Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

First-Year College Students’ Conflict with Religion and Science

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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: 417–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguillard D., (1999). Evolution Education in Louisiana Public Schools: A Decade Following Edwards v. Aguillard. American Biology Teachers 61: 182–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Aikenhead G.S., Ryan A.G., (1992). The Development of a New Instrument: ‚Views of Science–Technology–Society’ (VOSTS). Science Education 76: 477–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1025–1049

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (1993) Benchmarks for Science Literacy: Project 2061. Oxford University Press, New York, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Alters B.J., Alters S.M.: (2001) Defending Evolution. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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: 177–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benyo, J.: 2002 A Revolutionary Attempt to Bolster the Teaching of Evolution. Curriculum Review 42: 14–15

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 181–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee R. (2002) We Should Teach About Biological Evolution. Bioscience 52: 616–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bybee R. (2001) Teaching About Evolution: Old Controversy, New Challenges. Bioscience 51: 309–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 357–387

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 119–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, W.W.: 1991, ‚Worldview Theory and Science Education Research’, NARST Monograph No. 3, Manhattan, Kansas, National Association for Research in Science Teaching

  • Creation Science Association for Mid-America Website, http://www.csama.org

  • Dodick J., Orion N. (2003) Geology as an Historical Science: Its Perception within Science and the Education System. Science and Education 12: 197–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dybas C.L. (2002) Evolution: Understanding Life on Earth. Bioscience 52: 644–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Eve R., Harrold E. (1991) The Creationist Movement in Modern America. Twayne, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 DC

  • Kuhn T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd edn, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallup G.H. Jr., Newport E. (1991) Belief in Paranormal Phenomena Among Adult Americans. Skeptical Inquirer 2: 137–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R.: 1990, When Children and Adults Do Not Use Learning Strategies: Toward a Theory of Settings, Review of Educational Research, 60: 517–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood M.R.C., North K.K. (1999) Science Through the Looking Glass: Winning the Battles but Losing the War?. Science 286: 2071–2079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith J.A., Brem S.K. (2004) ‚Teaching Evolutionary Biology: Pressures, Stress, and Coping, Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(8): 791–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewson P.B., Hewson M.G. (1984) The Role of Conceptual Conflict in Conceptual Change and the Design of Science Instruction. Instructional Science 13: 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jegede O., Aidenhead G. (1999) Transcending Cultural Borders: Implication for Science Teaching. Research in Science & Technological Education 17(1): 45–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R.L., Peeples E.E. (1987) The Role of Scientific Understanding in College: Student Acceptance of Evolution. The American Biology Teacher 49: 93–98

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 221–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N.G.: 1998, ‚The State of Science Education: Subject Matter Without Context’, Electronic Journal of Science Education Retrieved 2002 July http://www.unr.edu/homepage/jcannon/ejse/lederman.html

  • 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

  • Lincoln Y., Guba E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 53–70

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Moore R. (2002) Teaching Evolution: Do State Standards Matter?. Bioscience 52: 378–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1996) National Science Education Standards. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (1998) Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Numbers R.L. (1998) Darwinism Comes to America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutledge M.L., Mitchell M.A. (2002) High School Biology Teachers’ Knowledge Structure, Acceptance, and Teaching of Evolution. American Biology Teacher 64: 23–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan A., Aikenhead G.S. (1992) Students’ Preconceptions about the Epistemology of Science. Science and Education 76: 559–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider W., Pressley M. (1989) Memory Development Between 2 and 20. Springer-Verlag, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Shaw H. (2002) Keep Evolution in the Schools – at All Levels. Bioscience 52: 772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Editors: 2000, ‚Bad Science and False Facts’, Scientific American 287, 10

  • Sonderstrom M. (2000) Australopithecus or Adam’s Rib?. McGill News 80: 16–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Staver J. R.: (1999) ‚When Public Understanding of Science Thwarts Standards-based Science Education’, Electronic Journal of Science Education 3, 1–3. http://www.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/staver.html

  • Stinner A., McMillan B., Metz D., Jilek J., Klassen S. (2003) The Renewal of Case Studies in Science Education. Science & Education 12: 617–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 147–176

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • The National Center for Science Education. Retrieved online September 2005 http://www.natcenscied.org

  • Torres, K.: 2005, January 18, ‚Cobb School Board to Appeal Evolution Ruling’. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, online resource

  • Zimmer C. (2001) Evolution. Harper Collins, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Lisa Michelle Martin-Hansen

Authors
  1. Lisa Michelle Martin-Hansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Michelle Martin-Hansen.

Appendix

Appendix

Views on Science-Technology-Society (VOSTS)

Formatting has been altered for concise inclusion in this publication

INSTRUCTIONS TO STUDENTS:

Each question of the VOSTS inventory begins with a statement about a science–technology–society topic. Most of these statements express an extreme view on the topic. You my happen to agree strongly with this view; you may happen to disagree vigorously; or your own position may be in between the two.

Next, there is a list of positions (or viewpoints) on the issue. These usually go from one extreme to the other. You are asked to choose one of these positions, BUT ONLY ONE – the one that comes closest to your personal view or belief.

To summarize:

  • Read the statement carefully.

  • Think to yourself whether you agree or disagree with the statement, or can’t make up your mind.

  • Then read the list of different positions on the topic.

  • Pick the one that comes closest to your own position.

Every page ends with the same three positions. Here is how you can use them if you wish:

Table 1
Full size table

There are no “right” answers; this is not a test. We simply want to understand what your position is on a number of issues about science and about how it relates to technology and society.

PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS IN THE QUESTION BOOKLET

1. (VOSTS item #2) Defining science is difficult because science is complex and does many things. But MAINLY science is:

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to K, and then choose one.)

