Janet Kellogg Ray on religious science denial and its consequences

Janet Kellogg Ray is a science educator who teaches biology at a large university. She's also a person of faith. In her US context, this puts her at odds with many evangelicals who are suspicious of science and deny evolution, climate change and COVID science. We discuss her upcoming book 'The God of Monkey Science' and why it's so dangerous for Christians to deny scientific evidence and consensus. We also explore the alternative — a faith that takes the modern world, including science, seriously.

Connect with Janet’s work: https://janetkray.com/

‘The God of Monkey Science’: https://www.eerdmans.com/Mobile/Products/8319/the-god-of-monkey-science.aspx

The Spiritual Misfits Survival Guide (FREE): https://www.spiritualmisfits.com.au/survivalguide

Sign up to our mailing list:
https://spiritualmisfits.com.au/

Join our online Facebook community:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/spiritualmisfitspodcast

Support the pod:
https://spiritualmisfits.com.au/support-us/

View all episodes at: https://spiritualmisfits.buzzsprout.com

Transcript

Will (00:02.429)
Janet Kellogg-Ray, welcome to the Spiritual Misfits Podcast.

Janet Ray (00:06.658)
Thanks, Will. I'm so excited to be here. Thanks for having me.

Will (00:11.073)
My absolute pleasure. So I'm, I'm one of the lucky people that has recently had the chance to read your forthcoming book, which is called the God of Monkey Science, it's about science and evangelicals and the denial of evolution and climate change and COVID vaccines and, um, a really fascinating book. We're going to talk about it, but I wanted to start with a quick story, Janet, just to locate myself in the conversation in

In Australia, there is, I'd say quite a different culture than there is in the US around science and evangelicalism. But there are definitely pockets here of the kind of thing you talk about in your book. And I actually went to a Christian high school for four years. And the only science we were taught was, you know, young earth creationism. And so I was

right into Answers in Genesis, that was the website I would tell any secular person out there to go and kind of get the truth about science. I look back and cringe about that. But I read your book and I could really relate to some of that content, some of those attitudes. That was kind of a part of my story at one point in time. And I do have to apologize because Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis is an Australian. He's probably one of our worst exports.

So without going too far into all of that, who is Janet Kellogg-Ray and how did you find yourself, you know, as someone who grew up in evangelicalism in the US, working out in science education, trying to have some of these big conversations, what was the pathway there for you?

Janet Ray (01:50.314)
Well, I was practically born in church. I was born on a Sunday and the doctor told my dad it was going to be a long time. So my dad just left my mom at the hospital and went on to Sunday morning services and actually made it back in time. But the church was absolutely central to our lives.

All of our friends, all of our recreation, all of it centered around the church. My family took the Bible seriously, and our particular denomination took it quite literally. We were in church three times a week, Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night, and probably the most scarring part of that.

upbringing was the fact that I never saw the Wizard of Oz until I was an adult because in the US at that time before the days of on-demand programming it only broadcast once a year and then only on Sunday night so I didn't see that classic until I was until I was an adult but in my church of my growing up

Will (03:06.35)
Oh, wow.

Janet Ray (03:17.818)
I really didn't hear the word evolution or science denial at all. I have no recollection of that being ever preached from the pulpit because it was just a default. Young Earth creationism was just the default belief. And we would have no more questioned a literal Genesis than we would have questioned the existence of Jesus. And so...

Things changed for me when I was in grade seven. My dad was a teacher at my middle school. And for some reason at that time, the state of Texas where we lived had science class as an elective. And I wanted to take choir because it sounded like a lot of fun, but my very structured, very disciplined dad didn't like the disorder.

that he saw in the choir class. So he insisted that I take the science elective. And I credit him with changing the trajectory of my life. It was in this early class. It was really good for the mid 70s in Texas. We studied all through the animal kingdom. And I had no vocabulary.

for it at the time, looking back on it. I remember distinctly my thought processes, but didn't have the vocabulary to express it. That somehow all of these animals that we were studying and dissecting and learning about seem to be connected in a deeper way, at a more basal way than just a chapter in the syllabus. And

I distinctly remember that, that there was something going on here. And I bought that thought into secondary school, again, having those same thoughts. This was Texas in the 70s, and no one was overtly teaching evolution, even though I went to public school. I went to a Christian university, which I love and still love.

Janet Ray (05:37.658)
I was a biology major. And even as a biology major, my favorite professor said to us, here's the section in the textbook about evolution. You need to know about it as a biology major. And that's all that was said. And so I kind of took these uneasy feelings into my adulthood. And I remember distinctly trying to make it all fit in my mind.

Like, could I just close one eye and squint, and maybe I can make the fossil record fit the days of Genesis, the days of creation. And when I was a young adult, my husband and I both went to hear a Christian scientist who actually is, he's still with us. He's an old earth creationist. And an event had just happened at our beloved alma mater.

