Sticking the the core paragraphs...
My question is how do you sort through science and religion?
Just let each be its own thing and separate from the other? Have you considered that?
I assume that Schroeder taught science at MIT and Harvard.
That would seem likely. Specifically, physics, nuclear physics, perhaps nuclear engineering, maybe environmental radioactivity.
So does that mean he does not talk about religion in the classroom?
Probably not. Why would he? There is nothing in any of those courses or subjects that require a discussion of religion.
Does he just stick to the textbook and teach that?
Generally, though many courses are custom made and don't have a textbook. (Most college textbooks are written by professors teaching those classes. I had 3 university classes using the draft of the professor's textbook. Other classes had no textbook at all.)
Then if you want to know about his religion you have to read one of his books?
Why would any student care about the religion of their professors?
On to paragraph 2:
We know that atheism is rampant at our universities.
Do we? Does it matter?
Do they follow the same standard or is there a double standard?
What "double standard"? Are you implying that atheist professors teach atheism? If so you are wrong. No professor ever even mentioned they were atheists in any classroom I was in. (Who knows, maybe none of them were actually atheists.) It wasn't relevant to the class.
Because science in and of itself is agnostic.
There are many ways to use the word "agnostic", but 'round here it usually refers to the "faith position" of individuals. (It is one of the options you can choose in your profile. I didn't not choose that one.)
Have you heard about "non-overlapping magesteria"? The notion that science and religion have different realms of competence that are separate? It was coined by some scientist called SJ Gould who tried to avoid conflict between scientific facts and religious beliefs.
As I said before: Punctuated equilibrium was developed by
Niles Eldredge and
Stephen Jay Gould.
I don't recall you saying this before, but yes that is true.
Gould an atheist died early from cancer.
Not sure what his death has to do with any of this, but ...
Eldredge agnostic is still alive and may still even be working.
You do know that there is not significant difference between "agnostics" and "atheists", right? I tend to think of them as "non-believers who identify as atheists" and "non-believers who identify as agnostics". "Agnostic" isn't an intermediate, half-yes-half-no, position between belief and non-belief.
I think cancer is a result of people being in conflict with themselves and not able to work out that conflict.
First, cancer isn't caused by "self-conflict". It is the out of control division of cells usually triggered by some sort of genetic damage to the cells.
Second, it is a rather nasty and vile thing to imply that Gould died of cancer because he was an atheist, or that atheists are in "self conflict"