Ideology Affecting the Scientific Community

Zweerink said that woke ideology "is beginning to seep into the sciences ... at least ... into the people who are doing the science." Woke ideology in science begins with the observation that the demographic of the scientific community does not reflect the demographic of the general population. Whites and Asians are overrepresented, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans are underrepresented. This is held to be a problem in itself, and evidence of systemic discrimination.

Zweerink remarked that overt systemic discrimination did happen in the past. He said that once (in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) "scientific racism was very much a thing." Indeed, until the last forty years, different races were held to have evolved in different places, and thus reasonably could be held to be unequal in their abilities. He pointed to Ernst Haeckel's book, The Evolution of Man, published in 1874, which compared apes to Africans. Additionally, becoming a scientist (or generally rising in the meritocracy) commonly involves a support system of money and stable families, which naturally limits access to the sciences by lower socioeconomic classes. Government policies that destabilize families hinder entrance into the scientific professions, Zweerink said. Thus, he believes that the demographic difference between the world of scientists and the general population is a real problem that should be addressed, but the woke solution being advanced "is going to make the problem worse."

A problem with woke ideology entering the sciences is "a confusion of words. And I'm inclined to think it's often intentional," he said. Racism may not mean a matter of prejudice, but simply the fact "that we have the discrepancy in the demographics." A questioner commented that rather than demographic discrepancies being evidence of either injustice or biological racial inequality, different achievement results from different cultures. "There may just be cultural differences" that cause difference in achievement, "and that's not racism."

Zweerink said that important in understanding woke ideology in the sciences is understanding that difference between "transmission" models of education and "constructivist" models. The former is the traditional model of education, in which the teacher endeavors to communicate information to students, which they assimilate as closely to the teacher's intention as possible. In the constructivist model, which woke ideologies favor, the teacher endeavors to involve students in the construction of scientific knowledge. Knowledge "becomes usable" because the student has participated in its construction. With science instruction, he said that it is indeed possible to be more constructivist in education. Labs are something like constructivist education, since the student is "actively thinking and engaging" in activities based on what he or she has been taught. Nevertheless, there seems to be unbridgeable difference between the models, since knowledge is held to be objective in the transmission model, whereas "knowledge is created in the constructivist model."

The Need to Maintain Objectivity

But those who would be disciples of Christ must hold largely to a transmission model of education, Zweerink said. Certainly, our knowledge of Christianity is objective. It must be transmitted, willingly accepted, and obeyed. With the transmission model of education, it is understood that reality is objective, and the purpose of education is "to understand this reality and change behavior accordingly." Constructivism on the other hand holds that "the only important reality is in the learner's mind, and the goal of learning is to construct in the learner's mind its own unique conception" of the subject matter.

This difference raises the question of what is meant when someone advocates moving to a constructivist model of education. Do they simply mean involving students in activities based on what is being taught, or actually developing their own version of chemistry, physics, or whatever their subject matter is? More student involvement in learning may have value, but transmission and construction are fundamentally different approaches to engaging the world. Making education more accessible to different kinds of people is one project, but the ideas being taught must be tested against reality. Yet the constructivist model involves the learner constructing his or her own knowledge, and therefore seemingly cannot be tested using neutral standards of reality testing. A truly "woke" perspective means "that Critical Theory is the way to think" about the sciences. If Critical Theory is true to itself, it will not accept scientific methodology, but will "radically undermine" scientific endeavor.

Central to all Critical Theory is the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy. Class, sex, gender, physical integrity, etc., are classes used to discriminate, and to oppress people who don't meet the objective standard which is supposed to be the basis of oppression. Existing knowledge systems keep the oppressors in power. They are not systems independent of society but were developed in particular societies. The ordinary pursuit of science increases the power of the "oppressor group" (held to be white males in the United States). The existing systems of knowledge must be disrupted so that "other knowledge systems can be put in place." The oppressed (or at least, those who speak for them), "have knowledge that the oppressors can't have." For those committed to Critical Theory, discussion and reflection, even on Critical Theory, are not enough, one ought to be actively undermining the system, and indeed Zweerink said that he finds articles based on Critical Theory concepts in searches for other topics, such as cosmology or artificial intelligence.

A questioner asked if it was considered "not fair" that whites and Asians make higher grades. Zweerink said that "it's a little different than that." What's considered unfair is the fact that whites and Asians are overrepresented among scientists. He said that research shows that "the greatest predictor" of success in the sciences is "good access to STEM education in high school, and support of families."

The Superiority of the Christian Worldview

Zweerink said that those who use Critical Theory as a presupposition for the sciences must live in a perpetual state of grievance. Christianity, on the other hand, "has such a better way" of engaging life and work. In Christian doctrine, injustices will finally be rectified. We should "be grateful" in all circumstances. Paul's writings show optimism and hope despite the persecution he experienced. Zweerink said that research shows that those who believe they are the objects of injustice "are statistically more likely to engage in morally questionable behavior." If science serves a power structure rather than disclosing truth, people will focus on power and self-interest in life rather than being constrained by truth.

A questioner remarked that the racial categories used by Critical Theory are quite broad, and subordinate people to fixed categories. Another questioned the sincerity of the proponents of Critical Theory, suspecting them simply to be interested in acquiring power. He said that "the key is, we can't fight racism with racism." Zweerink replied that for any individual, one doesn't know their motives. The person could be cynical or sincere. In response to another questioner, Zweerink said we must be careful not to be embittered or angry in engaging people affected by woke ideas or Critical Theory. We must not let those advancing it "define how we are going to play the game." He noted that Jesus was never "cynical, Christ never got mean, he never had a vendetta, but he always interacted with the person where they were, and he was never shy about calling out the problems that were there."

Another questioner asked if Critical Theory proponents are proposing to do away with the scientific method of testing hypotheses against reality. Zweerink said that some say conventional science does not listen enough to people in oppressed categories, but others are saying "we need to blow up the whole system." Attacking objectivity is, this writer would add, finally a hopeless proposition. We depend on objective reality for life. Our lives should conform to what is true and real, rather than advancing our own self-will against reality.

Zweerink said that if he had any "particular admonition" it is to "recognize the big picture of what's going on." But for any individual affected by woke ideas or the Critical Theory behind them that we encounter, we must "understand them well enough to know what they're actually saying." It is important for Christians to understand the effect of Critical Theory on the sciences, Zweerink said, because it's "coming into the church." But we must hold on to the Christian categories of "truth, goodness, and beauty" in engaging the world, rather than "race, gender, and class." It is a Christian world view which brings truth and hope, he said.