And this particular old Earth creationist was talking about it. This beloved professor that I had and one other professor had become the target of a young Earth creationist apologist. And long story short, this apologist ruined the careers of one of the men, the one that was my favorite professor, absolutely ruined it. And it ended up just basically

ruining his life. He never recovered from it. And this Old Earth Creationist that we heard speak that time when we were young adults, you know, was saying it was so, you know, amazing that this man, he was a godly man, I've heard him described actually is so religiously conservative he squeaked. But for the sin of teaching his majors about evolution, he lost his career. And that was

to my husband and I both. And we both started when our kids were little, starting to research it on our own. We both had the biology backgrounds, but we started reading books and articles and listening to Christians who were acceptors of evolution. And you know, the rest is just history. 15, 20 years or so ago, I started writing, speaking about it a little bit.

Janet Ray (08:07.27)
Started a blog the blog turned into my first book and then here we are with the second one So that's kind of my story in a nutshell of how I got to work. Oh also I am I actually teach biology I've taught at a large public University here in Texas for this is my 18th year and so, you know as part of that, you know I can't overtly teach about my religion, but

I try to always make it perfectly clear, as clear as I can in this public university, that I am a person of faith, that I completely accept the science evidence for the age of the earth, and I completely accept the theory of evolution as it's taught, as the foundation of all modern biology. And you know, I try to...

give my students examples of other people who don't have a problem with that.

Will (09:11.505)
Yeah, so the title of this podcast, Spiritual Misfits, I guess it refers to people that for one reason or another have found themselves on the kind of fringe or edge spaces of faith and spirituality.

Janet Ray (09:22.63)
Uh-huh.

Will (09:24.737)
In a way, it seems wild to me that just for accepting science, that might be the kind of thing in your context that makes you on that fringe spot. But have you felt at times like there's a spiritual misfittery in your context around where you sit within science and evangelicalism?

Janet Ray (09:41.45)
Oh, absolutely. And some people would say, you know, it was the slippery slope. Because once I understood that Genesis could be read in a different way than I had always been taught to read it. And by the way, old earth was my gateway drug for that. That was what I first accepted. But when you understand that the Bible, in this particular case, Genesis,

document written in an ancient context to an ancient people, it begins to change the way you read the entire Bible, you know, particularly the Old Testament. And so, yes, I have evolved quite a bit. And, you know, I wrote about this recently on my blog that

My husband's a dermatologist and I can attest that there is no magic cream that can give you thick skin. But I must say that most of the critiques that I've gotten publicly over my books or being a person who still claims to be a follower of Jesus have been so over the top, it's really entertaining. But you know.

Will (11:01.297)
Hmm.

Janet Ray (11:03.758)
I know that I'm an outlier, particularly in the quarters of evangelicalism, that I still find myself, even though I know I'm an outlier. I'm probably such an outlier at my current church, you should probably seat me in the parking lot. But I, you know, I'm still, you know, committed to the story of Jesus.

and I still love a community of Jesus followers. And so I do, I absolutely live in that intellectual discontent at many times.

Will (11:47.662)
So, people might be interested to hear a bit about the history of how this kind of antagonism developed between evangelical Christianity in particular.

and this kind of mistrust of science and denial of science. What you trace some of that history in the book, do you wanna kind of talk about some of the seeds of where that came from and how it's evolved over time?

Janet Ray (12:09.838)
Well, absolutely. Probably the conventional wisdom is that it all started back with Galileo in the 16th century. But that was important, and that was interesting. But that particular event did not come close to sending the shockwaves through the Christian world, and more recently, through the evangelical Christian world, as did the Scopes trial in the 1920s.

in the United States. You know, just briefly, the Scopes trial was held in Tennessee, in Dayton, Tennessee, because Tennessee had recently passed a law forbidding not the teaching of evolution, but the teaching of human evolution. And so the small town decided to make this big test case out of it. The ACLU got involved.

and the rest is just history. And it was interesting to me as I was writing the second book that Darwin had been dead for decades at this point. And he had lived and worked and written decades before. So I wondered why in the 1920s did this all of a sudden become this critical.

issue because Darwin's work had been around for quite some time. But what I found was, up until the early 1920s, evolution had pretty much been the precinct of scientists. You know, pastors really weren't talking about it from the pulpit. And so when it became an issue, there was a factor

that was going on about the same time. And I understood that this was like a perfect storm. About the same time that Darwin's work was becoming more well-known, there were 19th century theologians who were writing in what became to be known as historical biblical criticism, where these theologians were looking at the Bible, again, with ancient eyes,

Janet Ray (14:34.862)
context. And so we have this perfect storm in the 1920s of you've got these godless scientists telling us that we came from monkeys and then we have these theologians who were telling us that the Bible wasn't the literal actual words coming from the mouth of God. And so it all kind of came to a crest, you know, in Little Dayton, Tennessee.

