Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Figures
Discussion and Summary
Summary
Commentary on Focus Questions for the Symposium
Course Specific Questions
References

Science and Religion in the Context of Science Education

Profile image of Adam JohnstonAdam Johnston

physics.weber.edu

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This paper explores the relationship between science and religion within the framework of science education, emphasizing students' conceptual ecologies and their understanding of both epistemological systems. It addresses the extent to which science and religion can be seen as compatible or incompatible, discusses how these views affect science education, and proposes a balanced perspective that recognizes the limitations of scientific inquiry when it comes to supernatural phenomena.

Figures (2)
Course specific questions:
Course specific questions:

Related papers

Student Thinking When Studying Science-And-Religion
Tonie Stolberg

Zygon(r), 2009

Thirteen theology/religious studies students were interviewed while studying science-and-religion courses at four different institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom. They held a range of views about science and religion, their respective ontological status, and their science-and-religion studies. The interviews reveal that it may be possible to assign individuals to one of four different religioscientific conceptual frameworks and, furthermore, to relate differences in their approach when studying science-and-religion to their conceptual framework. The implications for course designers are discussed, including how the frameworks may enable teachers to be more aware of the range of possible reactions students may have while being introduced to science-and-religion topics.

View PDFchevron_right
Enhancing Teachers’ Awareness About Relations Between Science and Religion
Cibelle Celestino Silva, Alexandre Bagdonas

Sci & Educ, 2015

Educators advocate that science education can help the development of more responsible worldviews when students learn not only scientific concepts, but also about science, or ‘‘nature of science’’. Cosmology can help the formation of worldviews because this topic is embedded in socio-cultural and religious issues. Indeed, during the Cold War period, the cosmological controversy between Big Bang and Steady State theory was tied up with political and religious arguments. The present paper discusses a didactic sequence developed for and applied in a pre-service science teacher-training course on history of science. After studying the historical case, pre-service science teachers discussed how to deal with possible conflicts between scientific views and students’ personal worldviews related to religion. The course focused on the study of primary and secondary sources about cosmology and religion written by cosmologists such as Georges Lemaı ˆtre, Fred Hoyle and the Pope Pius XII. We used didactic strategies such as short seminars given by groups of pre-service teachers, videos, computer simulations, role-play, debates and preparation of written essays. Along the course, most pre-service teachers emphasized differences between science and religion and pointed out that they do not feel prepared to conduct classroom discussions about this topic. Discussing the relations between science and religion using the history of cosmology turned into an effective way to teach not only science concepts but also to stimulate reflections about nature of science. This topic may contribute to increasing students’ critical stance on controversial issues, without the need to explicitly defend certain positions, or disapprove students’ cultural traditions. Moreover, pre-service teachers practiced didactic strategies to deal with this kind of unusual content.

View PDFchevron_right
Acknowledging the Religious Beliefs Students Bring Into the Science Classroom: Using the Bounded Nature of Science
Sherry A . Southerland

Theory Into Practice, 2013

Scientific knowledge often appears to contradict many students' religious beliefs. Indeed, the assumptions of science appear contradictory to the metaphysical claims of many religions. This conflict is most evident in discussions of biological evolution. Teachers, in attempts to limit the controversy, often avoid this topic or teach it superficially. Recently, there has been a political

View PDFchevron_right
Imagining the world: the significance of religious worldviews for science education.
Michael J Reiss

This paper begins by examining whether ‘science’ and ‘religion’ can better be seen as distinct or related worldviews, focusing particularly on scientific and religious understandings of biodiversity. I then explore how people can see the natural world, depending on their worldview, by looking at two contrasting treatments of penguin behaviour, namely that provided in the film March of the Penguins and in the children’s book And Tango Makes Three. I end by drawing some initial conclusions as to what might and what might not be included about religion in school science lessons. Science educators and teachers need to take account of religious worldviews if some students are better to understand the compass of scientific thinking and some of science’s key conclusions. It is perfectly possible for a science teacher to be respectful of the worldviews that students occupy, even if these are scientifically limited, while clearly and non-apologetically helping them to understand the scientific worldview on a particular issue.