Table 2
Full size table

2. (VOSTS item #11). A country’s politics affect that country’s scientists. This happens because scientists are very much a part of a country’s society (that is, scientists are not isolate from their society).

Your position basically: (Please read from A to M, and then choose one.)

Table 3
Full size table

3. (VOSTS ITEM #16) Some cultures have a particular viewpoint on nature and man. Scientists and scientific research are affected by the religious or ethical views of the culture where the work is done.

Your position basically: (Please read from A to J, and then choose one.)

Table 4
Full size table

4. (VOSTS ITEM #19.) Within the U.S. there are groups of people who feel stongly in favor of or strongly against some research field. Science and technology projects are influenced by these special interest groups (such as environmentalists, religious organiations, and animal rights people)

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to K, and then choose one.)

Table 5
Full size table

5. (VOSTS ITEM #29) Scientists and engineers should be the ones to decide on future biotechnology in the U.S. (for example, recombinant DNA, gene splicing, developing ore-digging bacteria or snow-making bacteria, etc.) because scientists and engineers are the people who know the facts best.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to J, and then choose one.)

Table 6
Full size table

6. (VOSTS ITEM #41.) In your everyday life, knowledge of science and technology helps you personally solve practical problems (for example, getting a car out of a snowdrift, cooking, or caring for a pet.) This item was withdrawn from this study due to its affective nature.

Your position basically: (Please read from A to J, and then choose one.)

Table 7
Full size table

7. (VOSTS ITEM #55.) The best scientists are always very open-minded, logical, unbiased and objective in their work. These personal characteristics are needed for doing the best science.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to I, and then choose one.)

Table 8
Full size table

8. (VOSTS ITEM #61) Scientists are honest in their research work (for example, when they write a research report).

Your position basically: (Please read from A to J, and then choose one.)

Table 9
Full size table

9. (VOSTS ITEM #62) A scientist’s religious views will NOT make a difference to the scientific discoveries he or she makes.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to G, and then choose one.)

Table 10
Full size table

10. (VOSTS ITEM #72.) When scientists disagree on an issue (for example, whether or not low-level radiation is harmful), they disagree mostly because they do not have all the facts. Such scientific opinion has NOTHING to do with moral values (right or wrong conduct) or with personal motives (personal recognition, pleasing employers, or pleasing funding agencies).

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to J, and then choose one.)

Table 11
Full size table

11. (VOSTS ITEM #73) When a new scientific theory is proposed, scientists must decide whether to accept it or not. Their decision is based objectively on the facts that support the theory. Their decision is not influenced by their subjective feelings or by personal motives.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to H, and then choose one.)

Table 12
Full size table

12. (VOSTS ITEM #74) When a new scientific theory is proposed, scientists must decide whether to accept it or not. Scientists make this decision by consensus; that is, proposers of the theory must convince a large majority of fellow scientists to believe the new theory.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to I, and then choose one.)

Table 13
Full size table

13. (VOSTS ITEM #80) With the same background knowledge, two scientists can develop the same theory independently of each other. The scientist’s individuality does NOT influence the content of a theory.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to F, and then choose one.)

Table 14
Full size table

14. (VOSTS ITEM #84) BACKGROUND: A team of scientists worked together “in private” in their lab for 3 years and developed a new theory. The team will present their theory to a group of scientists at a science conference and the team will write a scientific journal article explaining their theory (that is, the team will work “in public” with other scientists). The following statement compares private and public science.

STATEMENT: When scientists do their private science (for example, when they work in a lab), their thinking is open-minded, logical, unbiased and objective; just as it is when they do their public science (for example, when they write an article for presentation).

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to J, and then choose one.)

Table 15
Full size table

15. (VOSTS #93) Scientific observations made by competent scientists will usually be different if the scientists believe different theories.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to H, and then choose one.)

Table 16
Full size table

16. (VOSTS #95) When scientists classify something (for example, a plant according to its species, an element according to the periodic table, energy according to its source, or a star according to its size), scientists are classifying nature according to the way nature really is ; any other way would simply be wrong.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to I, and the choose one.)

Table 17
Full size table

17. (VOSTS ITEM #96) Even when scientific investigations are done correctly, the knowledge that scientists discover from those investigations may change in the future.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to G, and then choose one.)

Table 18
Full size table

18. (VOSTS ITEM #97) Scientific ideas develop from hypotheses to theories, and finally, if they are good enough, to being scientific laws.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to H, and then choose one.)

Table 19
Full size table

19. (VOSTS ITEM #98) When developing new theories or laws, scientists need to make certain assumptions about nature (for example, matter is made up of atoms). These assumptions must be true in order for science to progress properly.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to I, and then choose one.)

Table 20
Full size table

20. (VOSTS ITEM #100) Good scientific theories explain observations well. But good theories are also simple rather than complex.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to I, and then choose one.)

Table 21
Full size table

21. (VOSTS ITEM #103) Scientific discoveries occur as a result of a series of investigations, each one building on an earlier one, and each one leading logically to the next one, until the discovery is made.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to J, and then choose one.)

Table 22
Full size table

22. (VOSTS ITEM #106) Even when making predictions based on accurate knowledge, scientists and engineers can tell us only what probably might happen. They cannot tell what will happen for certain.

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to H, and then choose one.)

Table 23
Full size table

23. (VOSTS ITEM #109) Science rests on the assumption that the natural world can not be altered by a supernatural being (for example, a deity).

Your position, basically: (Please read from A to H, and then choose one.)

Table 24
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martin-Hansen, L.M. First-Year College Students’ Conflict with Religion and Science. Sci & Educ 17, 317–357 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9039-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9039-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation