Science & Education

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1167–1184 | Cite as

The Implications of the Cognitive Sciences for the Relation Between Religion and Science Education: The Case of Evolutionary Theory

  • Stefaan Blancke
  • Johan De Smedt
  • Helen De Cruz
  • Maarten Boudry
  • Johan Braeckman
Article

Abstract

This paper discusses the relationship between religion and science education in the light of the cognitive sciences. We challenge the popular view that science and religion are compatible, a view that suggests that learning and understanding evolutionary theory has no effect on students’ religious beliefs and vice versa. We develop a cognitive perspective on how students manage to reconcile evolutionary theory with their religious beliefs. We underwrite the claim developed by cognitive scientists and anthropologists that religion is natural because it taps into people’s intuitive understanding of the natural world which is constrained by essentialist, teleological and intentional biases. After contrasting the naturalness of religion with the unnaturalness of science, we discuss the difficulties cognitive and developmental scientists have identified in learning and accepting evolutionary theory. We indicate how religious beliefs impede students’ understanding and acceptance of evolutionary theory. We explore a number of options available to students for reconciling an informed understanding of evolutionary theory with their religious beliefs. To conclude, we discuss the implications of our account for science and biology teachers.

References

  1. Atran, S. (1994). Core domains versus scientific theories: Evidence from systematics and itza-maya folkbiology. In L. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind. Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 316–340). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayala, F. J. (1970). Teleological explanations in evolutionary biology. Philosophy of Science, 37(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardapurkar, A. (2008). Do students see the “Selection” in organic evolution? A critical review of the causal structure of student explanations. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1, 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett, H. C. (2001). On the functional orgins of essentialism. Mind and Society, 2(1), 1–30. doi:10.1007/bf02512073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barrett, H. C. (2004). Design versus descent in Shuar children’s reasoning about animals. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 4(1), 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barrett, J. L. (2010). The relative unnaturalness of atheism: On why Geertz and Markusson are both right and wrong. Religion, 40(3), 169–172. doi:10.1016/j.religion.2009.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, J. L., & Keil, F. C. (1996). Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in god concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 31(3), 219–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett, J. L., & Lanman, J. A. (2008). The science of religious beliefs. Religion, 38(2), 109–124. doi:10.1016/j.religion.2008.01.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412–414. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bean, T. E., Sinatra, G. M., & Schrader, P. G. (2010). Spore: Spawning evolutionary misconceptions? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(5), 409–414. doi:10.1007/s10956-010-9211-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benassi, V. A., Singer, B., & Reynolds, C. B. (1980). Occult belief—Seeing is believing. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19(4), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berti, A. E., Toneatti, L., & Rosati, V. (2010). Children’s conceptions about the origin of species: A study of Italian children’s conceptions with and without instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 506–538. doi:10.1080/10508406.2010.508027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Blancke, S., Boudry, M., Braeckman, J., Smedt, J. D., & Cruz, H. D. (in press). Dealing with creationist challenges. What European biology teachers might expect in the classroom. Journal of Biological Education. doi:10.1080/00219266.2010.546677.
  14. Bloom, P. (2004). Descartes’ baby, how child development explains what makes us human. London: Arrow Books.Google Scholar
  15. Boudry, M., Blancke, S., & Braeckman, J. (2010). How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism. Foundations of Science, 15(3), 227–244. doi:10.1007/s10699-010-9178-7.
  16. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained. The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
  17. Carey, S., & Spelke, E. (1994). Domain-specific knowledge and conceptual change. In L. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind, domain specificity in cognition and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Casler, K., & Kelemen, D. (2008). Developmental continuity in teleo-functional explanation: Reasoning about nature among Romanian Romani adults. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(3), 340–362. doi:10.1080/15248370802248556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chi, M. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1402_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chinn, C. A., & Buckland, L. A. (2011). Differences in epistemic practices among scientists, young earth creationists, intelligent design creationists, and the scientist-creationists of Darwin’s era. In R. S. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education. Understanding the evolution vs. Intelligent design controversy (pp. 38–76). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  22. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical.Google Scholar
  23. De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. (2007). The role of intuitive ontologies in scientific understanding—the case of human evolution. Biology and Philosophy, 22(3), 351–368.Google Scholar
  24. De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. (2010). Paley’s ipod. The cognitive basis of the design argument within natural theology. Zygon. Journal of Religion and Science, 45(3), 665–684. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9744.2010.01120.x.Google Scholar
  25. De Cruz, H., & De Smedt, J. (in press). Evolved cognitive biases and the epistemic status of scientific beliefs. Philosophical Studies.Google Scholar
  26. Dennett, D. C. (1987). The intentional stance. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dennett, D. C., & LaScola, L. (2010). Preachers who are not believers. Evolutionary Psychology, 8(1), 122–150.Google Scholar
  28. Diesendruck, G., & Haber, L. (2009). God’s categories: The effect of religiosity on children’s teleological and essentialist beliefs about categories. Cognition, 110(1), 100–114. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Diesendruck, G., Markson, L., & Bloom, P. (2003). Children’s reliance on creator’s intent in extending names for artifacts. Psychological Science, 14(2), 164–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Evans, E. M. (2000a). Beyond scopes. Why creationism is here to stay. In K. Rosengren, C. Johnson, & P. Harris (Eds.), Imagining the impossible: Magical, scientific and religious thinking in children (pp. 305–331). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Evans, E. M. (2000b). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly-Journal of Developmental Psychology, 46(2), 221–254.Google Scholar
  32. Evans, E. M. (2001). Cognitive and contextual factors in the emergence of diverse belief systems: Creation versus evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 42(3), 217–266. doi:10.1006/cogp.2001.0749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Evans, E. M. (2008). Conceptual change and evolutionary biology: A developmental analysis. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research of conceptual change (pp. 263–294). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Evans, E. M., & Lane, J. D. (2011). Contradictory or complementary? Creationist and evolutionist explanations of the origin(s) of species. Human Development, 54(3), 144–159. doi:10.1159/000329130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Evans, E. M., Legare, C. H., & Rosengren, K. S. (2011). Engaging multiple epistemologies. Implications for science education. In R. S. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Fail, J. (2008). A no-holds-barred evolution curriculum for elementary and junior high school students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(1), 56–64. doi:10.1007/s12052-007-0018-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Gelman, S. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(9), 404–409. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gelman, S. A., Coley, J. D., & Gottfried, G. M. (1994). Essentialist beliefs in children: The acquisition of concepts and theories. In L. A. Hirschfeld & S. A. Gelman (Eds.), Mapping the mind. Domain specificity in cognition and culture (pp. 341–365). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences. Early understandings of the non-obvious. Cognition, 38(3), 213–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gergely, G., Knadasdy, Z., Csibra, G., & Biro, S. (1995). Taking the intentional stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56(2), 165–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. González Galli, L., & Meinardi, E. (2011). The role of teleological thinking in learning the Darwinian model of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(1), 145–152. doi:10.1007/s12052-010-0272-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106(2), 16–22.Google Scholar
  43. Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(2), 156–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Guthrie, S. (1993). Faces in the clouds. A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Haught, J. F. (2000). God after Darwin: A theology of evolution. Boulder (Colo.): Westview press.Google Scholar
  46. Jacobson, M. J., & Wilensky, U. (2006). Complex systems in education: Scientific and educational importance and implications for the learning sciences. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(1), 11–34. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1501_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. John Paul, II. (1996). Truth cannot contradict truth. Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996).Google Scholar
  48. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds and cognitive development. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  49. Kelemen, D. (1999a). The scope of teleological thinking in preschool children. Cognition, 70(3), 241–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kelemen, D. (1999b). Why are rocks pointy? Children’s preference for teleological explanations of the natural world. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1440–1452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kelemen, D. (2003). British and American children’s preferences for teleo-functional explanations of the natural world. Cognition, 88(2), 201–221. doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00024-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kelemen, D. (2011). Teleological minds. How natural intuitions about agency and purpose influence learning about evolution. In K. S. Rosengren & E. M. Evans (Eds.), Evolution challenges: Integrating research and practice in teaching and learning about evolutionary theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kelemen, D., Callanan, M. A., Casler, K., & Perez-Granados, D. R. (2005). Why things happen: Teleological explanation in parent-child conversations. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 251–264. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kelemen, D., & Di Yanni, C. (2005). Intuitions about origins: Purpose and intelligent design in children’s reasoning about nature. Journal of Cognition and Development, 6(1), 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kelemen, D., & Rosset, E. (2009). The human function compunction: Teleological explanation in adults. Cognition, 111(1), 138–143. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kelemen, D., Widdowson, D., Posner, T., Brown, A. L., & Casler, K. (2003). Teleo-functional constraints on preschool children’s reasoning about living things. Developmental Science, 6(3), 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Knight, N., Sousa, P., Barrett, J. L., & Atran, S. (2004). Children’s attributions of beliefs to humans and god: Cross-cultural evidence. Cognitive Science, 28(1), 117–126. doi:10.1016/j.cogsci.2003.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kuhlmeier, V. A., Bloom, P., & Wynn, K. (2004). Do 5-month-old infants see humans as material objects? Cognition, 94(1), 95–103. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2004.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lane, J. D., Wellman, H. M., & Evans, E. M. (2010). Children’s understanding of ordinary and extraordinary minds. Child Development, 81(5), 1475–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lawson, E. T. (2005). A new look at the science-and-religion dialogue. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 40(3), 555–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Leeming, D. A., & Leeming, M. A. (1995). A dictionary of creation myths. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Lombrozo, T., Kelemen, D., & Zaitchik, D. (2007). Inferring design—Evidence of a preference for teleological explanations in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Psychological Science, 18(11), 999–1006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1996). Is religious education compatible with science education? Science & Education, 5(2), 101–123. doi:10.1007/bf00428612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Makris, N., & Pnevmatikos, D. (2007). Children’s understanding of human and super-natural mind. Cognitive Development, 22(3), 365–375. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.12.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayr, E. (1991). One long argument, Charles Darwin and the genesis of modern evolutionary thought. London: Lane.Google Scholar
  66. McCauley, R. N. (2000). The naturalness of religion and the unnaturalness of science. In F. C. Keil & R. A. Wilson (Eds.), Explanation and cognition (pp. 61–86). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Miller, K. R. (1999). Finding Darwin’s god. A scientist’s search for common ground between god and evolution. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  69. Nelson, C. E., Nickels, M. K., & Beard, J. (1998). The nature of science as foundation for teaching science: Evolution as a case study. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education. Rationales and strategies (pp. 315–328). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  70. Newman, G. E., Keil, F. C., Kuhlmeier, V. A., & Wynn, K. (2010). Early understandings of the link between agents and order. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(40), 17140–17145. doi:10.1073/pnas.0914056107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Papineau, D. (2005). Philosophical problems of biology. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford companion to philosophy (p. 97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Pennock, R. T. (1999). Tower of babel. The evidence against the new creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  73. Petrovich, O. (1997). Understanding of non-natural causality in children and adults: A case against artificialism. Psyche en Geloof, 8, 151–165.Google Scholar
  74. Preston, J., & Epley, N. (2009). Science and god: An automatic opposition between ultimate explanations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 238–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Recanati, F. (1997). Can we believe what we do not understand? Mind & Language, 12(1), 84–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Recker, D. (2010). How to confuse organisms with mousetraps: Machine metaphors and intelligent design. Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science, 45(3), 647–664. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.2010.01119.x.Google Scholar
  77. Ruse, M. (2003). Darwin and design. Does evolution have a purpose?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). High school biology teachers’ knowledge structure, acceptance, and teaching of evolution. American Biology Teacher, 64(1), 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sager, C. (Ed.). (2008). Voices for evolution. Berkeley: The National Center for Science Education.Google Scholar
  80. Samarapungavan, A., & Wiers, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: A study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Saxe, R., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Carey, S. (2005). Secret agents: Inferences about hidden causes by 10-and 12-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 16(12), 995–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Scott, E. C. (2004). Evolution vs. Creationism: An introduction. Berkeley (Calif.): University of California press.Google Scholar
  83. Shtulman, A. (2008). Variation in the anthropomorphization of supernatural beings and its implications for cognitive theories of religion. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 34(5), 1123–1138. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.5.1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L. (2008). The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1049–1062. doi:10.1080/03640210801897864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sinatra, G. M., Brem, S., & Evans, E. (2008). Changing minds? Implications of conceptual change for teaching and learning about biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 1(2), 189–195. doi:10.1007/s12052-008-0037-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sinatra, G. M., & Nadelson, L. (2011). Science and religion. Ontologically different epistemologies? In R. S. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education. Understanding the evolution vs. Intelligent design controversy (pp. 173–193). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  87. Slone, J. (2004). Theological incorrectness. Why religious people believe what they shouldn’t. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Spelke, E., Phillips, A., & Woodward, A. L. (1995). Infants’ knowledge of object motion and human action. In D. Sperber, D. Premack, & A. J. Premack (Eds.), Causal cognition. A multidisciplinary debate (pp. 44–78). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  89. Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture. A naturalistic approach. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  90. Thagard, P., & Findlay, S. (2010). Getting to Darwin: Obstacles to accepting evolution by natural selection. Science & Education, 19(6), 625–636. doi:10.1007/s11191-009-9204-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Vosniadou, S., & Ioannides, C. (1998). From conceptual development to science education: A psychological point of view. International Journal of Science Education, 20(10), 1213–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vosniadou, S., Vamvakoussi, X., & Skopeliti, I. (2008). The framework theory approach to the problem of conceptual change. In S. Vosniadou (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (pp. 3–34). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stefaan Blancke
    • 1
  • Johan De Smedt
    • 1
  • Helen De Cruz
    • 2
  • Maarten Boudry
    • 1
  • Johan Braeckman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Moral SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Centre for Logic and Analytic PhilosophyUniversity of LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations