) answer: Do you
see any unifying theme in how you answered the questions above? If so, what is it? If not, what guided you in selecting
your particular answers?
Topic #8: Orbital Stability
Introduction: Sir
Isaac Newton discovered that the motions of planets and stars could be
explained by a few simple equations.
Itís easy to solve Newtonís equations when there are only two
gravitationally attracting objects (e.g. the sun and one planet).
They stay in stable, predictable orbits around each other. Itís usually impossible to solve
Newtonís equations exactly when there are three or more objects (e.g. our solar system with several planets plus many moons
and smaller objects). Each time
one planetís motion brings it close to another, they perturb each othersí
orbits. Depending on the initial
conditions, these perturbations can sometimes add up and cause one or more
orbits to become unstable.
Are all the planetary orbits in our solar system
stable? Newton struggled with this
difficult question and did not come to a definite conclusion, but he made some
mathematical approximations and concluded that some planetary orbits in our
solar system probably would become increasingly perturbed and unstable after
several hundred years. This would
seem to be a problem, since humans have been watching and recording the motions
of these planets, in regular orbits, for thousands of years. One proposal to get around this problem
is that God occasionally (every few decades or centuries) sends a comet through
the solar system — a comet with just the right mass and just the right
trajectory so that its gravitational attraction ěcorrectsî the planetary orbits
and keep them stable for another few centuries.
A generation later, Pierre de Laplace found better
approximate solutions to Newtonís equations. Laplace showed that planetary orbits in our solar system
really are stable for much
longer periods of time — stable without the need for God to perform the
occasional ěcorrection.î
But suppose Laplaceís results had come out differently
and Newtonís hunch had been correct.
Suppose God made the solar system in such a way that planetary orbits
are unstable, requiring a careful correction every few centuries. Would that seem better, or worse? Planetary orbits which remain stable
without intervention sounds like a better design. On the other hand, the timely arrival of comets with exactly
the right mass and trajectory to
correct unstable orbits would seem to provide a powerful scientific argument
for Godís existence and providential intervention.
Question: Laplace
was correct. Planetary orbits in
our solar system really are stable for very long periods of time. But suppose you were alive back when
the question of planetary orbit stability was still an unsolved scientific
question. Suppose you were alive
in the time between Newton and Laplace, and you were aware that planetary
orbital stability was an unsolved scientific question. Which way would you hope that the issue
would be settled? Would you prefer
that planetary orbits be proved to be stable, or proved to be unstable?
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate your opinion. (1=Strongly
prefer stable. 5=No preference.
9=Strongly prefer unstable.)
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain your answer.
Topic #9: First Life
Introduction: Astronomers
have determined that the planet Earth, even very early in its history, had many
organic molecules which are the building blocks necessary for protein molecules
and DNA. Geologists have
discovered fossils of simple, single-celled life in some of the oldest rocks.
Some scientists have proposed the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is the hypothesis that, with the right initial set of
chemicals, and under the right conditions such as those found on Earth when the
planet was young, simple living cells can self-organize from those chemicals.
It is currently an unsolved scientific question
whether abiogenesis is possible or impossible. It is a difficult question, and only a few research groups
are working on it, so it is unlikely to be answered soon. Many people suspect that – even
if we are still quite a ways from figuring out scientifically how it happened
– abiogenesis is possible.
(That is to say, the self-organization of simple living cells is very probable,
given the conditions on the early planet Earth.)
But some people believe that abiogenesis is impossible
(or at least extremely improbable).
Even the simplest living cell today is fairly complex. (Mycoplasma pneumoniae is one of the smallest bacteria known, with a cell
diameter of about 0.5 mm and a genome size of 816,000 base pairs coding for
687 genes.) Even if the earliest
living cells were much simpler than modern cells, it seems that a certain
minimum level of complexity is
required for any cell which is capable of living and reproducing. How much complexity is the minimum
amount necessary for a living cell?
Given that minimum level of complexity required, what are the chances
that a living cell could self-organize under conditions found on the early
planet Earth? A few people have
tried to make scientific arguments that abiogenesis is impossible – or at
least extremely improbable.
However, the arguments that they have published so far are not very
convincing because their calculations rely on some simplifying assumptions
which are probably false.
So no one has yet come close to demonstrating
scientifically whether abiogenesis is possible (very probable), or impossible
(extremely improbable).
Question: It is currently an unsolved scientific
question whether abiogenesis is possible (very probable), or impossible
(extremely improbable). Which way
do you hope the issue will be settled?
Do you prefer that abiogenesis ultimately will be proved to be possible,
or that abiogenesis will be proved to be impossible?
…
On a scale of 1 to 9,
rate your opinion. (1=Strongly
prefer abiogenesis possible. 5=No
preference. 9=Strongly prefer abiogenesis impossible.)
…
Briefly (2 to 5
sentences) explain your answer.
…
If the number you chose
to answer this question is substantially different from your answer on the
ěorbital stabilityî survey, explain why you see these issues differently. If the number you chose to answer this
question is almost the same as your answer on the ěorbital stabilityî survey,
explain why you donít see them differently. (2 to 5 sentences)
Note: The order of topic 8 (orbital stability) and topic 9 (first life) can be reversed.
Physics -- Essay assignment – Due Date: ____________________
As we studied physics this semester, we also talked
about the bigger picture. We
considered questions such as: Why
does the scientific method work?
Can science really get at truth?
What, if anything, does the success of science have to say about
God? How does scientific knowledge
interact with other sorts of knowledge?
