The christian I admire most is not a huge public figure, but he streams scientific educational programs, and presents an incredibly sane and mature outlook. He is full-on christian, being a Mormon, even did his missionary work. But when he puts on his science hat, he listens to science.
Dr Jason Steffan is currently an assistant professor in the physics department at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jsteffen/index.html
He streams his educational and interactive videos from https://www.twitch.tv/horizonsci
Here is a transcript he gave at the 2018 Las Vegas March for Science. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O-sNPgcRhZ5kEAGwMvY5y_JxnHDXflqhzCPCraCxPy0/edit
Did you know?
There are more stars in the sky than there are grains of sand on the Earth.
There are more molecules in a teaspoon of water than there are teaspoons of water on the Earth.
If you take all the people on the Earth and smoosh them up into a giant ball of humanity, you could fit it in the grand canyon without touching the sides or bottom.
When black holes collide, they give off more energy than all the stars in the universe combined—all through a form of radiation only detectable with the most precise instruments ever made by mankind.
From the book “Contagious”, Jonah Berger notes that there are two primary emotions that will cause some piece of information or some message to go viral. Those emotions are anger, and awe. Awe inspiring information spreads more than practical information. An amusing message spreads more than a negative one. On the flipped side, stories that perpetuate anxiety outperform comfort, and anger will cover the globe more than grief.
If we have a message that we want to spread, that we want to impact as many people as possible, if we want our listeners to latch onto that message and remember it, then those are our choices: awe or anger, elevation or anxiety. If we want to bring people along, to inspire them in some way, what kind of message should we bring? How should that message be delivered? Science is a message where we can make that choice—and we must choose wisely.
Did you know that Roman roads were still used in France through the 1800’s? Even after 2000 years of neglect, the roads built by the Romans were the best roads to be found. This fact reveals a sobering story. As Roman society collapsed from both internal and external strife, the technology in France regressed by over a thousand years and persisted for two thousand more. In many instances, our society, with its freedoms, its rights, its responsibilities, is coming apart at the seams—divided by both internal and external strife, with the wedge often driven by circumstantial profiteers. The blessings that we enjoy today have been purchased incrementally by the toil, suffering, and deaths of preceding generations who sought to improve the human condition for their children. As we seek to forestall tragedy, to improve upon what we have, to form a more perfect union, we must approach the task with humility. It is far easier to make a complex thing worse than to make it better, it is far easier to destroy than to rebuild. In France so long ago, as society decayed and crumbled, life was worse, not better, for centuries.
The universe doesn’t care about us. Science—the method we have learned to discover the secrets of the universe (often through countless fatal mistakes)—transcends our lives, it transcends our preconceptions, it transcends the squabbles of its imperfect children, individuals and ideologies. Science can reduce humanity to nothing more than the reconstituted ashes of dead stars and simultaneously ennoble it as the greatest, and rarest gift that the universe offers. As teachers, learners, and practitioners of science, we can use the incredible and awe inspiring truths of science to bring people together, to open their eyes and minds to the natural wonder surrounding them, to let them escape their lives for a moment to touch, feel, and see the infinite. It is crucial that we show these truths to our fellow men and women, that we let them see the wonders of our Universe.
It is also crucial that we not impede their vision with our pettiness, that our pride or arrogance not become a stumbling block. Discovery, when done right, is a humbling experience for all. It exposes us to the immense void of space, the deep abyss, and the microscopic unknown. We must not trifle with that message. We must not use science as a tool of division. We cannot allow it to become partisan. And, to the extent that it has already trodden that path, it is imperative that we bring it back.
Make no mistake, science is a two-edged sword. It cuts both ways and is no respecter of persons or parties. Ideologically correct science was championed in both the socialist utopia of the Soviets where “Bourgois science” was suppressed by the gun and the gulag, and in the Aryan utopia of NAZI Germany where “Jewish science” met a similar fate in the ghetto and the gas chamber. Truly, when science becomes partisan, it dies a tragic death.
Any political ideology that cherry picks the science it will accept, does so at the peril of this great nation and the people of the world. It matters not whether that cherry comes from the branch of medicine and epidemiology (with the threat of widespread disease) or climatology (with the threat of widespread famine), from psychology or biology, from nuclear physics or genetics. Science cuts both ways.
As we advance our transcendent cause to learn about our universe and to employ that knowledge for the good and freedom of all, I urge each of us to take great care in our choices of allies and adversaries. We must not alienate those who are actually our most valuable friends in this work. If we want to ensure that science, instead of religion, is taught in our science classes, we must not alienate those religious individuals who share that goal.
As a practicing scientist and as a practicing person of faith, I am often dismayed by short-sighted science advocates who jab and prod and belittle those with whom they disagree in order to score points with their particular choir. By doing so, they paint many people, who can more effectively deliver the needed message, into a corner—thereby weakening an important bridge to those who may be beyond our feeble reach. I am dismayed by lawmakers who, in grandstanding eloquence, signal with virtue and righteousness their abhorrence for their political counterparts while simultaneously alienating those on the other side who share their desire to see the beneficial advance of science and society.
I challenge each of us. All who value science, who are formal science educators, informal science educators, and science advocates, to use our great message to inspire awe and appreciation, to unite rather than to divide—to rise above our tendencies to belittle and blame. I challenge each of us to build bridges to our audience that they too may see what we have seen, hear what we have heard, and feel what we have felt. Thank you.
