printable version5 Questions: Physicist wants dialog with religion
Lawrence Krauss wrote The Physics of Star Trek.
Lawrence Krauss, a physicist, is especially interested in opening the minds of religious people to science.
He has used some unusual strategies. In 2005 he sent an open letter to Pope Benedict XVI, urging him not to build a divide between science and faith. The Vatican later reaffirmed the Catholic Church's acceptance of natural selection as a valid theory. He also leads efforts by scientists to defend the scientific integrity of government. And for something completely different, he enlightened millions with his 1995 book, The Physics of Star Trek, a bestseller translated into 15 languages.
Krauss, PhD, is professor of astronomy, professor and chair of physics at Case Western University and a frequent lecturer on science and public policy.
He'll be at Stanford in two events. On March 9, he'll have an open conversation with scientist-writer Richard Dawkins on science education strategies, in a sold-out event at Memorial Auditorium sponsored by the Aurora Forum at Stanford and the School of Medicine. Mark Kay, MD, PhD, professor of genetics and the Dennis Farrey Family Professor in Pediatrics, who worked to develop the event, will moderate. On March 10, Krauss will give a seminar titled, "The attack on science and medicine: From Washington to the classroom..." at 11 a.m. in the Clark Center auditorium.
Krauss spoke recently with Rosanne Spector at Medical Center Report about bridging the worlds of science and religion.
1. A national Gallup survey in 2007 found 39 percent of those polled believed that the scientific theory of evolution is not that well-supported by evidence and that many scientists have serious doubts about it. What's to blame for this confusion?
Krauss: Many groups are to blame. First off, there has been a media war waged by well-funded groups, like the Discovery Institute, whose sole purpose is to create such confusion. Then there are a host of religious zealots who preach every Sunday against evolution. Finally, there is the scientific community, which clearly has not done a good job of explaining what evolution is all about.
The point here is that evolution is a straw man. The reason that I, a physicist, have become active in this debate is that the real attack here is not on evolution, per se, but upon science. There are those who think that science is a threat to religious belief, and therefore feel that science is evil. Since evolution is clearly one of the most immediately visceral threats—by apparently linking humans and nonhuman ancestors—it has been picked on. The Discovery Institute's internal documents show that this is the basis of their activities. They then couch their antiscience agenda under claims of "controversies" that simply don't exist in the scientific community.
2. Do you see an antiscience threat growing around the world?
Krauss: In some sense, yes. This has primarily been a U.S. phenomenon. However the United States exports most of its cultural baggage, both good and bad. We are now seeing similar campaigns in Europe, for example. When you combine this with a growing religious fundamentalism in the Islamic world, there are reasons for concern.
3. What's the impact if this antiscience notion is unchallenged?
Krauss: It is hard to make forecasts. Ten centuries ago we saw how religious fundamentalism in the Islamic world turned them from being the leaders in science and technology to also-rans. I am not as concerned about a global return to the Dark Ages, although that is possible. However, modern democracies depend upon an informed electorate and legislators, and sound public policy depends upon sound information inputs. Most major issues in our modern world have a scientific or technological basis—so if we accept nonsense with impunity in the public arena, we endanger the healthy functioning of our democracy.
4. Coming to Stanford is preaching to the converted. Where else do you go?
Krauss: Perhaps the places I have had the greatest impact are fundamentalist colleges, where I have simply said that you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution. For many of the kids there, this is the first time they have heard this. I have also gone on Fox TV, both on "Hannity and Colmes" and "The O'Reilly Factor," and there I think that when I have been able to get a word in, which is rare, I sometimes get a message across. Finally, I think I had some impact upon the Catholic Church when I wrote an open letter to the Pope, along with two Catholic biologist colleagues, urging them not to turn back on the important statements the past pope had made about evolution.
5. If you could leave us one thought about confronting the antiscience threat, what would it be?
Krauss: You cannot get people to listen to what you have to say by first telling them they are stupid, or that their beliefs are ridiculous. If we want people to understand the scientific process, we need to first demonstrate how amazing it is, and what it can accomplish. We then have to be very careful not to misrepresent the results of science, and make it clear when we are stating philosophical opinions versus scientific results.