Are science and religion inevitably in conflict? How can our scientific investigation of
nature fit into a life of faithfulness to God?
In years to come, you will certainly have
opportunities to discuss such questions with people, both Christians and
non-Christians. This assignment is
an opportunity for you to practice organizing and expressing your thoughts.
Essay
topic: On the other side of
this page are a series of statements. With some of them you might agree, with
many statements you will probably disagree. Select one statement to which you wish to respond. At the beginning of your essay,
indicate what sort of audience you have in mind. (Is your
response intended to be a presentation to your classmates? Is it intended to be a letter to the
editor of a newspaper or magazine?
Is it a letter to a friend or family member? Is it intended to be posted to an electronic discussion
group? Are the intended readers
primarily Christians, non-Christians, or both?) The formality of your writing, and the types of arguments
you use, should be appropriate for the intended audience.
Some
instructions about content and style
…
Use some relevant ideas
which we discussed in class.
…
Use some ideas which you
learned elsewhere (DCM, books, other sources).
…
Clearly state and argue
for your own opinions.
…
Even if you mostly
disagree with a statement, briefly explain if there is any sense you agree with
the statement, even a little, or at least that you understand what concern
might motivate the statement.
Similarly if you mostly agree with a statement, briefly explain if there
is any sense you disagree with the statement, even a little, or that you
understand what concerns it might raise.
…
When summarizing or
characterizing the opinions of someone else, donít set up straw-men versions of
their beliefs, and donít make ad-homenim attacks. Donít let your writing fall into the trap of assuming that
people with whom you disagree are stupid, hold their belief because of some
moral failing, canít see the truth of some obvious argument, or have absolutely
no explanation for some ěobvious problemî with their position.
…
If you employ historical
arguments or scientific arguments in your essay (drawing on results from
astronomy, biology, geology, or another branch of science), first double-check
your facts with a professor.
…
Avoid ěGod-of-the-gapsî
arguments – that is, trying to prove Godís existence by claiming that
some phenomenon hasnít been or cannot be understood scientifically and
therefore God must being doing it or must have done it miraculously.
…
Donít say ěby chanceî
when you mean ěwithout God.î (For
example, ěI donít see how XXXX could have happened by chance.î) See Prov. 16:33. Just because something appears random
from a human perspective doesnít mean that God is not involved.
…
Avoid
over-statements. (For example:
ěScience and religion have been constantly fighting for thousands of yearsî
or ěMost scientists try to use
science to disprove religionî
or ěMost people think that
science and religion should be kept in seperate compartments.î) Over-statements like these are
frequently inaccurate. Moreover,
they tend to under-cut your own argument.
Essay
length: 300–700 words
Essay
format: E-mail to (lhaarsma@calvin.edu) as an attachment.
Grading: Out of 30 points.
0–10 points for technical writing skills (spelling, grammar, punctuation).
0–10 points for clarity & accuracy in expressing the details of particular thoughts and ideas.
0–10 points for overall organization (building a coherent argument addressing the chosen topic).
This essay counts as 1% of your total course grade (equal to a half-size problem set).
Respond to one of the
following statements:
#1).
ěScience is methodologically atheistic.
When you use the scientific method, you act like God doesnít exist.î
#2).
ěDonít worry if scientists say something which conflicts with scripture,
because science is done by humans, but scripture is infallible.î
#3).
ěDonít worry if scientists say something which conflicts with your religion, because
scientific theories are always changing.î
#4).
ěWhatever we think of God, his existence is not manifest in the products of
nature.î (Stephen Gould, The
Blind Watchmaker)
#5). ěIf
we have a scientific explanation for something, we donít need God to explain
it.î
#6).
ěThese [natural] laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears
that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not
now intervene in it.î (Stephen
Hawking in A Brief History of Time)
#7).
ěHuman beings are really just a collection of atoms obeying the laws of
physics.î
#8).
ěScience proves that miracles canít happen.î
#9).
ěScience and religion canít conflict because they have nothing to do with each
other. Science is about the
natural world; religion is about the supernatural.î
#10).
ěScience can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify
science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which
both can flourish.î (Pope John Paul II)
#11).
ěThe antagonism we thus witness between Religion and Science is the
continuation of a struggle that commenced when Christianity began to attain
political power. A divine
revelation must necessarily be intolerant of contradiction; it must repudiate
all improvement in itself, and view with disdain that arising from the
progressive intellectual development of man.î (John William Draper in History of the Conflict between
religion and Science)
#12).
ěScience is the only reliable means of getting knowledge, because experiments
are repeatable and science doesnít rely on ëpersonal experience.íě
#13).
ěReligions just change their opinions when science proves theyíve got something
wrong.î
#14).
ěReligious faith hinders the pursuit of knowledge because religion claims to be
ërevealed truthí that canít tolerate contradiction.î
#15).
ěReligious faith means believing something without good evidence.î
#16).
ěItís a waste of time for Christians to do science. Christians should be doing missions or helping the poor.î
#17). ěWe
can explain everything (including religious experiences) using science, without
needing the supernatural. God is
an ëunnecessary hypothesisí which should be rejected by Occamís Razor.î
#18).
ěThere is as much evidence for UFO abductions as there is for God.î
#19).
ěYou should keep your science and your religion in separate compartments of
your life.î
#20).
ěScience is all about power.
Scientists are just arrogantly trying to impose their will onto nature.î
#21).
ěKnowing how something works scientifically takes all the joy and significance
out of it.î
#22).
ěThe more the universe seems [scientifically] comprehensible, the more it also
seems pointless.î (Steven Weinberg
in The First Three Minutes)