|
New
Orleans
Secular Humanist Association |
|
Habits of Mind Associated with Science and Religion: Implications for Science Education Ron Good Curriculum & Instruction, Physics Departments, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA; email: rgood@lsu.edu Paper presented at the Sixth International History, Philosophy & Science Teaching Conference, Denver, CO, November 8-11, 2001.
Abstract: As a goal of science literacy in both Benchmarks for Science Literacy and National Science Education Standards, scientific habits of mind differ from and often conflict with religious habits of mind. Contrary to what many claim about the non-overlapping domains of science and religion, when considered in the context of science education it is clear that conflict often exists in the minds of students and teachers. Unquestioning acceptance of religious authority, the habit of mind associated with many religious beliefs, conflicts with scientific habits of mind that encourage inquiry into all of Nature, including human minds. Implications for science education include recognizing the potential for conflict between these important domains, rather than treating them as "non-overlapping magesteria." Developing a respect for evidence may be the most important part of developing a scientific habit of mind and the most lasting part of science literacy. Understanding the history of conflict between science and religion and how conflicts have been resolved may help students resolve their own conflicts as they learn more about science and themselves The natures and interactions of science and religion have been discussed for centuries and they continue to be topics of interest among many academics and others who enjoy thinking about such things. The position of most scientific and science education societies is that the two domains deal with very different worlds and should be treated as non-interacting spheres of thought and action. Stephen Jay Gould’s phrase of ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ (Natural History, March 1997) probably captures this proposed relationship between these important areas of human activity as well as any. Recent reform efforts in science education have placed a greater emphasis on ‘scientific habits of mind’ as part of science literacy. What are scientific habits of mind and how do they differ from habits of mind associated with religious indoctrination1? Is it reasonable to say that these spheres of human activity do not overlap or interact, especially in regard to science education? These questions are the focus of this paper. Scientific Habits of Mind Scientific habits of mind as a goal of science literacy was considered important enough by the authors of Science for All Americans (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1990) to devote an entire chapter, "Habits of Mind," to defining and explaining why it is so central to the overall goal of science literacy for all. The values, attitudes, and skills associated with scientific habits of mind "…all relate directly to a person’s outlook on knowledge and learning and ways of thinking and acting" (AAAS, 1990, p. 183). If there is a single word that captures the spirit of scientific habits of mind it is ‘inquiry.’ The recent National Academy of Sciences publication, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 2001) uses a definition of scientific inquiry from the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996, p. 23) to introduce its first chapter "Inquiry in Science and in Classrooms": Scientific inquiry refers to the diverse ways in which scientists study the natural world and propose explanations based on the evidence derived from their work. Inquiry alsorefers to the activities of students in which they develop knowledge and understanding of scientific ideas, as well as an understanding of how scientists study the natural world. (p. 1) So both the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) emphasize the importance of scientific habits of mind as central to science education reform. Another recent publication of the NAS, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (NAS, 1998), uses the words of the eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr to compare habits of mind that distinguish science from theology: "One of the most characteristic features of science is this openness to challenge. The willingness to abandon a currently accepted belief when a new, better one is proposed is an important demarcation between science and religious dogma" (p. 43). This openness in science is characterized by making new conjectures and refuting earlier ones, resulting in a continuous process of trying to make a better fit between new evidence and existing theory. Mayr (NAS, 1998, p. 43) likens this process to evolution of life via natural selection: "Indeed, it is by a Darwinian process of variation and selection in the formation and testing of hypotheses that science advances." Keeping one’s mind open to new evidence is clearly an important ‘habit of mind’ that is key to the enterprise of science. Sometimes the ‘openness’ characteristic of science is described as ‘tentativeness’ of scientific knowledge. All scientific knowledge is open to change. Physicist Roger Newton (1997) compares religion and science in this regard: The opponents of evolution often contend that it is, after all, "only a theory." While this is correct, and from the point of view of scientists quite innocuous—even the motion of the earth around the sun is, in a sense, "only a theory"—it carries a profound meaning for religious fundamentalists, for whom the account of the Bible has the authority and certainty of scripture, which science can never provide. Here is precisely the point of fissure between science and religion. (p. 79) Maintaining an open mind in science means that all theories are considered tentative or open to change, even though many scientific theories (e.g., atomic-molecular theory of matter, evolution of life via natural selection, plate tectonic theory) are considered to be very firmly established by overwhelming evidence. Informed skepticism, another scientific habit of mind identified by the authors of Science for All Americans, might seem to be inconsistent with keeping an open mind to new ideas. However, being skeptical to new ideas, especially ideas that seem to be fundamentally inconsistent with firmly-established science knowledge, is necessary in order to be sure the new ideas are supported by solid evidence and reasoning. The balance between openness and skepticism in science is described nicely in Science for All Americans (AAAS, 1990, p. 186): Although a new theory may receive serious attention, it rarely gains widespread acceptance in science until its advocates can show that it is borne out by the evidence,is logically consistent with other principles that are not in question, explains more than its rival theories, and has the potential to lead to new knowledge. Because most scientists are skeptical about all new theories, such acceptance is usually a process of verification and refutation that can take years or even decades to run its course. Science education can help students to see the social value of systematic skepticism and develop a healthy balance in their own minds between openness and skepticism. Questioning or mistrusting arguments from authority is another of science’s habits of mind. Because most people crave certainty in their lives, this habit of mind is especially difficult to achieve. Until Copernicus and Galileo dared to question the absolute authority of the Catholic Church, it was decreed that Earth was the center of the universe. And until Darwin finally published Origin of Species in 1859, few questioned the special creation story. Requiring that authorities prove their contentions like everybody else is an attitude that can cause problems for the questioner, whether those in power are religious leaders, politicians, or CEOs and project directors. The freethinker or skeptic places evidence over authority, regardless of the source of the authority. Open inquiry requires such an attitude or habit of mind, so there are no forbidden questions. Finally, curiosity is required for scientists, and children as well, to begin the process of finding out about the natural environment. Curiosity or the need to explore seems to be a natural trait of infants and young children, but it can be discouraged by authority figures such as parents, teachers, and preachers. Unlike some of the other habits of mind like openness to new ideas and skepticism of arguments from authority, curiosity is a natural habit of mind that seems to be required for infants and young children to explore their environments. Normal brain development seems to depend on exploration of one’s environment as a child (Pinker, 1997). Keeping this curiosity alive and well in the face of many threats from authority figures may well be one of the key challenges for a science education enterprise that values open inquiry. The habits of mind described so far do not necessarily add up to what Wolpert (1992) calls the ‘unnatural’ nature of science. Common sense is often at odds with science, which partly explains why modern science arrived so late on the scene compared to other human endeavors. Scientific ideas very often defy our senses, making it very difficult for new ideas in science to be understood or accepted by the nonscientific community. It certainly seems to us that the sun moves around the Earth, that species do not evolve into other species, that continents are nonmoving masses, and so on. Scientific thought is not ‘natural’ in the sense that we must suspend our normal beliefs about our natural environment that develop as we grow from child to adult and instead use evidence and reason (often including mathematics) to reach conclusions that may seem ‘unnatural.’ Becoming accustomed to the ‘unnatural’ nature of science, often at odds with our common sense beliefs about our natural environment, is required, along with the habits of mind identified earlier, in order to feel more comfortable with science. Religious Habits of Mind Unlike science, religious belief seems to be quite natural. People all over the world hold various religious beliefs and have done so for thousands of years. Belief in the supernatural, which includes most religious beliefs, allows one to believe something without evidence, at least not the kind of evidence required in the natural sciences. Believing that unseen gods and/or goddesses are behind the visible universe acting as causal agents seems to be a very easy, natural thing to do. Whether religious belief is invoked to reduce life’s anxieties, including death, or to enhance one’s position with other ‘believers,’ it seems to occur naturally in nearly all societies. Those with strong "God Beliefs" (Persinger, 1987) are very convinced they have had "God Experiences" and they participate in regular rituals (e.g., church attendance, prayer, missionary work) to maintain their God Beliefs. These religious behaviors can give the believer hope in a better life now and after their life on Earth is over. The habits of mind associated with most religious beliefs include faith in the authority of holy books and religious leaders. Accepting without evidence what a holy book or a religious leader says is one of the hallmarks of the religious habit of mind. To challenge the basic assumptions (i.e., doctrine) of one’s religion is often the beginning of the end of those particular beliefs, resulting in adoption of other religious beliefs or perhaps in giving up on the supernatural altogether. When Galileo questioned the accepted religious dogma of a geocentric universe he was accused of heresy by religious officials and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life.2 When Darwin claimed humans were descended from other primates he was ridiculed by church officials and other followers of church doctrine for his heretical claims. And when John Scopes taught about human evolution in his high school class in Dayton, Tennessee he was tried and convicted in 1925 of violating a State law that outlawed the teaching of human evolution in public schools.3 As a habit of mind, questioning religious authority has had severe consequences throughout recorded history. At the very least, one is criticized and perhaps shunned by church authorities and their followers. Questioning those who make claims without evidence, a hallmark of scientific, rational thought, is not accepted practice in most religious circles. The God Beliefs and God Experiences (Persinger, 1987) mentioned earlier are the personal experiences that are taken as evidence by believers in the supernatural world. Persinger and other neuroscientists can explain God Experiences in terms of brain function. Temporal lobe epilepsy is often associated with euphoric sensations that patients describe in ways similar to God Experiences described by religious believers. As Persinger says, "…the behavior of the temporal lobe epileptic has been characterized by the persistent theme of religiosity" (Persinger, 1987, p. 19). He goes on to say "Like the committed preacher or the proselytizing prophet, they have a sense of the special—their experiences are somehow exceptional" (p. 20). So the ‘evidence’ for the God Believers may be God Experiences that are as real as anything can seem to the ones doing the experiencing. What can be more real than temporal lobe excitations? Personal revelations, whether experienced as part of a religious event or as a temporal lobe seizure, seem completely real to the brain’s owner. This brief diversion into the neuropsychology of God Experiences and related God Beliefs was an attempt to explain how belief in a supernatural being or event can be seen as real evidence to the person having the experience. To say to the religious person, you have no evidence to substantiate your claims of a god/goddess doing miraculous things, may do little to influence the true believer who has the evidence of God Experiences. Searching for causes to events in the environment is a natural trait of homo sapiens, probably because it increases the likelihood of survival of their genes (Dawkins, 1976). This interest in causality seems to be central to both scientific and religious habits of mind. However, for most religions it is the imagined supernatural world rather than the natural world that contains the causal agents. Belief in a personal god who intervenes and causes things to happen in the real/natural world is the most common conception of god, at least in the U.S. and other countries where prayer is a religious ritual. Belief in a god who created the universe but does not intervene into the natural world poses far fewer problems for the scientist who must assume that the natural world operates according to natural laws (see Jammer, 1999 for an account of Einstein’s ideas about god). The habits of mind associated with religion vary, of course, because of the wide variation in religious beliefs, but on the whole, if the belief system involves a personal god who intervenes into people’s lives or into the natural world in general, conflicts with science will occur. The religious mindset of unquestioning acceptance of predetermined dogma must inevitably conflict with a scientific mindset that requires open inquiry into all parts of the natural world, including people’s minds. It is the points of conflict between religious and scientific mindsets that are the focus of the next section. Points of Conflict The rationale used by those who claim religion and science are non-overlapping spheres or domains, involves the natural—supernatural dichotomy. The natural world or universe is usually understood as the real things (plants, animals, rocks, etc) we can sense or measure in some way and the supernatural world is usually defined as the imaginary things (heaven, angels, gods, goddesses, etc.) that we cannot sense or measure. Because these spheres do not overlap, so the argument goes, there can be no incompatibility or inconsistency or points of conflict. The fact that some scientists are religious is used as evidence to support this argument. However, this shows merely that some scientists are able to maintain their religious beliefs, which for most were acquired as a child before scientific methods and evidence became a part of their ‘causal’ mindset, while doing their work as a practicing scientist. Recall that any belief in a supernatural agent that intervenes must be considered inconsistent with a scientific outlook that assumes the study of nature involves natural objects, not supernatural ‘things.’ Only natural causes are allowed in scientific explanations. So where are the potential points of conflict between religious and scientific habits of mind? What is wrong with the "nonoverlapping magisteria" position that promises everlasting peace between these important domains? The points of conflict here will be discussed from the standpoint of science education, not simply as science and religion. The methods of achieving scientific habits of mind can be compared with the methods of achieving religious habits of mind to determine compatibility. It was mentioned earlier that the word ‘inquiry’ has been used to characterize a good science education (NRC, 2001) and it is not unreasonable to use the words ‘unquestioning acceptance’ to describe most religious indoctrination. These mental states/habits of mind are clearly inconsistent with one another. From the standpoint of science education, is it reasonable to assume that students can learn science meaningfully without "believing" it? This is the position taken by persons who see no conflict between science and religion or by those who want to substitute religious belief for scientific knowledge in public schools, but cannot because it is illegal to do so in the U.S. For those who see conflicts between scientific and religious habits of mind it seems absurd to suggest science knowledge can be learned meaningfully if students are told (implicitly or explicitly) they do not have to believe it. All scientific theory is based on natural evidence so to disbelieve science, in the sense just described, is to disbelieve evidence. When a student says "I don’t believe the Earth is billions of years old" it means that student rejects the scientific evidence offered by scientists. If the basis for rejection is religious belief developed at an early age by acceptance of authority (e.g., holy book, religious leader, parent) then the student is rejecting natural evidence in favor of belief in the supernatural. The religious student’s attitude toward evidence was very likely strongly influenced by early indoctrination or perhaps by some type of religious conversion (Persinger, 1987) later in life, and that religious attitude toward evidence affects many of life’s choices, including learning in science. The point is that the student cannot simply separate religious belief/habits of mind from scientific evidence; they naturally intersect when it seems to the student that they conflict. When an apparent conflict arises a decision is made to follow one path or the other or to modify one or the other or both. One’s attitude toward evidence may be the key ingredient in differentiating between the skeptic and the true believer (Raymo, 1998). When Charles Darwin set out on his 5-year voyage of discovery aboard the Beagle he did not believe in the transmutation of species. However, he had previously developed a respect for evidence and during that voyage he encountered considerable evidence that strongly influenced his beliefs regarding evolution of species. As the evidence against special creation of species accumulated he could not ignore it and gradually understood that his religious beliefs must change. Darwin’s respect for ‘natural’ evidence outweighed his need to retain his special creation beliefs. He could not continue to believe religious stories that were in conflict with his observations and subsequent interpretations of Nature. Darwin’s story of change from true believer to skeptic may not be representative of the course taken by most skeptics/free thinkers, but the common threads are a strong respect for natural evidence and a willingness to question authority. When it becomes apparent to a child that Santa Claus cannot do all the things attributed to him, slowly and reluctantly the child gives up on the literal interpretation of the role of the jolly old man. Both a growing respect for evidence and acceptance by parents and peers allow the child to adopt a new understanding of the Santa Claus story. It is just not possible to meaningfully accept the old story any more. The important thing is that the child’s new understanding of the old story is acceptable to parents, peers, and others important to the child. As conflicts arise between current beliefs and new evidence it is natural to try to settle the conflicts in one’s own mind by choosing what seems to be the best option at the time (see Pinker, 1997 for more on how the mind works). This does not mean, however, that prior ideas disappear from one’s memory when new ideas are adopted; it simply means that one’s conceptual scheme/network becomes more complex and, hopefully, more able to solve problems. Conflict between existing ideas is always possible if the right conditions are encountered and histories of religion and science suggest that conflicts are inevitable between these ways of knowing and believing. As Raymo (1998, p. 265) said, "Angels and skepticism don’t mix", especially if the angels intervene into the natural world. And since a part of the natural world is the human mind, once the concepts of angels and other supernatural "things" become a part of one’s memory they can be difficult to differentiate from ‘real’ memories of the natural world (see Loftus & Ketchum, 1994 for more on this). The memory trace ‘angel’ is as real as the memory trace ‘moon’ even though one is a real object out there while the other is not. Once ‘angel’ becomes part of one’s mind/brain it does not disappear, although it may be modified in various ways according to later experience, including acquiring a scientific education. So the supposed non-overlapping spheres of science (natural world) and religion (supernatural world) actually overlap in the real world of memory traces in the mind/brain and since education involves changing those memory traces, the potential for conflict exists. Our memory of our life’s experiences consists of a complex web of real things in our head, things that have the potential to interact in ways often beyond our control. Even though we can logically separate the natural world of real objects out there from the supernatural world of angels and so on, our mind can combine the two worlds in complex, interrelated memory traces. The following letter from a college student to me, as her instructor in a college physical science course, is an example of the conflict experienced by students who try to learn scientific knowledge that seems inconsistent with a literal interpretation of certain stories in holy books. The science content in question is the ‘Big Bang’ theory in physics, although the student also brings Darwinian evolution of life into her comments. Dr. Good, While I studied the chapter and wrote the answers according to the textbook, I have to disagree with the answers I wrote on the exam. I do not believe that some millions of years ago, a bunch of stuff blew up and from all that disorder, we got this beautiful and perfect system we know as our universe. You do not get order out of chaos and you do not get something out of nothing, so to believe that our universe and our world blew up out of particles is inconceivable to me. The structure and perfect way our solar system function could not have come from an explosion. I personally believe in God as a supreme being. I cannot imagine living my life believing we are just here to live and die on some planet. I believe that God loved you and me so much that He personally created this beautiful world for us to enjoy. The world is too perfect for there not to be a God who created it. I do not understand how a person cannot have faith. I have to believe in something. I have never seen the wind but I have felt and seen the effects of the wind. The same is true with God. I have seen the effects of God and one of those is our univese. God is always there for me and I have felt His Love many times. You said in class that the Big Bang was the beginning and everything has to have a beginning [even God?]. I believe that God created the earth and that that was the beginning. The Bible says in Genesis that in the beginning there was God. He doesn’t have a beginning or an end, He has always been here and he will always be here. That is one of those things that our minds cannot comprehend; we just have to have faith and believe. He was there in the beginning and he created the beginning. I heard this joke one time. This man thought he was pretty powerful so he decided to challenge God. He told God "I can do everything you can do." God said all right, make a wind strong enough to blow down that tree and the man blew really hard and the tree fell down. God said, all right make a man, so the man bent down and started forming a man from the dirt but God said, No, I meant make your own dirt. The Bible says in Revelations 4:11 that God created everything and it is for His pleasure that they exist and were created. To say that the universe "just happened" or "evolved" requires more faith than to believe that God is behind the complex organization of our solar system. I believe 100% in the Biblical account of creation. I believe the earth, as we know it is only 6,000 years old. Scientific evidence may suggest otherwise, but God created a mature world. He created Adam the man, not a fetus. He created huge trees, not tiny seeds in the ground. He created huge canyons and mountains that to our simple minds must have taken thousands of years to form. He created beauty and perfection in 6 days that having started from scratch might have taken the assumed millions of years. He formed things with His hands in a second that nature would have taken years to form. And with those same powerful hands He is reaching out to us. We will never know all theanswers to how God created the Earth, but we do know that He created because He loves us. I would like to thank you for presenting your beliefs and for challenging mine. I respect your position, but my faith in my beliefs has not wavered. I would like to challenge you to expand your beliefs to where they are not just based on knowledge, but a belief based on a faith in God. This class has been interesting and I will not forget what I have learned. Sincerely, This letter represents a respectful "thanks but no thanks" approach to learning science. If it was actually written by the student rather than a church official or another true believer, she accepts without question the authority of her Bible’s interpreters. Her role is to accept rather than to question and the letter suggests that she does this very well. Respect for scientific evidence and the tendency to question are clearly lacking even though she seems to respect my "beliefs" about scientific ideas, inviting me in the final paragraph to "expand" my beliefs based on a faith in her god. The student delivered the letter to me in person at the end of the semester while another student was in my office so I was unable to talk to her about it, but it seems clear that her religious habits of mind were in conflict with her scientific habits of mind and the latter lost out to the former. The default rule seemed to be ‘when there is a conflict between religious beliefs and science, religion wins.’ Adjusting religious beliefs to accommodate scientific evidence, as the Catholic Church has gradually done since Galileo and Darwin, is not allowed in this student’s type of religious mindset. Some might argue that there would be no conflict if the student simply altered her interpretation (or certain religious authorities’ interpretations) of her holy book. If she could just see that a literal interpretation is not necessary to be a good Christian (or Muslim or Jew or …) there might be no conflict necessary between scientific habits of mind and religious habits of mind. How far does one need to go toward respecting evidence and questioning authority in order to be considered scientifically literate? This question is considered in the next section. Conflict Resolution? Is knowing the facts and understanding the theories of science sufficient to be considered scientifically literate? According to both Benchmarks and Standards, the main reform guides for many science educators, the answer is no. Habits of mind associated with scientific literacy must be included as well. These habits of mind have been reviewed earlier as have the habits of mind associated with many religious beliefs in the U.S. and it seems clear that most "true believers" (Raymo, 1998) experience conflict when topics like Big Bang theory and Darwinian evolution are studied in science classes. The history of conflict between science and the Catholic Church, for example, suggests that resolution is often a slow and agonizing process and it is not science that changes. Nature has no interest in the supernatural beliefs of humans. As long as religious beliefs include intervention (miracles, prayers answered) by supernatural agents, conflict with science is inevitable. Science assumes that all of Nature, including all that occurs in our minds, can be studied and explained in rational, real terms. Religious belief is as open to scientific study as other human activities and new brain research tools promise a more solid foundation than do past social-psychological studies (Persinger, 1987; Pinker, 1997). So the main question here is, can the apparent conflict between scientific and religious habits of mind be resolved if meaningful learning is the goal of science education? Can real inquiry be practiced by true believers when apparent conflicts (evolution versus special creation, for example) exist in their minds? Can meaningful learning occur if the learner does not believe the science claims are ‘true’ or even approximately accurate? If the previous