And I found it interesting that no scientist testified at this pivotal trial. In fact, there was no science evidence even presented in this trial. The star of the show was a man named William Jennings Bryan. He was the prosecuting and ended up being the victorious attorney in the Scopes trial. Bryan wasn't a scientist.

but he was a well-known orator, very popular in that day. In fact, he was called the great commoner. And if Brian was alive today, you know, he would have his own talk show on some conservative, you know, conservative cable station. That's how popular he was. And he spoke the language of the people. His talking points can, I think, can be boiled down to three.

Brian said that evolution is not supported by any science. In fact, Brian would testify that there's no evidence for it and that scientists don't even accept it. Brian would say that evolution undermines religion and morality. He actually called people who support evolution enemies of the Bible.

Brian said that responsible citizens wouldn't allow something like evolution to be taught in schools. He said that the anti-evolution crowd was actually in the minority, and therefore the rights are being violated by teaching this in our schools. And so, in my opinion, it can all be traced back to Brian's outline.

Janet Ray (16:55.862)
Because when we see 21st century science denial, Brian's outline is just unmistakable. It's like we have these argument fossils that are coming to light with modern science. Science denial today still looks like the science evidence is sketchy. It's either misrepresented or it's just simply wrong.

We hear that science threatens belief and faith. And then more and more we hear about how science comes at a cost to personal rights and freedoms. Now, the modern young Earth creationist movement really didn't take hold until the 1970s.

with the publication of a book that was called The Genesis Flood. And it's here that I apologize. It was an American book, but it is this version of creationism that the US exported from our country to parts of Europe, Canada, and Australia. And so it is the modern young Earth creationist movement.

is traced back to the publication of this book in the 1970s. And interestingly, those who want to see Christianity privileged in the public sphere, here in the U.S., they're more increasingly being called Christian nationalists. I was...

surprised but not surprised to find out in writing this newest book that Christian nationalists and some of the same events and players in this movement are some of the events and players that have played out in 20th and 21st century science denial.

Will (19:13.329)
It is some really interesting but really disturbing stuff to hear about. You write really well in the book about the inherent kind of hypocrisy in the approach that many of these people have towards science. So

Janet Ray (19:16.977)
Yeah.

Janet Ray (19:20.61)
Thank you.

Will (19:27.929)
One of the things you write is, we aren't denying the science of gravity or the water cycle phenomena or photosynthesis. Evangelicals are traveling by plane and car using smartphones and taking ibuprofen for headaches. Evolution, climate science and COVID appear to be some sort of denialist package deal. So there's some serious mental gymnastics and kind of dancing around what we accept and what we reject going on here. But.

Janet Ray (19:34.678)
No, no.

Will (19:55.709)
It can feel like, I guess, young earth creationism, to me, it kind of feels largely silly. At this point, it feels like you've just got your head in the sand, but kind of harmless in a way. Now, I don't think it is harmless because there's some underlying thing there that supports the same foundation that would reject climate change science or, you know, vaccine science. How are they connected and what has been some of the manifestations of that?

Janet Ray (20:02.54)
Yep.

Will (20:24.57)
you know, in the last few years.

Janet Ray (20:29.426)
In fighting evolution for so long, Christians, particularly those in the evangelical precincts, developed an entire way of talking about science and talking about scientists. For example, over the years of fighting evolution, scientists who weren't

creationists, specifically young Earth creationists, were always described as secular scientists. And it wasn't said in a benign way. It was always used as a kind of derogatory byword. Even if the scientists were people of deep faith, if they weren't young Earth creationists, they were consistently described as secular scientists, or that the science was

secular science. And when evidence for evolution was discussed, it was peppered with terms like supposedly or allegedly. And without fail, those who would be describing evolution evidence would always affect a mocking or a sarcastic tone. This, I just found this in going back and looking at

just across the board. And so in fighting evolution, we called the credibility of scientists and as a result, science in general into question. And so then fast forward after decades of this to a COVID pandemic. And some of the ugliest attacks on scientists were launched by evangelical Christians.

You know, it's amazing because scientists used to be our heroes. You know, science at one point was respected. In the 1950s, with the development of the polio vaccine and the race to space, scientists were respected. And science was considered a worthwhile pursuit. But no evidence for evolution.

Janet Ray (22:54.494)
in an age of a serious, tragic worldwide pandemic, began to look like, you know, the COVID numbers are overblown. There's no evidence that these precautions do any good. And you know, the scientists are just all in on it. And when we discuss evidence for climate science, again, there's no evidence for it. I read this just last week.