View PDFchevron_right
Secondary School Students’ Epistemic Insight into the Relationships Between Science and Religion—A Preliminary Enquiry
Keith S Taber

Research in Science Education, 2013

A number of previous studies have shown that there is a widespread view among young people that science and religion are opposed. In this paper, we suggest that it requires a significant level of what can be termed "epistemic insight" to access the idea that some people see science and religion as compatible while others do not. To explore this further, we draw on previous work to devise a methodology to discover students' thinking about apparent contradictions between scientific and religious explanations of the origins of the universe. In our discussion of the findings, we highlight that students' epistemic insight in this context does seem in many cases to be limited and we outline some of the issues emerging from the study that seem to boost or limit students' progress in this area.

View PDFchevron_right
'Science is purely about the truth so I don't think you could compare it to non-truth versus the truth.' Students' perceptions of religion and science, and the relationship(s) between them: Religious Education and the need for epistemic literacy
Michael J Reiss

There already exists a large knowledge base about teaching and learning related to the origins, diversity and history of life on Earth. We know less about teaching and learning related to wider issues pertinent to both religion and science. In our research with 40 students in six secondary schools in England, we looked at wider issues of student perceptions of religion and science. Our study involved an intervention of six lessons in Science and six in Religious Education (RE). Issues of philosophy, including ethics, were raised in Science lessons. The RE lessons dealt with a variety of contexts that highlighted the question of the relationship(s) between religion and science. In both pre-and post-intervention interviews, we found many instances where students used language that conveyed a misconception of the epistemic distinctions between religion and science. Students referred to 'truth', 'theory' and 'facts' interchangeably when discussing religious and scientific knowledge. We argue that RE needs to attend to epistemic literacy if we are to both avoid epistemological misconceptions and enable students to develop insights into the specific knowledge forms manifested in religion(s). 1 Pearce, P., Stones, A., Reiss, M. J. & Mujtaba, T. (2020) 'Science is purely about the truth so I don't think you could compare it to non-truth versus the truth.' Students' perceptions of religion and science, and the relationship(s) between them: Religious education and the need for epistemic literacy.

View PDFchevron_right
Scientism, creationism or category error? A cross‐age survey of secondary school students’ perceptions of the relationships between science and religion
Keith S Taber

The Curriculum Journal

We report on a survey of 1717 students at two different points of their secondary school education. This survey is designed to discover their reasoning about scientific and religious accounts of the origins of the universe and life. The study was motivated by a concern, based on previous research, that factors such as the compartmentalised curriculum may limit students' progression in interdisciplinary reasoning and their capacities to appreciate why science and religion are not necessarily incompatible. To investigate these matters, we gathered data in seven secondary schools in England. The findings indicated that a significant proportion of students are working with a poor understanding of the limits of science and of the range of scholarly positions on the nature of religious explanation. The implications of the results for educational theory and practice are discussed.

View PDFchevron_right
A NEW LOOK AT THE SCIENCE-AND-RELIGION DIALOGUE
Ernest Thomas Lawson

Zygon, 2005

Abstract. Cognitive science is beginning to make a contribution to the science-and-religion dialogue by its claims about the nature of both scientific and religious knowledge and the practices such knowledge informs. Of particular importance is the distinction between folk knowledge and abstract theoretical knowledge leading to a distinction between folk science and folk religion on the one hand and the reflective, theoretical, abstract form of thought that characterizes both advanced scientific thought and sophisticated theological reasoning on the other. Both folk science and folk religion emerge from commonsense reasoning about the world, a form of reasoning bequeathed to us by the processes of natural selection. Suggestions are made about what scientists and theologians can do if they accept these claims.

View PDFchevron_right
On the fruitful compatibility of religious education and science
Brian Woolnough

Science and Education, 1996

In this response the logical positivist approach of the authors is challenged, as is their propagation of the myth of an historical, endemic 'conflict' between science and religion. The authors' one dimensional approach to the world is shown to produce a limited world view, eliminating so much of human experience, of art, beauty, and music as well as religion. In contrast an awareness of different types of knowledge, with different criteria for truth, enables a fuller perspective in which science and religion, and art and music and human values, are all compatible. In conclusion, some ways in which Science Education and Religious Education can be taught to their mutual benefit are indicated.

