o a space-time with at least 11 dimensions, o which we directly perceive only our, as proposed by String Theory. Philosophical naturalism is always suspectdue to its insistence on negative (and hence unprovable) statements. Similarly,philosophical secularism is a aith system rather than something supported by scientic evidence.Francis Collins, Director o the Human Genome Project, argues in his recentbook
The Language of God
that there is evidence or the supernatural based onthe existence o the Moral Law among human cultures and the human quest orthe sacred. While one can argue with his logic, the act that Collins even makesthis argument demonstrates that scientists are not in complete agreement aboutthe absence o evidence or God. This may explain why a signicant number o scientists are also believers.
The second question I wish to address is: How can a science curriculum meetthe needs o the average student in college or high school? What should students who are not going to be proessional scientists know about science? This raises adeeper question o what science is. I would argue that the core o science is the
we use to determine which observations and theories are closest to thetruth, and which should be discarded. By “process,” I don’t mean the stylized“scientic method” that appears in the opening chapter o most science texts.Rather, I mean the messy process o argument and confict between competingideas and between competing evidence: the nuts and bolts o science. Science isa human activity, and the progress o science is accompanied by all the oibleso humanity: pride, greed, envy, etc. In spite o these human weaknesses, bettertheories will eventually prevail against those that do not hold up to examination.Some theories, like plate tectonics, took decades to be accepted by the scienticcommunity. Other theories, like relativity, were quickly accepted, but will requirecenturies to actually test in ull detail. Still other theories, like evolution, havehad their ups and downs, as evidence accumulated and the theory was rened inlight o new knowledge. In act, the evolution o lie is an example o a theory that is still developing rich new levels o evidence and is lled with uncertainty.Cobern’s rst rule is to teach science, not scientism. This implies a ocus onconfict and process more than on the specic current theories. Theories may change, but the process continues. I students are to “believe” in anything, itshould be that this messy process will ultimately produce correct insights andeliminate incorrect ones. But it is not necessary that students “believe” that thecurrent theories are the nal word. I scientists themselves believed this, there would not be much let to work on. One o my chemistry proessors once told