You know, climate warming used to be what we just called summer, you know, or winter or whatever season it happens to be. Over the years, we made up, we said that evolution was something that scientists simply made up, simply created because scientists didn't want to be accountable to God. And then a COVID pandemic, this looked like,

You know, if you wore a mask or you respected social distancing, or you said that you shouldn't meet in person at your church, you were accused of not having faith over fear, that you were jettisoned belief in God. And still, if you advocate for solutions to climate warming,

You aren't trusting the Bible. You aren't believing God's promise about the rainbow and seasons and things like that. And then very importantly, something that you just touched on that I found to be a fascinating phenomenon is that for decades, there have been court battles and school board battles at both the state and local levels for the right to teach.

alternatives to evolution theory. When creationism science was ruled unconstitutional, we reworked it all and we came back with intelligent design creationism. And now that has been ruled against what we see currently, in fact, in my own home state of Texas just a few months ago, this just a few months ago in the year of our Lord 2023.

Janet Ray (25:14.162)
our state introduced bills to teach strengths and weaknesses of science theories. And like you said, no one is advocating that we teach the strengths and weaknesses of photosynthesis. Nobody is advocating that we put a sticker on the outside of our textbooks that say

Will (25:27.159)
Wow.

Janet Ray (25:42.382)
Gravity is not a fact. Gravity is just a theory. But yet we still have school districts who place stickers just like that, but substitute evolution for gravity. And you see that we are still fighting the battle for our rights and privileges. And we've learned to do that over the decades of fighting evolution. So what we see

today is that the pandemic was all about rights. Churches went to court, used tithe money, contribution money to pay attorneys, went to court to demand the right to meet in person and not wear a mask. And churches all over the United States, in our country I know at least, were baptizing

this fight for rights and freedoms under the banner of constitutional rights. Constitutional rights trumped all. And so, you know, what is it, as you said, what is it about evolution and pandemic and climate science denial that seems to be part of this denial, you know, playbook, this denial outline, so to speak?

Well, it goes back, I think, to Brian's initial outline that evolution science is not supported, it goes against religion, it offends our rights and privileges, and we use those arguments for decades against evolution. So when climate science becomes a thing and a worldwide pandemic becomes a thing,

We have our talking points in place. But I think maybe above all, the biggest deal may be that these areas, evolution, climate science, pandemic science, have all been portrayed, especially in evangelical quarters, as fronts in a culture war. They've been made the source of all evil.

Janet Ray (28:07.974)
in our cultures, in our societies, so that when we are fighting against evolution, and we're fighting against pandemic regulation, and we're fighting against doing any kind of addressing or solutions with climate science, we've convinced ourselves that this is our right, confirmed by

Janet Ray (28:37.722)
are fighting for God and we are fighting against culture and standing up for God.

Will (28:50.497)
It's so disturbing. And there are elements of this part of the conversation that I think are more relevant to an Australian context. I think the general Australian population, including most people in churches, I mean, I don't have hard stats around this, but just my sense is that the general Australian population are just very accepting of evolutionary science. And we're not going to have anywhere near as much battle for the school curriculum.

as there might be in the States. However, we've certainly seen over the last few years our fair share of, I guess, resistance to genuine conversations around the climate science, as well as a mistrust in the authorities in terms of the vaccine and the COVID precautions.

One of the things you point out I found so interesting is that usually the same people who are kind of rejecting mainstream authority in science will still substitute, you know, someone who is a scientist or a doctor who's putting letters before their name, they're just in the outlier position. And so there's this thing going on where people are still intuitively acknowledging that there's something about science that is supposed to be an authority.

It's just that most of them are trying to trick us. And we've got this one kind of enlightened scientist who conveniently agrees with our biases. Um, this, this is so interesting. And you've got, you know, you're right, even in the case of conflicting positions, all sides claim the authority of science in the crossfire of conflicting positions. How do we sort it all out? It's just such a big question, you know, so much of what you've talked about, it's about the erosion of trust in authorities that are based in

Janet Ray (30:10.052)
Uh huh.

Janet Ray (30:17.482)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (30:26.206)
Uh-huh.

Janet Ray (30:36.045)
Uh huh.

Will (30:38.373)
evidence rather than emotion. Um, but how do we engage when people are, you know, just picking and choosing, um, who their experts are and where their authorities are, and when there is that erosion of trust, how are we supposed to navigate that?

Janet Ray (30:39.97)
Huh.

Janet Ray (30:54.23)
Well, that's hard. That's tough. Because I think one of the greatest harms that have come out of religious science denial is that it has hamstrung us. It has hamstrung us in looking at the natural world and interpreting

what we see. And you're exactly right, you know, even people who are science deniers, if they approach evolution or the pandemic or climate and they say, you know, it's just all baloney, there's no evidence for it. Anyone who says that is not going to say, I don't believe in science.

It's just that there is a misunderstanding of what constitutes science. And I don't know if you wanna get into this right now at this point, but one of the things that I find particularly troubling is that fighting evolution for so long has changed the way we approach and understand science.

I actually lectured on this the first day of the semester in my class yesterday, in my class at the university. And it has to do with science literacy and not just memorizing facts, but actually understanding how science works. And our religious science denial has actually impacted and has damaged our

science literacy, how we actually understand science. And this was one of the most eye-opening things I talked about in the book. Eye-opening to me was a fairly recent research study that was done in high school biology teachers in the United States. And you know, unfortunately, this survey found that 13 percent of

Janet Ray (33:17.338)
Secondary biology teachers overtly teach creationism in the public classroom. But what was more concerning to me was the 60% of secondary teachers who do not take a strong stand one way or the other. And it's because they don't want the phone calls to the school. They don't want to face the parents or the administration.

with upset students or upset parents. And so what these cautious 60% of the teachers do, who just don't take a strong stand one way or the other, you know, they may just teach the bare minimum, or they may skip the human part. But I think the worst damage is done by teachers who say, now you don't have to believe evolution.

but you need to learn it for the test. And what that has told generations of students is that evolution is up to you. Evolution is not a well-supported science theory, but it's a matter of preference or opinion. And so what this looks like now is that science is a matter of beliefs

and values and not evidence. So when we have a worldwide pandemic, this looks like my opinion is no better than your opinion about masking or distancing, social distancing, or the efficacy of the vaccination. I have my experts.

And you have my experts. And I don't know if you heard this in Australia, but a common phrase that we heard time and time again in the US over two and a half, three years was I did my own research. As, yeah, you know, as yes, you know, as if that, you know, I could run my own peer reviewed

Will (35:26.352)
Oh yeah, definitely heard that.

Janet Ray (35:35.426)
controlled double-blind studies and come up with an opinion that is just as substantial as those who were doing those things. And so I think we have damaged our science literately. We've changed the very definition of a fact that there's, you know, facts are just a matter of opinions and values.

You know, I think that we have damaged our science literacy by just approaching a science with foregone conclusions. You know, as I told my class yesterday, scientists approach a new study by trying to disprove their hypotheses. But we hear creationists like Todd Wood or Georgia Purdom who will say things like,

My beliefs are not based on the evidence, they're based on the Bible. Todd Wood is more intellectually honest. He will say that evolution is not a theory in crisis, but the reason he rejects the evidence is not because of a science reason that he rejects it for a religious reason. And so we have this idea then that we can approach

any new science evidence with foregone conclusions. That that's a legitimate way to approach science. I also just saw this on a post that said, if you will find evidence for a literal global worldwide flood, if you just look for it, you will find this evidence for a global flood if you just look for it. But that's not.

how scientists work. They don't have a preconceived notion and then go look for evidence to back themselves up. And then I would just like to say one more thing because you also brought this up is that fighting evolution for so long has made us unable to differentiate between what is an authority and who is...

Janet Ray (38:00.242)
an expert. We can't differentiate between authority and expertise. You know, there's a very well-made Young Earth Creationist video called, documentary called, Is Genesis History? And I've always said it's a beautifully made film. It's very pretty. The interviews are done well. And interestingly,

They don't include Ken Ham or any references to him. It's almost like they were trying to distance themselves from him, except that they are bringing the same message. But anyway, all the people that are interviewed in this film have lots of letters behind their name. They have jobs either in science or adjacent to science. So they have all of the trappings.

of authority, but what they are not are experts in the fields to which they are speaking. And if they do work in a field adjacent, they are completely outside the consensus of the field in which they are working. And so in the pandemic, that's what it looked like was this. And I don't know if this video made it.

to the other hemisphere or not, but there was a group of doctors that called themselves America's Frontline Doctors. And they had a very momentous 15 minutes of fame. They made a video. They stood on the steps of the United States Supreme Court, wearing white jackets with their names and their doctor title on it.

and they had a press conference in which they promoted non-accepted and alternative cures for COVID. This was in the mid-2020 before we even were terribly close to a vaccine, but we knew that some of these alternative treatments

Janet Ray (40:21.238)
did not work. We have enough evidence for that. Yet they stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and said that they were curing their patients with hydroxychloroquine and things like this. Now, one intrepid soul dared to ask them had they published their data, you know, to which they sputtered and said, oh, no, us scientists don't always need to publish their data, which even my

Biology 101 students know is a red flag. If you say you don't need to put your data out for peer review. And so that video was taken down fairly quickly, but not before it went viral and got millions of views. And other videos like one called the Plan-Demic got lots of views because these people present with the trappings of authority.

But what we cannot distinguish after decades of fighting science is the difference between an authority and an expert.

Will (41:30.369)
Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that those videos made it here, and I know there was plenty of similar content going around. And

I think it also highlights that the other part of the equation these days is the way that information gets proliferated on social media. And exactly what you're saying, you know, social media isn't, the algorithm isn't prioritizing authority, it's prioritizing what catches, what gets a reaction. And often what gets a reaction is, oh my goodness, this is an underdog. They must be, they must somehow be better.

Janet Ray (41:56.938)
No. Mm-mm.

Right, right, or right.

Yes, must be correct. They are a voice in the wilderness. Yes, yes. But they will speak as an authority, but what we don't have is expertise that is getting that same kind of traction.

Will (42:13.753)
Yes, and I-

Will (42:21.783)
Mmm.

Yes, I really appreciated you wrote the consensus position is not the final word in the matter, but it is definitely the starting point. And I think that's so, you know, there's really healthy acknowledgement that science is always constantly seeking, like you said, to prove itself wrong, to be open to intellectual scrutiny. That is the scientific method. But we have to start our conversations from where the consensus is the consensus.

Janet Ray (42:30.274)
Mm-hmm.

Yes, yes.

Janet Ray (42:41.858)
Right.

Right.

Janet Ray (42:50.914)
Exactly.

Will (42:52.217)
if over time, but just because somebody is an outlier voice or voice in the wilderness, they do not get extra, you know, priority for their ideas. And that's probably a trend that has, you know, shifted in a concerning way.

Janet Ray (42:56.375)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (43:00.898)
Bye.

Will (43:07.993)
Yeah. How, you know, these people, again, I'd say that the majority of listeners to this podcast are right on board with this conversation, but probably no people in their networks, in their circles, maybe in churches that they've left or maybe in families that they're a part of who have some of these attitudes. And we know that engaging people who are really deep in that kind of place of mistrust and denial, it can be very difficult. It can be very fraught.

Um, what does it look like to engage in healthy, educative ways? And I guess this is really what a lot of your work is about, you know, in conversations that help people, um, maybe to, to regain some of that trust in, in where the expertise lies. Um, how do we actually engage in conversations with people who may be, um, deep in the denial and mistrust space for religious reasons?

Janet Ray (44:02.99)
I love this question, Will. That may be my favorite question so far. If I had just the biggest soap box that I could stand on and speak to people of faith.

think I would begin with this, you know, science is going to move on with or without us. Science marches on. Modern science is not going to stop because a subset of people are denying it. So we can deny the science

We can pretend it's all a big conspiracy. We can politicize it. We can put our head in the sand, so to speak. Or we can speak as people of faith in a modern world. And we can speak to modern science. And I don't mean speak to it with preconceived

notions because you know a caveat here there are many people of faith who think they are speaking to science you know the term Concordism is a big term that's bandied about in my field and to approach science with a concordist Attitude is to try to find the science modern science

in a literal biblical text. And that looks like things on the easy end, like saying the Big Bang is what is meant by in the beginning, God created. That's a simple way of it. But it gets more complex, and this is a current, actually a current view that's making a lot of headlines lately, is things like accepting an old earth.

Janet Ray (46:13.89)
but insisting on a literal Adam and Eve and doing all sorts of mental and mathematical gymnastics to make Adam and Eve be the literal genomic ancestors of all of humanity. And that usually looks something like, well, at some point, God swooped down in human evolution and specially created two hominins.

plunk them down in a garden and everybody else did not contribute, but these two hominids were diverse and they became the literal genomic ancestors of all humanity. So we think we're speaking to science, but in reality all we're doing is we're doing these mental and intellectual gymnastics to try to force it all.

in there. Instead of letting the Bible be the ancient book it is and let it speak with the ancient book, ancient voice that it has, and then try to determine what does that mean for 21st century believers, we try to force it all in together. And when we do things like that, what we've done is we've taken ourselves completely out.

of the broader conversation. We've completely made ourselves as people of faith a non-issue when we design, when we deny science. You know, at the very basics, who's going to believe us when we talk about things that require faith, like the incarnation or resurrection, things that can't be proven, but we feel like we have reasonable...

basis to believe these things, but there's still faith. Who's going to believe us or listen to us on things that require faith if we deny empirical, testable evidence for science? You know, we've take ourselves completely out of the conversation. And you know, conventional Christian wisdom has said for decades now that accepting evolution

Janet Ray (48:39.77)
is a one-way ticket to atheism, one-way ticket, but that is not what research is telling us. To the contrary, research is telling us that it is the denial of science that is shipwrecking the faith of many people, both young adults, middle-aged adults, older adults. And so if I could say,

anything, you know, to this, to people who are in this conundrum, you know, you can be a person of faith and embrace modern science without fear. You know, we can speak to science instead of denying it. When we deny it, we just say we have nothing to contribute. We may believe that we're sticking up for God.

But the bottom line is we're just making ourselves irrelevant. And we need religious ethics now more than ever to know how to best act in light of both current scientific evidence and love for our neighbor and protection of the vulnerable. And so I've given a lot of thought to what that might.

Will (50:03.557)
Mm hmm.

Janet Ray (50:08.562)
look like and it's living in another book that's back in the corners of my mind that I've that is just percolating there but I thought about what that looks like you know it to me it looks like okay evolution is a fact uh humans share common ancestry with all life now given that fact how do we then behave and rise above our natural

evolutionary instincts to put ourselves first. How do we rise above that to love our neighbor, to protect the most vulnerable? How do we as creatures represent God in the world as image bearers? And how beautiful is that, that we can be creatures connected to all life on this planet, but we are given the task

Will (50:42.789)
Mm.

Janet Ray (51:05.374)
of being the actions of God in this world. And that is not demeaning at all. It gives us a challenge to rise to. It also looks like problem solving. You know, how can churches serve when the deadly pandemic shuts down our churches? What can we do instead?

Will (51:13.904)
Yeah.

Janet Ray (51:30.474)
Or do we have to spend church money fighting for our rights to do what we want to do? We can lead as people of faith, but at the very least, we can just not get in the way. It's disturbing to me. Evangelicals are a huge demographic here in the States at least. How long was the COVID?

Will (51:56.647)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (51:59.586)
pandemic extended because evangelicals refused to mask, refused to get vaccinated, we're denigrating toward all the epidemiologists and scientists. Can we have honest discussions about climate warming? Can we have honest discussions about, are we prioritizing our own interests? Are we rejecting the science or are we rejecting the solutions?

to climate science because it's going to impact our lives, our lifestyles, our rights, what we do, honest discussions. Science can tell you how to do something, but it can't tell you whether or not you should do it. And everything in modern science is not cut and dried. Modern genetics is moving forward at a dizzying pace.

We need people of ethics, of all kinds of ethics, speaking to these areas of modern science and not just completely taking ourselves out of the conversations by just denying it all.

Will (53:14.86)
Yeah, it seems like there is almost a similar mistake made by kind of, you know, strident new atheist kind of crusaders as there is evangelicals, which is to put all authority in one

Janet Ray (53:25.474)
Mm-hmm.

Will (53:33.417)
practice or one field. So for some scientists, it's like solar science in the way that there's solar scriptura, you know, this idea that the Bible is our sole authority and nothing else counts. For some people, it's the same thing where it's like science is the only thing and nothing else counts. And what I'm hearing here is that actually, seeing these things in antagonism with each other is so much of the problem. And if we could have an actual conversation between science, ethics,

Janet Ray (53:39.31)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (54:02.826)
Mm-hmm. Yes.

Will (54:03.853)
there's a gift in the coming together of those things, not to mention the creative arts, you know, other kind of amazing human gifts that I think are gifts from the creator, that we would be that we would have the capacity to engage philosophically, as well as with, you know, evidence. And I wonder if everything shifts when people stop seeing science as a threat to spirituality.

Janet Ray (54:16.782)
Exactly.

Janet Ray (54:22.276)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (54:28.8)
Mm-hmm.

Will (54:30.789)
you know, waiting for what's that scientific evidence that's going to just destroy our foundation as people of faith, stop seeing it as a threat and actually say, what does it look like to receive the gifts of science as well as any other field, to receive the gifts of modern psychology and integrate and weave them with the ancient faith that we've inherited. How does it, you know, for you Janet, as a person who's still a person of faith,

Janet Ray (54:31.47)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (54:38.008)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (54:41.674)
Right, right, right.

Janet Ray (54:52.346)
Uh huh.

Will (54:58.105)
as well as someone who's obviously passionate about science, what does it look like in a positive sense? Not just a negative kind of avoidance, but what does it look like to enliven your spirituality and your faith, you know, when you receive the gifts of science? What might that look like for people to integrate those areas of life? Because I think that's what most people listening to this podcast are searching for. They no longer want a life of disintegration. And for some people that feels like, well, I have to jettison the faith because it feels so irrelevant.

Janet Ray (55:19.053)
Mm-hmm.

Janet Ray (55:27.718)
Mm-hmm.

Will (55:28.017)
But what does it look like to integrate lives that receive all the gifts of the modern world while remaining in touch with ancient tradition?

Janet Ray (55:38.222)
Well, and I think I touched on this in the book. I love what Charles Taylor in his book, A Secular Age, has to say about a life of faith in a modern world. And Taylor makes the point that not too many years ago, you could not be a public person and publicly espouse that you were not a person.

of faith. You know, you may be an atheist, you may be an agnostic, but if you were going to run for public office or be the head of a large company or be a teacher or a leader in a school, you could not publicly acknowledge that you had no faith. But Taylor says that's no longer the situation. It is completely possible to be a leader in modern society.

without espousing any religious belief. And like I said, people of faith are taking themselves completely out of the conversation. And that's not going to be missed, quite frankly, if what Taylor says seems to be true. And I really do see that.

in our culture now in the 21st century that, you know, no longer do you have to be, you know, a Bible carrying Christian in the United States to be elected to any office or to be a leader. And so, you know, it's going to, like I said, it's going to carry on, you know, with or without us. And it may just go on just quite.

wonderfully, you know, without our voice. But is that going to be the best thing?

Will (57:44.494)
Hmm. That's a good question. And I think that there is, I guess.

when I see people, you know, these days I'm more likely, I used to be the person who would see the Christian sports person or the Christian celebrity, the Christian whatever, and kind of, yes, they're on our team. Nowadays, I find myself more, I find myself thinking more, oh, I'm immediately skeptical because I'm afraid they might wield, they might wield that religious view for harm.

Janet Ray (58:03.232)
Yeah!

Janet Ray (58:09.786)
Right. Yep.

Will (58:16.085)
Um, but what I, what I love to see and what energizes me is people doing like what you're doing, Janet, and genuinely bringing together those things in a way that it's not a bait and switch. It's not, I'm talking about science so that I can trick you into believing, uh, my religious ideas. It's actually about, well, how do I make sense of life in the modern world as a human who, who has an open heart and open mind and is connected to the larger conversation and so much of what I'm hearing here is we can either

Janet Ray (58:27.586)
Right, right, right.

Yep.

Will (58:42.853)
make ourselves completely irrelevant from the largest conversations of the day, or we can be an important, not superior, but we can be an important voice in the marketplace of ideas, and we can be part of solutions. And I think, you know, to me, that's a really obvious one where I think about if we could take the science around climate, and then we could take theology around the goodness of God's creation, and around responsible stewardship and love of neighbor, like you said.

Janet Ray (58:46.935)
Right.

Janet Ray (59:09.976)
Mm-hmm.

Will (59:12.309)
I actually think that's a powerful place for solution. You know, think about awe and wonder and honouring the creation. Yeah. Well, Janet, I want to thank you so much for your time in our conversation today. And I'd love to give you the last word, your thoughts, particularly for, I guess, the audience of this show are largely.

Janet Ray (59:14.346)
Absolutely, absolutely.

Will (59:37.469)
post evangelical or have moved out of those spaces, but are still trying to find a spirituality, maybe a Christianity that does make sense of the modern world. And I'd say that many of us, we want to engage well with our histories and with our relationships where we've come from. So to that group of people, what would be the kind of final thought or final couple of thoughts that you'd want to leave ringing in people's minds?

Janet Ray (01:00:04.686)
Well, I guess I have two. One coming from the biology professor in me. I would say, think about science literacy. Pseudoscience is so popular because pseudoscience ideas give us certainty. This supplement will heal you.

This study proves absolutely that ivermectin is a cure for COVID. Pseudoscience gives us certainty on so many levels, but actual science is never done. And that's hard for a lot of us to get our heads around. You know, the New York science writer, Carl Zimmer, says that science reports are at best

status reports. It's the best evidence that we have at the time. And so just to, you know, within our own minds, become comfortable with the idea that science is not going to give us the certainty that pseudoscience is going to give us, you know.

Can scientists guarantee you that the COVID vaccine, is it going to turn you into a zombie in 20 years? No, scientists can't guarantee that. But scientists can say there's absolutely no evidence that it will. And so science is never done. Pseudoscience gives certainty. And the one last thing that I would say is that

You know, we need to have this understanding of this science denial package deal, so to speak. You know, evolution, climate science, COVID science, and who knows what's going to join their ranks in the next decade or so. What other field of science is going to become the target of religious science denial?

Janet Ray (01:02:19.618)
But I think that the common denominator with evolution and COVID and climate science is that people of faith have seen these as fronts in a culture war. And we're all about taking that culture back for God. But in reality, our culture war, our culture wars,

aren't moving people closer to a faith. You know, instead our culture wars are putting our health at risk, they're putting our planet at risk, and they are wrecking the faith of so many people that we don't want that to happen to.

Will (01:03:18.193)
Great, great final thoughts, Janet. And I will just say really, I think interesting for people to maybe continue to reflect on the thing you said about pseudoscience versus kind of science could be exactly the same statement. We want to apply to Christianity that it cannot like actually give you certainty and it's an unfinished project that continues. So I think applying that attitude to both might be a really helpful way forward. Thank you so much, Janet.

Janet Ray (01:03:40.118)
Absolutely preach it.

Janet Ray (01:03:46.034)
Yes, definitely. Thank you, Will. It's been great. I've loved it.

Will (01:03:51.253)
And last thing, this will be released before the book because the book comes out in October. How can people just engage with your work between now and then, and how can they be kind of ready for when the book releases and they wanna order it?

Janet Ray (01:03:55.619)
Okay.

Janet Ray (01:04:04.666)
I have a couple of places. I have an author page on Facebook. It's just a Janet K. Ray author. And you could probably just look me up on Facebook. I also have a blog, janetkray.com. And I write just interesting science and faith and science observations, a lot of posts. I usually put them both on my author page and on my blog.

And so you can find me, you know, definitely all the updates on the book coming out will definitely be on my Facebook author page and updates on the blog as well.

Will (01:04:49.081)
Wonderful. And when you've written that next book that's in your head, let me know and we'll have a chat again then. All right

Janet Ray (01:04:53.41)
I will. I will. Looking forward to it. Now you put the pressure on. I've got to get it done.

Will (01:05:00.249)
Yeah, absolutely.