View PDFchevron_right
How Students View the Boundaries Between Their Science and Religious Education Concerning the Origins of Life and the Universe
Keith S Taber

Science Education, 2016

How students view the boundaries between their science and religious education concerning the origins of life and the universe. Science Education International, 100 (3). pp. 459 482.

View PDFchevron_right

References (58)

  1. Cobern, W. W. (1996). Worldview theory and conceptual change in science education. Science Education, 80(5), 579-610.
  2. Davies, P. (1992). The mind of God: Science and the search for ultimate meaning. New York: Simon and Schuster.
  3. Dawkins, R. (1987). The blind watchmaker. New York: Norton. Demastes-Southerland, S., Good, R. G., & Peebles, P. (1995). Students' conceptual ecologies and the process of conceptual change in evolution. Science Education, 79, 637-666. REFERENCES American Association for the Advancement of Science (2000). Designs for Science Literach. Washington, DC: Author.
  4. Barbour, I. 1990. Religion in an Age of Science: The Gifford Lectures. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
  5. Curd, M., and Cover, J.A. 1998. Commentary. In Curd and Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. (New York: W.W. Norton), pp. 62-82.
  6. Davis, S.T. (1991). Risen Indeed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. Chapter 1. Haught, John F. (1996) Science and Religion: From Conflict to Conversation. New York: Paulist Press.
  7. Hume, D. (1739/1955) An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Part X. On Miracles.
  8. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (1991/1998). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College Classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Mill, J.S. (1874/1957). Theism.
  9. Landry, J.M., and Van Wenzveen, L. (1998). Science, Theology, and the Future. (Application and course description for the John Templeton Foundations Science and Religion Course Program). Dated March 5, 1998; accessed February 27, 2003.http://www.templeton.org/pdf/SandR/landry.pdf McGrath, A.E. (1999). Science and Religion: an Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. National Academy of Sciences (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: Author. References
  10. Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2001). Embedding nature of science instruction in preservice elementary science courses: Abandoning scientism, but…Journal of Science Teacher Education, 12(3), 215-233.
  11. Belenky, M.F., Clinchy, B.M., Goldberger, N.R, & Tarule, J.M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: the development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic books. Chan, C. & Bereiter, C. (1992, April). Effects of Conflict and Knowledge- Processing Strategy on Conceptual Change. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
  12. Chi, M. T. H. (1992). Conceptual change within and across ontological categories: Examples from learning and discovery in science. In R. N. Giere (Ed.). Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science: Vol. XV. Cognitive models of science (pp. 129-186). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  13. Chinn, C. A., & Brewer, W. F. (1993). The role of anomalous data in knowledge acquisition: A theoretical framework and implications for science instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63(10), 1-49.
  14. Dole, J. A. & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptualizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist,33(2/3), 109-128.
  15. Duveen, J., & Solomon, J. (1994). The great evolution trial: Use of role-play in the classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 575-582.
  16. Johnston. A. T., & Southerland, S. A. (in review). Conceptualizing the nature of science: Extrarational evaluations of tiny atoms, round planets, and big bangs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  17. Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R., & Schwarts, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward a valid and meaningful assessment of learners' conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497- 521. Moore, W.S. (2003). Understanding learning in a Postmodern world: Reconsidering the Perry scheme of intellectual and ethical development. In G. Sinatra & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional Conceptual Change (17-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. National Academy of Sciences. (1998). Teaching about evolution and the nature of science. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  18. Olson, J. K., & Clough, M. P. (2001, November). Secondary science teachers' implementation practices following a course emphasizing contextualized & decontextualized nature of science instruction. Paper presented at the 6th International History, Philosophy, and Science Teaching Conference, Denver, CO. Perry, W.G., Jr. (1998). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  19. Pintrich, P. R (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.). New perspectives on conceptual change (33-50). New York: Pergamon.
  20. Poole, M. (1996). ". . .for more and better religious education." Science and Education, 5, 165-174.
  21. Posner, G., Strike, K., Hewson, P., & Gertzog, W. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211-227.
  22. Rumelhart, D. E. & Norman, D. A. (1981). Accretion, tuning, and restructuring: Three modes of learning. In J. W. Cotton & R. Klatzky (Eds.), Semantic factors in cognition (pp. 37-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scharmann, L. C. (1990). Enhancing an understanding of the premises of evolutionary theory: The influence of a diversified instructional strategy. School Science and Mathematics, 90(2), 91-100.
  23. Sinatra, G. M. & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). Intentional Conceptual Change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  24. Sinatra, G. M., Southerland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. (in press). Affective and intentional influences on understanding: Intersections of understanding, acceptance/belief, and epistemology for biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
  25. Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Journal for Research in Science Teaching, 83, 493-509.
  26. Southerland, S. A. (2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education, 9, 289-307.
  27. Southerland, S. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (2003). Learning about biological evolution: A special case of intentional conceptual change. In G. Sinatra & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional Conceptual Change (317-346). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Southerland, S. A., Sinatra, G. M., Matthews, M. (2001). Belief, knowledge, and science education. Review of Educational Psychology, 13(4), 325-351.
  28. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R. A. Duschl and R. J. Hamilton, (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147-176). New York: State University of New York Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In
  29. Dushl & Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  30. Thagard, P. (1992). Conceptual revolutions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Troldahl, V., & Powell, F. (1965). A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. Social Forces, 44, 211-215.Tyson, L., Venville, G., Harrison, A., & Treagust, D. (1999). A multidimensional framework for interpreting conceptual change events in the classroom. Science Education.
  31. Vosniadou, S., & Brewer, W. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 535-585.
  32. White, R. (1994). Dimensions of content. In P. Fensham, R. Gunstone, and R. White (Eds.), The content of science: A constructivist approach to its teaching and learning, (pp. 255-262). London: Falmer Press.
  33. Anderson, R. D. (in press). The place of religion and spirituality in the public school curriculum.
  34. Barbour, I. G. (2000). When science meets religion. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
  35. Brem, S. K., Ranney, M., & Schindel, J. (2003). Perceived consequences of evolution: College students perceive negative personal and social impact in evolutionary theory. Science Education, 87, 181-206.
  36. Brooks, D. (2003, March). Kicking the secularist habit. The Atlantic Monthly.
  37. Eisner, E. (1985). Learning and teaching the ways of knowing. [Eighty-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part. 2]. Chicago: National Study for the Study of Education. Falcone, V. J. (1992). Great thinkers, great ideas: An introduction to Western thought. Cranbury Publications.
  38. Gould, S. J. (1999). Rocks of ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. New York: Ballantine.
  39. Haught, J. F. (2000). God after Darwin: A theology of evolution. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Perseus Books.
  40. Jackson, D. F. (2000, April). Sifting the relationship between personal and professional beliefs and practices with regard to evolution and religion: Three years of feedback from prospective middle school science teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.
  41. Jackson, D. F. (2002, April). An ordinal, three-dimensional model for the interaction of evolution and religion and its application to earth and life science teaching. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans.
  42. Jackson, D. F., Doster, E. C., Meadows, L. & Wood, T. (1995). Hearts and minds in the science classroom: The education of a confirmed evolutionist. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 585-611.
  43. Jones, L. S., Fisher, K., Haury, D., Jackson, D., Meadows, L., Staver, J., Reiss, M., Venville, G., & Weinburgh, M. (2003, March). Rethinking the evolution/creation controversy: Epistemological alternatives. Symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Philadelphia. Loving, C. (2000). The religion-in-the-science-classroom issue: Seeking graduate student conceptual change. Science Education, 84, 445-468.
  44. Meadows, L. Doster, E. & Jackson, D. F. (2000). Managing the conflict between evolution & religion. The American Biology Teacher, 62, 102-107.
  45. Miller, K. R. (1999). Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
  46. Moore, J. A. (1993). Science as a way of knowing: The foundations of modern biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  47. Nord, W. A. (1999). Science, religion, and education. Phi Delta Kappan 81(1), 28-
  48. Nord, W. A., & Haynes, C. C. (1998). Taking religion seriously across the curriculum. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
  49. Nord, W. A. (1995). Religion & American education : rethinking a national dilemma. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Press.
  50. Polkinghorne, J. (1998). Belief in God in an age of science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  51. Raymo, C. (1998). Skeptics and true believers. New York: Walker.
  52. Roberts, J. H. (1999). Darwinism, American Protestant thinkers, and the puzzle of motivation. In R. L. Numbers and J. Stenhouse (Eds.), Disseminating Darwinism: The role of place, race, religion, and gender (pp. 142-172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  53. Roberts, J. H. (1988). Darwinism and the divine in America: Protestant intellectuals and organic evolution, 1859-1900. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
  54. Roberts, J. H., & Turner, J. (2000). The sacred and the secular university. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  55. Roth, W-M, Alexander, T. (1997). The interaction of students' scientific and religious discourses: Two case studies. International Journal of Science Education, 19, 125-146.
  56. Ruse, M. (2001). Can a Darwinian be a Christian? New York: Cambridge University Press. Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2003). Knowing, believing, and understanding: The goals of science education. Manuscript submitted for publication.
  57. Smith, M. U., Siegel, H., & McInerny, J. D. (1995). Foundational issues in evolution education. Science and Education, 4, 23-46.
  58. Shipman, H. L., Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z., & Letts, W. J. (2002). Changes in student views of religion and science in a college astronomy course. Science Educaton, 86, 526-547.

Related papers

Science and religion: implications for science educators.
Michael J Reiss

A religious perspective on life shapes how and what those with such a perspective learn in science; for some students a religious perspective can hinder learning in science. For such reasons Staver’s article is to be welcomed as it proposes a new way of resolving the widely perceived discord between science and religion. Staver notes that Western thinking has traditionally postulated the existence and comprehensibility of a world that is external to and independent of human consciousness. This has led to a conception of truth, truth as correspondence, in which our knowledge corresponds to the facts in this external world. Staver rejects such a conception, preferring the conception of truth as coherence in which the links are between and among independent knowledge claims themselves rather than between a knowledge claim and reality. Staver then proposes constructivism as a vehicle potentially capable of resolving the tension between religion and science. My contention is that the resolution between science and religion that Staver proposes comes at too great a cost – both to science and to religion. Instead I defend a different version of constructivism where humans are seen as capable of generating models of reality that do provide richer and more meaningful understandings of reality, over time and with respect both to science and to religion. I argue that scientific knowledge is a subset of religious knowledge and explore the implications of this for science education in general and when teaching about evolution in particular.

View PDFchevron_right
Commentary: On Teaching the Nature of Science and the Science-Religion Interface
Barry Bickmore

Journal of Geoscience …, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Conceptual Frameworks, Metaphysical Commitments and Worldviews: The Challenge of Reflecting the Relationships Between Science and Religion in Science Education
Keith S Taber

Science Education for Diversity, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Whose science and whose religion? Reflections on the relations between scientific and religious worldviews
Stuart Glennan

Science, Worldviews and Education, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Religion in science education
Michael J Reiss

2013

Science education for diversity has long striven to take account of issues to do with gender, socio-economic class, ethnicity and disability. However, it has traditionally made rather less effort to consider issues to do with religious faith. Yet issues to do with religion are becoming increasingly important in school science lessons and certain other educational settings, such as science museums. I examine two possible circumstances where one might wish matters of religion to be included within the teaching of science: when teaching about the nature of science and when teaching about evolution. With regard to the nature of science, considering religion is useful simply for helping learners better understand why certain things come under the purview of science and others don’t. With regard to evolution, religious belief is a major reason why many people reject evolution. One can teach evolution in a way that is true to science yet respectful of student who, for religious reasons, feel unable to accept the validity of evolution.

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Science Education
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved