Children are naturally curious about the world around them and eager to explore and try to understand it. Our three boys are no different which means they are very interested in all things related to science. We attempt to foster and encourage this interest at every opportunity and are always looking for ways to make science more approachable and fun for them.
So when he heard that the band They Might Be Giants had a CD out full of science themed songs for kids, we jumped at it. The boys like to listen to music-their music-in the minivan and when it comes to children’s music, most of the material from TMBG is not like nails on a chalkboard to adult ears (with the notable exception of the “Mickey Mouse Clubhouse” theme song-hot dog, hot dog, hot diggety dog...).
And for the most part, the CD Here Comes Science lives up to expectations. The songs are catchy and informative, the kids dig them, and we can listen to them without fear of losing our grip on sanity. However, the first song called “Science is Real” is troublesome:
Science is real
From the Big Bang to DNA
Science is real
From evolution to the Milky Way
I like the stories
About angels, unicorns and elves
Now I like the stories As much as anybody else
But when I'm seeking knowledge
Either simple or abstract
The facts are with science
The facts are with science
Science is real
Science is real
Science is real
Science is real
From anatomy to geology
Science is real
From astrophysics to biology
A scientific theory Isn't just a hunch or guess
It's more like a question That's been put through a lot of tests
And when a theory emerges Consistent with the facts
The proof is with science
The truth is with science
Science is real
Science is real
Science is real
Science is real
Why did they have to lump in angels with unicorns and elves? Why alienate a good chunk of your listeners when there is no need to? Our kids hear this and line and add their own rebuttal “But angels are real,” which causes us no small amount of parental pride. But why do those who seek to advocate for science so often believe that doing so must also entail advocating against religion?
Despite what many seem to believe, you don’t have to choose one or the other. It doesn’t have to be science OR religion. It can and should rightly be science AND religion.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has a book out that the relationship between science and religion called The Great Partnership: Science,Religion,and the Search for Meaning:
An impassioned, erudite, thoroughly researched, and beautifully reasoned book from one of the most admired religious thinkers of our time that argues not only that science and religion are compatible, but that they complement each other—and that the world needs both.
“Atheism deserves better than the new atheists,” states Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, “whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.”
Rabbi Sacks’s counterargument is that religion and science are the two essential perspectives that allow us to see the universe in its three-dimensional depth. Science teaches us where we come from. Religion explains to us why we are here. Science is the search for explanation. Religion is the search for meaning. We need scientific explanation to understand nature. We need meaning to understand human behavior. There have been times when religion tried to dominate science. And there have been times, including our own, when it is believed that we can learn all we need to know about meaning and relationships through biochemistry, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology. In this fascinating look at the interdependence of religion and science, Rabbi Sacks explains why both views are tragically wrong.
Why is it so hard for those on the “science is all there is” side to understand that religious believers can embrace and accept all that science offers while still believing that there are areas of our lives beyond the scope of science that require more than it can provide. That explanations are fine, but without meaning (without God), they are ultimately empty. That faith is beyond facts and that while the facts may indeed be with science, the real Truth is with God.