letter by my former student is a fair indication, the answer is probably not, at least not in a way that will ensure the kind of scientific literacy envisioned by the authors of Benchmarks and Standards. The question is open to empirical inquiry, of course, and some research (Lawson & Weser, 1990; Lawson & Worsnop, 1992) in this direction has been done but it has not been framed specifically in ‘habits-of-mind’ terms. The assessment methods for such studies should be sensitive to religious and scientific habits of mind as they have been defined here and, ideally, both skeptics and true believers should agree that study designs are fair. Of course, a respect for evidence is needed for observers to agree that certain conclusions can be reached based on the research and that is the very thing that was identified earlier as a key difference between skeptics and true believers (Raymo, 1998). A satisfactory resolution of the points of conflict between these very different habits of mind seems unlikely, just as it seems unlikely that my former student will soon agree to the validity of scientific ideas associated with Darwin. As I write this paper during the Spring 2001 semester a student in a course that I am teaching for pre-service science teachers has indicated she believes the age of the Earth is 6,000 years and she knows this because of her religious training. She is about to enter the profession of teaching as a high school biology teacher and, unless she undergoes some very dramatic changes in her belief system in the next few weeks, will be in a position to influence students’ understandings of science, including their habits of mind, for years to come. It is likely that she (and many other biology teachers with similar beliefs) will avoid teaching evolution as much as possible even though it is the main organizing principle for all of biology. What is the responsibility of the science teacher educator in such cases? What can be done to ensure that the students of such teachers will receive the best science education possible? It is naïve to assume that a biology teacher who believes Earth is 6,000 years old will make every effort to help students understand evolution, especially if the teacher believes it is morally wrong to do so. To intentionally teach information that the teacher believes is incorrect is something most of us would try to avoid. Within our own mind we cannot easily partition our knowledge from our beliefs, even though we can assert logically that the supernatural world does not overlap the natural world. Our minds simply do not work that way (Pinker, 1997). Habits of mind include both knowledge and beliefs, interrelated in complex ways and, as Margolis (1993) points out, these habits do not necessarily follow our scientific knowledge. In the case of the young Earth believer, religion and science do overlap. The religious habits of mind of the creationist biology teacher will influence what she does in her classroom and her students will be affected in a direct way. It is likely that those students will be less scientifically literate than will students taught by a teacher who both understands and believes evolutionary theory to be the best explanation for the evidence available. And it is not just evolution and Big Bang theory that are problematic for true believers. Another area that is likely to suffer at the hands of science curriculum censors is human behavioral genetics and especially sexual orientation (Good, 2001). As the various neurosciences learn more about the influence of our biology on our behavior it seems clear that our long-mysterious minds will be explained more and more in terms of measurable brain functions (BSCS, 2000). The field of psychiatry has already undergone a revolutionary shift toward understanding the mind in electro-biochemical terms and away from mysterious, pseudo-scientific "explanations" (e.g., Freud’s psychobabble and Gall’s phrenology). In the case of science education, science and religion are overlapping spheres or "magisteria" as Gould (1997) puts it. The supernatural world of religious beliefs invades the natural world of scientific knowledge as the "true believer" (Raymo, 1998), in the role of science teacher, changes her teaching behaviors to accommodate her religious beliefs. So in answer to the question, "Is religious education compatible to science education?" (Mahner & Bunge, 1996) and to the similar question, "Is Christian education compatible with science education?" (Martin, 1997) the answer is no once again. The paths taken by Mahner and Bunge and by Martin to answer their similar questions are different than the path taken in this paper but the answer is similar. The "true believer" (i.e., one who believes in a personal god who intervenes through miracles, by answering prayers, etc.) inevitably reaches points of conflict between science knowledge and religious belief. When the habit of mind is unquestioning acceptance of authority, there is little room for scientific habits of mind characterized by inquiry into all areas of interest, including the true believer’s mindset. Resolving points of conflict between scientific and religious habits of mind first requires the realization that points of conflict exist, especially where the science education of students is concerned. Then, when the nature of science is dealt with during a science course, the history of conflict between science and religion can be discussed to encourage students to grapple with issues that may involve their own ideas about scientific knowledge and religious belief. Developing a respect for evidence, perhaps the most important habit of mind associated with a scientific attitude, might then be raised a notch or two in the mind of the student who is at least somewhat open to considering scientific ideas that seem to be in conflict with her own ideas. Seen in this perspective, it makes effective teaching of the nature of science, including scientific habits of mind, all the more important. The next section includes additional implications for science teaching.
Implications for Science Education How can a science teacher help students develop scientific habits of mind when there seem to be points of conflict between students’ religious beliefs and scientific ideas about Nature? This is not a new question and many suggestions have been offered, especially where evolution is concerned (Dagher & BouJaoude, 1997; NAS, 1998; Meadows et al., 2000). The suggestions offered here are based on my ideas about both religion and science and on my experience as a science teacher educator and a science teacher. First, ideas about the nature of science (NOS) should be interrelated closely with scientific ideas about Nature (e.g., evolution of life, human behavioral genetics, origin and evolution of stars and planets, etc.). Teaching a separate chapter or unit on NOS at the beginning of a course is not likely to be as effective as interrelating NOS ideas with science content throughout the course. For example, in Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (NAS, 1998), science content is blended with ideas about NOS in a seamless way. Describing the history of the development of scientific ideas, including some of the people involved, can humanize technical scientific concepts and help the student better understand the processes of inquiry. And it can emphasize the fact that reaching a consensus within a scientific community is often a long and contentious process, but that in the end it is Nature, not politics or religious beliefs, that has the upper hand (Matthews, 1994). Second, ideas about NOS, including habits of mind, should be taught explicitly rather than implicitly and this is especially true of pre-college science education. Teaching NOS ideas explicitly is not restricted to one teaching method such as lecturing or assigning a scientific biography, it simply means that students usually need assistance in recognizing the many subtleties associated with doing science. Both Benchmarks and Standards include contrasting NOS statements such as:
Such contrasting ideas can be confusing to students who, unlike philosophers and historians of science, have little basis for understanding the many facets of science as it has been practiced since Galileo and Newton during the seventeenth century. French historian and philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard (1934) pointed out that science changes over time and across disciplines, so to speak of a single NOS misses the real complexity of science, but a high school student should not be expected to understand the many complexities of the enterprise of science. History of science tends to emphasize the complex, changing nature of science while philosophy tends to emphasize its simpler, stable side. The teacher must decide how to balance the contrasting views so students are not confused by the details, yet develop a realistic understanding of science (Good & Shymansky, 1999). Third, by selecting a few good historical examples of conflict between science and religion and dealing with them in some detail students are likely to better understand the potential for conflict today. Some likely candidates are 1) Galileo’s difficulties with church officials during the seventeenth century, 2) Darwin’s difficulties during the nineteenth century and related conflicts with creationists (see Numbers, 1993, for an excellent historical account) during the twentieth century, and 3) the conflicts today over genetic engineering, human behavioral genetics, and population control. These stories include all the ingredients needed for interesting and challenging learning opportunities that can help students gain a more realistic understanding of the habits of mind associated with science and religion and how each human activity can affect society. Many good books and related instructional materials are available on Galileo and Darwin and the same is true of the more recent issues involving human population growth, genetic engineering, and human behavioral genetics (Human Natures: Genes, Culture, and the Human Prospect, 2000, by noted biologist Paul Ehrlich has an extensive set of references). Especially for these three topics, science teachers could collaborate with social studies teachers to deal with the ethical and legal issues related to how scientific knowledge affects society. Conclusion Scientific habits of mind are included as important goals of science literacy in both reform documents Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993) and National Science Education Standards (1996). Contrary to claims that no overlap exists between these two domains of human activity, this paper has shown that scientific and religious habits of mind are fundamentally inconsistent with each other when science education is considered. This is especially the case when religious belief involves a supernatural agent that intervenes into the natural world. An unquestioning acceptance of authority that is characteristic of most religions is in conflict with open inquiry that is characteristic of the natural sciences. In the mind of a student this conflict becomes especially apparent when topics such as origins and ages of stars and planets, evolution of life, relationship of humans to other animals, and human behavioral genetics are encountered in science classes. Although it is illegal in the U.S. to teach/advocate religion in public schools, comparing the habits of mind associated with science and religion could help students achieve a better understanding of the nature of science, as defined in both Benchmarks and Standards. Recommendations for the science teacher include 1) Integrate the study of the nature of science (NOS) with science content throughout a course; 2) Simplify the many subtleties of NOS by emphasizing key ideas in Benchmarks and Standards; 3) Go into detail using a few well-documented examples (e.g., Galileo, Darwin) of science-religion conflicts; and 4) Understand the sensitive nature of science-religion conflicts in the minds of many students and their parents. Developing an inquiring