Science & Education

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 317–357 | Cite as

First-Year College Students’ Conflict with Religion and Science

Original Paper


This study took place during a First Year Seminar course where 20 incoming college freshmen studied the central topic of the nature of science within the context of biological evolution. The instructor researched students’ understandings in the nature of science as they progressed through the course by examining a variety of qualitative and quantitative data including class writings, pre- and post-test selected items from the VOSTS (Views on Science-Technology-Society), and interviews. The intended outcomes of the course were to reduce the number of student misconceptions in the nature of science and to ease student apprehension when learning about evolution. Data were analyzed to determine whether students were moving toward a more generally accepted idea of the nature of science or toward another type of misconception.


creationism evolution first-year seminar freshmen FYS nature of science religion 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abd-El-Khalick F., Bell R.L., Lederman N.G. (1998). The Nature of Science and Instructional Practice: Making the Unnatural Natural. Science Education 82: 417–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguillard D., (1999). Evolution Education in Louisiana Public Schools: A Decade Following Edwards v. Aguillard. American Biology Teachers 61: 182–188Google Scholar
  3. Aikenhead G.S., Ryan A.G., (1992). The Development of a New Instrument: ‚Views of Science–Technology–Society’ (VOSTS). Science Education 76: 477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Akerson, V., & Abd-El-Khalick, F.: 2003, ‚Teaching Elements of Nature of Science: A Yearlong Case Study of a Fourth-Grade Teacher,’ Journal of Research in Science Teaching 40, 1025–1049Google Scholar
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061. Oxford University Press, New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Alters B.J., Alters S.M.: (2001) Defending Evolution. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  7. Anderson, R.D.: 2005, ‚Preparing Teachers to Help Students Address Evolution’, Paper Presented at the Annual Convention of the Association of Science Teacher Education, Colorado Springs, CO Google Scholar
  8. Bianchini J.A., Colburn A. (2000) Teaching the Nature of Science Through Inquiry to Prospective elementary teachers: A Tale of Two Researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37: 177–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benyo, J.: 2002 A Revolutionary Attempt to Bolster the Teaching of Evolution. Curriculum Review 42: 14–15Google Scholar
  10. Brem S., Ranney M., Schindel J. (2003) Perceived Consequences of Evolution: College Students Perceive Negative Personal and Social Impact in Evolutionary Theory. Science Education 87(2): 181–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bybee R. (2002) We Should Teach About Biological Evolution. Bioscience 52: 616–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bybee R. (2001) Teaching About Evolution: Old Controversy, New Challenges. Bioscience 51: 309–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bybee R.W., DeBoer G.E. (1994) Research on Goals for the Science Curriculum. In: Gabel D.L. (eds) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. Macmillan Publishing, New York, pp. 357–387Google Scholar
  14. Clough M. (1998) Integrating the Nature of Science with Student Teaching: Rationale and Strategies. In: McComas William (eds) The Nature of Science in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 119–208Google Scholar
  15. Coburn, W.W.: 1991, ‚Worldview Theory and Science Education Research’, NARST Monograph No. 3, Manhattan, Kansas, National Association for Research in Science TeachingGoogle Scholar
  16. Creation Science Association for Mid-America Website,
  17. Dodick J., Orion N. (2003) Geology as an Historical Science: Its Perception within Science and the Education System. Science and Education 12: 197–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dybas C.L. (2002) Evolution: Understanding Life on Earth. Bioscience 52: 644–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eick, C.J.: 2000, ‚Inquiry, Nature of Science, and Evolution: The Need for a More Complex Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Science Teaching, Retrieved 9 July 2000’, Electronic Journal of Science Education 4(3), 1–16Google Scholar
  20. Eve R., Harrold E. (1991) The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Twayne, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Finn, C.E., & Kanstoroom, M.: 2000, ‚Forward to Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the states’, in L.S. Lerner (ed.), Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States. Thomas B Fordham Foundation, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Kuhn T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallup G.H. Jr., Newport E. (1991) Belief in Paranormal Phenomena Among Adult Americans. Skeptical Inquirer 2: 137–147Google Scholar
  24. Garner, R.: 1990, When Children and Adults Do Not Use Learning Strategies: Toward a Theory of Settings, Review of Educational Research, 60: 517–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenwood M.R.C., North K.K. (1999) Science Through the Looking Glass: Winning the Battles but Losing the War?. Science 286: 2071–2079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Griffith J.A., Brem S.K. (2004) ‚Teaching Evolutionary Biology: Pressures, Stress, and Coping, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(8): 791–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hewson P.B., Hewson M.G. (1984) The Role of Conceptual Conflict in Conceptual Change and the Design of Science Instruction. Instructional Science 13: 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jegede O., Aidenhead G. (1999) Transcending Cultural Borders: Implication for Science Teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education 17(1): 45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Johnson R.L., Peeples E.E. (1987) The Role of Scientific Understanding in College: Student Acceptance of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher 49: 93–98Google Scholar
  30. Lederman N.G., Abd-El-Khalick F. (1998) Avoiding De-natured Science: Activities that Promote Understandings of The Nature of Science. In: McComas William (ed.), The Nature of Science in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 221–234Google Scholar
  31. Lederman, N.G.: 1998, ‚The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context’, Electronic Journal of Science Education Retrieved 2002 July
  32. Lerner, L.S.: 2000, Good Science, Bad Science: Teaching Evolution in the States, Thomas B Fordham Foundation, Washington, DC, Retrieved online 22 February 2002, http://www.edexcellence, net/library/lerner/gsbsteits.html
  33. Lincoln Y., Guba E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly HillsGoogle Scholar
  34. McComas W. (1998) The Principal Elements of the Nature of Science: Dispelling the Myths. In McComas William (ed) The Nature of Science in Science Education. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 53–70Google Scholar
  35. Martin-Hansen, L.: 2003, Conceptual Change in Freshmen Students’ Understanding of the Nature of Science (NOS). Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the October, North Central – Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Rochester, Minnesota Google Scholar
  36. Moore R. (2002) Teaching Evolution: Do State Standards Matter?. Bioscience 52: 378–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  38. National Research Council (1998) Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  39. Numbers R.L. (1998) Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  40. Rutledge M.L., Mitchell M.A. (2002) High School Biology Teachers’ Knowledge Structure, Acceptance, and Teaching of Evolution. American Biology Teacher 64: 23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryan A., Aikenhead G.S. (1992) Students’ Preconceptions about the Epistemology of Science. Science and Education 76: 559–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider W., Pressley M. (1989) Memory Development Between 2 and 20. Springer-Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwartz, R.S., Lederman, N.G., & Crawford, B.: 2000) ‚Making Connections Between the Nature of Science and Scientific Inquiry: A Science Research Internship for Preservice Teachers’, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Education of Teachers of Science, Akron, Ohio Google Scholar
  44. Shaw H. (2002) Keep Evolution in the Schools – at All Levels. Bioscience 52: 772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Editors: 2000, ‚Bad Science and False Facts’, Scientific American 287, 10Google Scholar
  46. Sonderstrom M. (2000) Australopithecus or Adam’s Rib?. McGill News 80: 16–20Google Scholar
  47. Staver J. R.: (1999) ‚When Public Understanding of Science Thwarts Standards-based Science Education’, Electronic Journal of Science Education 3, 1–3.
  48. Stinner A., McMillan B., Metz D., Jilek J., Klassen S. (2003) The Renewal of Case Studies in Science Education. Science & Education 12: 617–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Strike K.A., Posner G.J. (1992) A Revisionist Theory of Conceptual Change. In: Duschel R., Hamilton R. (eds) Philosophy of Science, Cognitive Psychology, and Educational Theory and Practice. Albany, New York, pp. 147–176Google Scholar
  50. WGBH (2001) Evolution: A Journey Into Where We’re From and Where We’re Going. WGBH Educational Foundation and Clear Blue Sky Productions Inc, Boston, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  51. The National Center for Science Education. Retrieved online September 2005
  52. Torres, K.: 2005, January 18, ‚Cobb School Board to Appeal Evolution Ruling’. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, online resourceGoogle Scholar
  53. Zimmer C. (2001) Evolution. Harper Collins, New York, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations