“Well in the Bible it says this so I don’t believe what you’re saying now.”
“This is God—He’s right.” Students quoted in Donnelly et al. (2009, p. 651)
Abstract
Science educators and classroom teachers often present idealized descriptions of science and religion that reflect our own misunderstandings. These generalizations are often over-simplified and inaccurate and can compound misunderstandings of both domains. The first half of this paper presents an in-depth analysis of authority issues and aims to provide science educators with a more nuanced understanding of these two domains as appropriate to introductory science classes. This analysis argues for the importance of science teachers and theorists developing better understandings of the role of scientific and religious authority in instruction and in practice. Based on this examination, the last half of the paper aims to provide guidance for building more effective introductory science instruction. This examination suggests that a primary goal of science instruction must be to develop students who are effective consumers of science information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The paper is not meant to review the extensive literature that addresses the wider range of philosophical issues involved in comparing science and religion.
Of course in science claims are seen as tentative (vs. “true”).
Note that it is not the aim of the present analysis to address the much larger task of comparing the epistemologies of science and religion other than as how the two differ with respect to reliance on authority. Religious epistemologists have, for example, largely focused on the question of the existence of God and the supernatural, which will not be addressed here. For an introduction to the field of the epistemology of religion, the reader might begin with Beilby (2005), Peterson et al (2010), Moser (2008), and Plantinga (2000).
This usage is not to be confused with authority as employed by those philosophers and sociologists of science (e.g., Polanyi) who refer more to the authority of science “as an enterprise”—the control of a body of scientists over what individual scientists do, what questions are asked (and funded), what findings are published, who is hired in prestigious positions, etc.
For more on Islamic views of science and religion with special attention to evolution, see Edis (2009).
The similarity of this description of religion and the requirements for conceptual change (Posner et al. 1982) is noted.
The role of evidence is perhaps more typical of “ordinary”, not “revolutionary” science in Kuhn’s terms (Kuhn 1962).
As Clarence Darrow was reported to have said in his defense of John Scopes in 1925, “Who is the chief mogul . . . who can tell us just what the bible means. He ought to write a book and tell us all about it. Different sects have been disagreeing over it through the ages” (Cruver 2000, p. 82).
Some religious groups hold that only certain individuals have the authority to interpret the scriptures (e.g., priests in the Roman Catholic church).
One notable response to rising concerns about scientific ethics was the establishment of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an organization of more than 6,000 journal editors worldwide which establishes guidelines for scientific ethics and “provides advice to editors and publishers on . . . how to handle cases of research and publication misconduct” (About COPE undated).
Disagreement over this doctrine was, in fact, one of the primary points of contention in the 1980s that led to the creation of the new Cooperative Baptist Fellowship as a split from the Southern Baptist Convention in the United States (Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, undated), demonstrating that issues of authority are important in present day religion—so important as to cause upheaval and splintering of large denominations.
The pope’s infallibility in his “extraordinary magisterium” (teaching role) has been applied only twice since the doctrine was first adopted—in 1854 when Pope Pius IX acclaimed the Immaculate Conception (virgin birth of Mary, the mother of Jesus) and in 1950 when Pope Pius XII declared belief in the assumption (bodily ascension to heaven after death) of Mary the mother of Jesus to be part of Catholic faith (McCloskey undated), (See Fig. 1).
The Greek word that we translate as authority in the New Testament is ἐξουσία (transliterated “exousia”). The most common meaning of this Greek word is to “have the right to speak or act in a situation without looking or waiting for approval” (Danker 2009, p. 135). In the present context usage of the word implies that God is the final authority for believers because God does not have to seek approval from another for God’s words or actions.
All biblical quotations are drawn from the New International Version of the Bible (Bible gateway.com.).
(Not to be confused with Papal infallibility doctrine.).
Many faiths hold that the writers of the sacred text were also directly guided (to varying degrees depending on the denomination) by God and that the hearer/reader receives such guidance as well. Thus the authority of the sacred text is viewed as the same as that of God.
United Methodists, for example, employ the (John) “Wesleyan Quadrilateral” of sources for judging theological conclusions: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (Outler 1964).
Similar to other texts that are sacred to various religions.
These terms are widely used in the literature although some have grossly overlapping meanings.
Some countries have already begun implicitly acknowledging the importance of the knowledge, beliefs, and skills that are important for evaluating claims and sources. For example, since 2009 the Danish ministry of education has allowed students full access to the Internet during final exams (Ministry of Education 2010).
See, for example, (Baildon and Damico 2009; Brem et al. 2001; Dawson and Venville 2009; Glassner et al. 2005; Halverson et al. 2010; Julien and Barker 2009; Kyza and Constantinou 2007; Lippman et al. 2008; Mathews et al. 2008; Pluta et al. 2008; Rieh and Hilligoss 2008; Sandoval and Millwood 2005; Sandoval and Çam 2011; Triese et al. 2003; Venville and Treagust 1998; Wu and Hsieh 2006; Yoon 2008; Zembal-Saul et al. 2002).
This work which is part of a larger NSF-funded project under Richard Duschl is hopeful evidence that science educators are beginning to recognize the importance of the directions called for in this paper.
“Need for cognition” may be defined as “a tendency to engage in complex cognitive tasks requiring information searching, thoughtful analysis, and a desire for understanding” (Mason et al. 2010b, p. 627).
Students (as well as many science teachers and even university faculty) are often surprised, for example, to learn that most mainline religions do not oppose evolution.
Essentialism (the view that things have a set of characteristics that make them what they are, that all things have a “true essence”) is another personal belief that can be a major impediment to understanding and accepting evolution. For more on essentialism see Gelman (2003) and for its effects on teaching and learning, see Smith (2010a).
I acknowledge the wisdom of Matthews’ (2012) alternative proposal of presenting students with the philosophical alternatives of the relationship of science and religion, but I question the utility of this approach in the introductory science classroom.
References
Aghione, P., & Tirole, J. (1997). Formal and real authority in organizations. Journal of Political Economy, 105(1), 1–29.
Ashwell, A. R. (1881). Life of the Right Reverend Samuel Wilberforce: With selections from his diaries and correspondence (1879–1882). London: J Murray.
Baildon, M., & Damico, J. S. (2009). How do we know? Students examine issues of credibility with a complicated multimodal web-based text. Curriculum Inquiry, 39(2), 265–285.
Barbour, I. (1990). Religion in an age of science (1st ed.). San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Barbour, I. (1997). Religion and science: Historical and contemporary issues. San Francisco: Harper Collins.
Barbour, I. G. (2008). Taking science seriously without scientism: A response to Taede Smedes. Zygon, 43(1), 259–269.
Beilby, J. (2005). Epistemology as theology: An evaluation of Alvin Plantinga’s religious epistemology. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
Bible Gateway (2012). Retrieved August 3, 2011 from http://www.biblegateway.com/ (undated).
Brand-Gruwel, S., & Stadtler, M. (2011). Solving information-based problems: Evaluating source and information. Learning and Instruction, 21(2), 175–179.
Brem, S. K., Russell, J., & Weems, L. (2001). Science on the web: Student evaluations of scientific arguments. Discourse Process, 32(2), 191–213.
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Porsch, T. (2010). Who knows what and who can we believe? Epistemological beliefs are beliefs about knowledge (mostly) to be attained from others. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bromme, R., Kienhues, D., & Stahl, E. (2008). Knowledge and epistemological beliefs: An intimate but complicated relationship. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs (pp. 353–383). The Netherlands: Springer.
Brossard, D., & Nisbet M. C. (2006). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24–52.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253.
Clark, D. B., & Slotta, J. D. (2000). Evaluating media-enhanced and source authority on the internet: The knowledge integration environment. International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 859–871.
Coady, C. A. J. (1992). Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cobern, W. W. (2000). Everyday thoughts about nature. Netherlands: Springer.
Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2000). Defining “science” in a multicultural world: Implications for science education. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Coiro, J. (2003). Exploring literacy on the internet: Reading comprehension on the internet: Expanding our understanding of reading comprehension to encompass new literacies. Reading Teacher, 56(5), 458–464.
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. (2012). Retrieved August 24, 2011 from http://www.thefellowship.info/ (undated).
Craig, E. (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. New York: Routledge.
Cruver, T. C. (2000). You be the judge: Scopes trial. Joplin, MO: The College Press.
Dagher, Z. R., & BouJaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89, 378–391.
Dagher, Z. R., Brickhouse, N. W., Shipman, H., & Letts, W. J. (2004). How some college students represent their understandings of the nature of scientific theories. International Journal of Science Education, 26, 735–755.
Danker, F. W. (2009). The concise Greek-English lexicon of the new testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davies, P. (1992). The mind of god: Science and the search for ultimate meaning. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The god delusion. New York: Bantam Press.
Dawson, V., & Venville, G. J. (2009). High-school students’ informal reasoning and argumentation about biotechnology: An indicator of scientific literacy? International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 287–312.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. London: Penguin Press.
Dennett, D. C. (2006). Breaking the spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon. London: Penguin Press.
Donnelly, L., Kazempour, M., & Shokoohi, A. (2009). High school students’ perceptions of evolution instruction: Acceptance and evolution learning experiences. Research in Science Education, 39(5), 643–660.
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
Edis, T. (2009). Modern science and conservative Islam: An uneasy relationship. Science & Education, 18(6–7), 885–903.
Einstein, A. (2003). Physics and reality. Daedalus, 122(4), 22–25.
El-Hani, C. N., & Mortimer, E. F. (2007). Multicultural education, pragmatism, and the goals of science teaching. Cultural Studies in Science Education, 2(3), 731–750.
Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science: A multicultural approach. Boston: Blackwell Publishing.
Feinberg, P. D. (2010). Inerrancy and infallibility of the bible. Retrieved December 22, 2010 from http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm.
Fishman, Y. I. (2009). Can science test supernatural worldviews? Science & Education, 18, 813–837.
Gauch, H. G. (2009). Responses and clarifications regarding science and worldviews. Science & Education, 18(6–7), 905–927.
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Glassner, A., Weinstock, M., & Neuman, Y. (2005). Pupils’ evaluation and generation of evidence and explanation in argumentation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 105–118.
Glennan, S. (2009). Whose science and whose religion? Reflections on the relations between scientific and religious worldviews. Science & Education, 18, 797–812.
Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106(16–20), 60–62.
Greene, J. A., Azevedo, R., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). Modeling epistemic and ontological cognition: Philosophical perspectives and methodological directions. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 142–160.
Halverson, K. L., Siegel, M. A., & Freyermuth, S. K. (2010). Non-science majors’ critical evaluation of websites in a biotechnology course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 612–620.
Hardwig, J. (1985). Epistemic dependence. Journal of Philosophy, 82(7), 335–349.
Hardwig, J. (1991). The role of trust in knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 88(12), 693–708.
Hartshorne, C. (1935). Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hofer, B. K. (2000). Dimensionality and disciplinary differences in personal epistemology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 378–405.
Hofer, B. K. (2002). Personal epistemology as a psychological and educational construct: An introduction. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 3–15). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hofer, B. K. (2006). Beliefs about knowledge and knowing: Integrating domain specificity and domain generality: A response to Muis, Bendixen and Haerle. Educational Psychological Review, 18(1), 67–76.
Hofer, B. K., Lam, C. F., & Delisi, A. (2010). Understanding evolutionary theory: The role of epistemological development and beliefs. In R. Taylor & M. Ferrari (Eds.), Epistemology and science education: Understanding the evolution vs. intelligent design controversy (pp. 95–110). New York: Routledge.
Ibrahim, B., Buffler, A., & Lubben, F. (2009). Profiles of freshman physics students’ views on the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(3), 248–264.
Infallibility. (2012). The Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved August 3, 2011 from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm (undated).
Judson, H. F. (2004). The great betrayal: Fraud in science. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Julien, H., & Barker, S. (2009). How high-school students find and evaluate scientific information: A basis for information literacy skills development. Library Information Science Research, 31, 12–17.
Kearney, M. (1984). World view. Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp Publishers.
Keller, E. F. (1984). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York: Freeman.
Kienhuis, D., Broome, R., & Stahl, E. (2008). Changing epistemological beliefs: The unexpected impact of a short-term intervention. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 545–565.
Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8(1), 35–58.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Kyza, E. A., & Constantinou, C. P. (2007). STOCHASMOS: A web-based platform for reflective inquiry-based teaching and learning (computer software). Available at http://www.stochasmos.org.
Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen (Ed.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis: Essays in honor of Adolf Grunbaum (pp. 111–127). Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel Publishing.
Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research and science education (pp. 831–880). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lippman, J. P., Amurao, F. K., & Pellegrino, J. W. (2008). Undergraduate cognitive psychology students’ evaluations of scientific arguments in a contrasting-essays assignment. International perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ing a learning world. In Proceedings of the eight international conference for the learning sciences. Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 75–76.
Mahner, M., & Bunge, M. (1996). Is religious education compatible with science education? Science & Education, 5, 101–123.
Martin-Hansen, L. M. (2008). First-year college students’ conflict with religion and science. Science & Education, 17, 317–357.
Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010a). Epistemic beliefs in action: Spontaneous reflections about knowledge and knowing during online information searching and their influence on learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(1), 137–151.
Mason, L., Boldrin, A., & Ariasi, N. (2010b). Searching the web to learn about a controversial topic: Are students epistemically active? Instructional Science, 38(6), 607–633.
Mason, L., Gava, M., & Boldrin, A. (2008). On warm conceptual change: The interplay of text, epistemological beliefs, and topic interest. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 291–309.
Mathews, J., Holden, C., Jan, M. F., & Martin, J. (2008). Sick at South Shore beach: A place-based augmented reality game as a framework for building evidence-based arguments. In G. Kanselaar, J. van Merrienboer, P. Kirschner, & T. de Jong (Eds.), International perspectives in the learning science: Cre8ing a learning world. Proceedings of the eight international conference for the learning sciences. Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 89–90.
Matthews, M. R. (1994). Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: From nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research (pp. 3–26). The Netherlands: Springer.
McCloskey, P. (2012). How many infallible teachings? The St. Anthony Messenger. Retrieved August 3, 2011 from http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/aug2004/Wiseman.asp (undated).
McComas, W. F., & Almazroa, H. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7, 511–532.
Meriam-Webster dictionary. (2012). Retrieved December 4, 2010 from http://mw1.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority (undated).
Ministry of Education. (2010). Information and communication technologies (ICT) in upper secondary education. Retrieved September 23, 2011 from http://www.eng.uvm.dk/Fact%20Sheets/Upper%20secondary%20education/Information%20and%20Communication%20Technologies%20ICT%20in%20Upper%20Secondary%20Education.aspx.
Moritz, J. A. (2009). Rendering unto science and god: Is NOMA enough? Theology and Science, 7(4), 363–378.
Morris, S. C. (2003). Life’s solution: Inevitable humans in a lonely universe. United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Press.
Moser, P. K. (2008). The elusive god: Reorienting religious epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Murphy, N. (1990). Theology in the age of scientific reasoning. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
National Library of Medicine (2012). The Linus Pauling papers: Promoting Vitamin C. Retrieved December 20, 2010 from http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/MM/Views/Exhibit/documents/medicine.html (undated).
Nicolaidou, I., Kyza, E. A., Terzian, F., Hadjichambis, A., & Kafouris, D. (2011). A framework for scaffolding students’ assessment of the credibility of evidence. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(7), 711–744.
Oulton, C., Dillon, J., & Grace, M. M. (2004). Reconceptualizing the teaching of controversial issues. International Journal of Science Education, 26(4), 411–423.
Outler, A. C. (1964). John Wesley (1st Ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Perry, W. G. J. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Peterson, M., Hasker, W., Reischenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (2010). Philosophy of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on stilts—how to tell science from bunk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Plantinga, A. (2000). Warranted Christian belief. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pluta, W. J., Buckland, L. A., Chinn, A. C., Duncan, R. G., & Duschl, R. A. (2008). Learning to evaluate scientific models. In International perspectives in the learning sciences: Cre8ing a learning world, proceedings of the eight international conference for the learning sciences. Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 411–412.
Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1, 54–74.
Porter, S., & Brinke, L. (2009). Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. British Psychological Society, 14, 119–134.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Quine, W. V. O. (1976). The ways of paradox and other essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Raz, J. (1990). Authority. New York: New York University Press.
Reiss, M. J. (2009). Imagining the world: The significance of religious worldviews for science education. Science & Education, 18, 783–796.
Rescher, N. (1976). Peirce and the economy of research. Philosophy of Science, 43(1), 71–98.
Rieh, S. Y., & Hilligoss, B. (2008). College students’ credibility judgments in the information-seeking process. In M. J. Metzger & A. J. Flanagin (Eds.), Digital media, youth, and credibility—the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 49–72). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Rudolph, J. L., & Stewart, J. (1998). Evolution and the nature of science: On the historical discord and its implications for education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1069–1089.
Ruse, M. (2010). Science and spirituality. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Russell, B. R. (1935). Religion and science. New York: Oxford University Press.
Russell, R. J. (2008). Cosmology from alpha to omega—the creative mutual interaction of theology & science. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1994). Science for all Americans. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sandoval, W. A., & Çam, A. (2011). Elementary children’s judgments of the epistemic status of sources of justification. Science Education, 95(3), 383–408.
Sandoval, W. A., & Millwood, K. A. (2005). The quality of students use of evidence in written scientific explanations. Cognition and Instruction, 23(1), 23–55.
Schacter, J., Chung, G. K. W. K., Chung, G. K. W. K., & Dorr, A. (1998). Children’s internet searching on complex problems: Performance and process analyses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(9), 840–889.
Scharmann, L. C., Smith, M. U., James, J. C., & Jensen, M. (2005). Explicit reflective nature of science instruction: Evolution, intelligent design & umbrellaology. Journal of Science Teacher, 16(1), 27–41.
Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). An evolving theoretical framework for an epistemological belief system. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 103–118). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwab, J. J. (1962). The concept of the structure of a discipline. Educational Record, 43, 197–205.
Siegel, H. (2005). Truth, thinking, testimony and trust: Alvin Goldman on epistemology and education. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70I(2), 345–366.
Smith, M. U. (2010a). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Philosophical/epistemological issues. Science & Education, 19, 523–538.
Smith, M. U. (2010b). Current status of research in teaching and learning evolution: II. Pedagogical issues. Science & Education (6–8), 539–571
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (1999). Defining versus describing the nature of science: A pragmatic analysis for classroom teachers and science educators. Science Education, 83, 493–509.
Smith, M. U., & Scharmann, L. C. (2008). A multi-year program developing an explicit reflective pedagogy for teaching pre-service teachers the nature of science by ostention. Science & Education, 17(2–3), 219–248.
Smith, M. U., & Siegel, H. (2004). Knowing, believing, and understanding: What goals for science education? Science & Education, 13(6), 553–582.
Smith, M. U., Siegel, H., & McInerney, J. D. (1995). Foundational issues in evolution education. Science & Education, 4(1), 23–46.
Sober, E. (1998). Reconstructing the past: Parsimony, evolution, and inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Southerland, S. A. (2000). Epistemic universalism and the shortcomings of curricular multicultural science education. Science & Education, 9, 289–307.
Triese, D., Walsh-Childers, K., Weigold, M. F., & Friedman, M. (2003). Cultivating the science internet audience. Impact of brand and domain on source credibility for science information. Science Communication, 24(3), 309–332.
Tsai, C. C. (2008). The use of internet-based instruction for the development of epistemological beliefs: A case study in Taiwan. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Knowing, knowledge and beliefs (pp. 270–282). The Netherlands: Springer.
Varnhagen, C. K. (2002). Making sense of psychology on the web: A guide for research and critical thinking. New York: Worth Publishers.
Venville, G., & Treagust, D. (1998). Exploring conceptual change in genetics using a multidimensional interpretive framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(9), 1031–1055.
Wiggins, S. (2008). A fundamentalist worldview. Retrieved September 14, 2011 from http://www.shwiggie.com/a-fundamentalist-worldview/.
Wilberforce, W. (1996). A practical view of Christianity. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Wiley, J., Goldman, S. R., Graesser, A. C., Sanchez, C. A., Ash, I. K., & Hemmerich, J. A. (2009). Source evaluation, comprehension, and learning in internet science inquiry tasks. American Educational Research Journal, 46(4), 1060–1106.
Wood, P. K., & Kardash, C. (2002). Critical elements in the design of critical thinking studies. In B. K. Hofer & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 233–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wu, H. K., & Hsieh, C. E. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry-based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313.
Yoon, S. (2008). Using memes and memetic processes to explain social and conceptual influences on student understanding about complex socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 45(2), 1–22.
Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., Crawford, B., Friedrichsen, P., & Land, S. (2002). Scaffolding preservice science teachers’ evidence-based arguments during an investigations of natural selection. Research in Science Education, 32(4), 437–463.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Dr. Kathleen Fisher, Rev. Dr. Beth LaRocca-Pitts, Rev. Dr. Paul Lewis, Dr. Larry Scharmann, Jean Miller M.Div., Dr. Harvey Siegel, Dr. Randolph Devereaux, and the journal reviewers for their insightful suggestions on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, M.U. The Role of Authority in Science and Religion with Implications for Science Teaching and Learning. Sci & Educ 22, 605–634 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9469-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9469-1