Marching Against Stereotypes in the March For Science: My Story

On Saturday, April 22, 2017, I did something I’d never done before: I participated in a political march.

Weather forecasters promised a cold and rainy day for those of us planning to gather in Washington DC for the March for Science. Nevertheless, despite my back and knee issues, I stood, walked, and marched for 10 hours in near-constant rainfall with only an umbrella and a small grove of trees for shelter.

And I didn’t care. I was marching for science.

To be more accurate, I was marching in support of an endeavor that German astronomer Johannes Kepler allegedly called, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”  

I was marching because the more I learn and understand about His awesome creation, the closer to God I feel.

For me, science is a form of liturgy. When I marched for science that Saturday—to paraphrase Olympian Eric Liddell—I felt God’s pleasure.

The week after President Trump’s inauguration, a postdoctoral research fellow friend informed me about the March for Science. I dismissed the idea because I didn’t want to involve myself in what I initially thought would be a partisan event, but I remained intrigued as discussion of the march increased on social media.

Eventually, I investigated the March for Science organizers’ website, which stated explicitly their intent to conduct a non-partisan event.  I also took notice that a number of non-partisan scientific organizations, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the American Geophysical Union (AGU), had partnered with the organizers.  The March was certainly taking on a different flavor.  

Of course, I knew that individual participants could very well hijack the event regardless of the organizers’ intent.  Nevertheless, I committed myself to participating to show my support for scientists and their important work.  Perhaps I could defy people’s expectations that I, as a conservative-leaning individual, didn’t care about science or its role in public policy.  

Five days before the march, I received an interview request from Christianity Today’s science editor. During the interview, she asked me why I planned to participate in the March for Science amidst continued charges that the march was both partisan and anti-religious. That really got me thinking:

What should I do if I found myself in the midst of a roiling mass of mad scientists and even crazier science supporters carrying anti-God signs and lobbing flaming beakers at the White House?

In the end, I could only trust my own motivations, place a measure of faith in the organizers, and be prepared to bail out should things get overly partisan or anti-religious.

My March Experience

Just as I hoped, the March didn’t turn overly partisan, and it was an answer to prayer that it also didn’t become a platform for atheism or philosophical naturalism, against the March organizers’ explicit statement that scientists and supporters of science from all belief systems were welcome to participate.

As Providence would have it, I engaged with a number of scientists at the march who were comfortable discussing science within the context of their faith. During the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)’s pre-March rally, I was also heartened to hear the head of the the organization’s Education and Human Resources Program, Dr. Shirley Malcom (see video beginning at 28:33), calling for “people of faith and hope” to march.

I appreciated that only several of the official speakers made blatantly partisan comments. Most presenters on the main stage were respectful of the current Administration, expressing their valid political views while behaving in a non-partisan manner, telling their personal stories, and explaining how science works and why it’s relevant to our everyday lives.

The presenters urged our Congressional representatives to fund scientific endeavor with our hard-earned tax dollars, producing a rate of return that would exceed what is spent in terms of quality of life. They encouraged us as private citizens to donate our money and volunteer our time to scientific organizations conducting important research.

I also noted that only 10-20% of marchers’ signs I saw were explicitly anti-Trump, and not one was anti-religious.  Most were clever and thoughtful.

What surprised me the most about the March for Science was the organizers’ decision to end its pre-march program by projecting a tweet from Pope Francis onto the main stage’s giant video screen—a plea to God that he would bring healing to our lives.  I couldn’t have asked for a better ending to Washington DC’s March for Science than a prayer to the One who makes science—and love for our world and one another—possible.