habit of mind may be the most lasting, and therefore most important, goal of science education. The joy (and sometimes the dismay) of finding out through inquiry and comparing claims by judging the weight of the evidence are central to science and students should be given the opportunity to experience these feelings and thoughts associated with scientific literacy. A closing comment is offered here for those who may be troubled by the conclusion that conflicts are inevitable between scientific and religious habits of mind when science education is considered. The "non-overlapping magesteria" phrase used by Gould (1997) is based on the argument known as the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ This argument claims that going from the factual, scientific is to the normative, ethical ought commits an error of logic. This naturalistic fallacy has itself been criticized by noted evolutionary biologist Edward Wilson (1998, p. 249), "No, we do not have to put moral reasoning in a special category, and use transcendental premises, because the posing of the naturalistic fallacy is itself a fallacy. For if ought is not is, what is?" Wilson (p. 251) goes on to say: If the empiricist world view is correct, ought is just shorthand for one kind of factual statement, a word that denotes what society first chose (or was coerced) to do, and then codified. The naturalistic fallacy is thereby reduced to the naturalistic dilemma. The solution of the dilemma is not difficult. It is this: Ought is the product of a material process. The solution points the way to an objective grasp of the origin of ethics. Although Wilson seems to be in agreement with the basic tenets of this paper that conflicts are inevitable between many scientific and religious habits of mind, he thinks people need a "sacred narrative" (p. 264). According to Wilson, this sacred narrative will not be in the form of a religious cosmology, but in the grandeur of life revealed by science. As science tests all parts of the human condition, including the origins of religious belief, religious doctrine will be pressured to change to accommodate new understandings of ethical belief and religious practice.4 It will be interesting to see how this process occurs and how science education will be affected. Acknowledgements The following people were kind enough to read and comment on earlier drafts of this paper: Roger Anderson (Columbia U.), Mario Bunge (McGill U.), Michael Matthews (U. of New South Wales), and Dirk Vertigan (Louisiana State U.). Notes
References AAAS: 1990, Science for All Americans, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Bachelard, G.: 1934, The New Scientific Spirit, Beacon Press, Boston, MA. BSCS: 2000, Genes, Environment, and Human Behavior, Author, Colorado Springs, CO. Dagher, Z. & BouJaoude, S.: ‘Scientific Views and Religious Beliefs of College Students: The Case of Biological Evolution.’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 429-445. Dawkins, R.: 1976, The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Ehrlich, P.: 2000, Human Nature: Genes, Cultures, and the Human Prospect, Island Press, Washington, DC. Good, R.: 2001, ‘Will Human Behavioral Genetics Be the Next Target for the Censors of School Science?’, Paper presented at the January 18-21, AETS International Meeting, Costa Mesa, CA. Good, R. & Shymansky, J.: 1999, ‘Nature-of-Science Literacy in Benchmarks and Standards: Post-Modern/Relativist or Modern/Realist?’, Paper presented at the September 15-19 HPST International Meeting, Como, Italy. Gould, S.: 1997, ‘Nonoverlapping Magesteria,’ Natural History, 106, 2, 16-62. Jammer, M.: 1999, Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Haught, J.: 2000, God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution, Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Lawson, A. & Weser, J.: 1990, ‘The Rejection of Nonscientific Beliefs about Life: Effects of Instruction and Reasoning Skills’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27, 589-606. Lawson, A. & Worsnop, W.: 1992, ‘Learning about Evolution and Rejecting a Belief in Special Creation: Effects of Reflective Reasoning Skill, Prior Belief and ReligiousCommitment,’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 143-166. Loftus, E. & Ketchum, K.: 1994, The Myth of Repressed Memory, St. Martins Griffin, New York, NY. Mahner, M. & Bunge, M.: 1996, ‘Is Religious Education Compatible with Science Education?’, Science & Education, 5, 101-123. Margolis, H.: 1993, Paradigms and Barriers: How Habits of Mind Govern Scientific Belief, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Martin, M.: 1997, ‘Is Christian Education Compatible with Science Education?’, Science & Education, 6, 239-249. Matthews, M.: 1994, Science Teaching: The Role of History and Philosophy of Science, Routledge, New York, NY. Meadows, L., Doster, E., & Jackson, D.: 2000, ‘Managing the Conflict Between Evolution & Religion,’ American Biology Teacher, 62, 102-107. National Academy of Sciences: 1998, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, Author, Washington, DC. National Research Council: 1996, National Science Education Standards, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. National Research Council: 2001, Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC. Newton, R.: 1997, The Truth of Science: Physical Theories and Reality, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Numbers, R.: 1993, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Persinger, M.: 1987, Neuropsychological Bases of God Beliefs, Praeger, New York. Pinker, S.: 1997, How the Mind Works, Norton, New York, NY. Raymo, C.: 1998, Skeptics and True Believers, Walker, New York, NY. Sobel, D.: 2000, Galileo’s Daughter: A Historical Memoir of Science, Faith, and Love, Penguin Books, New York, NY. Wilson, E.: 1998, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Knopf, New York, NY. Wolpert, L.: 1992, The Unnatural Nature of Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. |
|
Home |
|
Contact
Info: Website
comments: |
