Clergy S Views of The Relationship Betwe

Sci & Educ (2008) 17:359–386
DOI 10.1007/s11191-007-9099-1
Clergy’s Views of the Relationship between Science and

Religious Faith and the Implications for Science
Education
Daniel L. Dickerson Æ Karen R. Dawkins Æ John E. Penick
Published online: 24 July 2007

Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007
Abstract Since many teachers and students recognize other kinds of knowledge (faith)
based on other ways of knowing, consideration of these realities is appropriate for the science
education community. Understanding the multitude of ways that clergy view relationships
between science and faith (i.e. alternative ways of knowing) would assist in understanding
various ways that people address complex issues arising from ideas about science and faith.
We administered a questionnaire composed of multiple-choice and short answer items to 63
United Methodist ministers. Findings included (1) that formal, organized faith contexts (e.g.
church services) serve as informal science education opportunities, (2) participants demon-
strated considerable diversity regarding the types of relationships developed between science
and faith, and (3) participants recognized a need exists for better understandings of science
and its relationship to faith for them, their colleagues, and their congregations.
1 Introduction
The science education community agrees in large part that teaching the nature of science is
important. Included in that domain are ideas about the nature of scientific knowledge and
D. L. Dickerson (&)
Educational Curriculum and Instruction, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
e-mail: ddickers@odu.edu
K. R. Dawkins
Center for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
27858, USA
e-mail: dawkinsk@mail.ecu.edu
J. E. Penick
Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC 27695, USA
e-mail: john_penick@ncsu.edu
123
360 D. L. Dickerson et al.
the ways of knowing advocated by the scientific community, which are based on empirical
evidence. Since many teachers and students recognize other kinds of knowledge based on
other ways of knowing (e.g. religious faith), consideration of these individuals’ realities is
appropriate for the science education community. This is not to equate the related concepts
of faith and knowledge, but rather to emphasize that many make knowledge claims based
upon a religious faith and these knowledge claims can impact the teaching and learning of
science. Understanding the multitude of ways that clergy view relationships between
science and religious faith (i.e. alternative ways of knowing) would assist in understanding
various ways that people address complex issues arising from ideas about science and
religious faith. As such, this study seeks to provide evidence to support the notion that
clergy serve as informal science educators. We also provide evidence-based descriptions of
the various ways clergy view the relationship between science and religious faith by
collecting and analyzing questionnaire data.
2 Conceptual Framework
We drew upon four different areas of the literature to make sense of the data collected in
this study. The first, free-choice science education, serves as a basis to understand the
context in which clergy address science with parishioners. The other three areas are closely
related to one another and include nature of science, the nature and role of evidence, and
the relationship between science and religious faith. These three areas provided a context
for the discussion of responses related to participants’ epistemological and ontological
views. All four areas were used to help frame data interpretation of responses to selected
items and/or groups of items within the questionnaire.
2.1 Free-choice Science Education
Free-choice learning (Falk 2001), sometimes used interchangeably with informal learning
(for example Hofstein and Rosenfeld 1996), describes learning that occurs outside the
contexts of formal education (e.g. the traditional school classroom). This type of learning is
typically associated with ‘museums, zoos, libraries, nature centers, and so forth’ (Bam-
berger and Tal 2006, p. 76). The leading scholars in free-choice education assert that it is a
powerful form of learning because it typically requires ‘prior knowledge, prior experi-
ences, interest, motivation, choice, and control’ (Bamberger and Tal 2006, p. 77). Fur-
thermore, ‘there are some studies that show that much of public understanding of science
arises in and through participation in everyday, collectively motivated activity rather than
from school science classrooms’ (Boyer and Roth 2006, p. 1029). A case could be made
that the choice to attend a religious service or engage in conversation with a member of the
clergy would constitute a free-choice environment. If the content of those interactions
revolved around science issues, then environments involving clergy/parishioner interac-
tions would represent examples of free-choice/informal science education opportunities.
2.2 The Nature of Science
Most major standards and reform-based documents used today comment on the importance of
the nature of science in science education; however, a consistent characterization of that
123
Relationship between Science and Religious Faith 361
nature, especially when approaching metaphysics, is difficult to find (Good and Shymansky
2001). Khishfe and Lederman (2006) iterate this perspective by stating that there ‘is no
agreement among philosophers, historians, and sociologists of science on a specific definition
for NOS’ (p. 396). The epistemological, ontological, and axiological inconsistencies found
within and across documents illustrate the multitude of acceptable and/or frequently espoused
views within the philosophical, scientific, and educational communities concerning science
as a way of knowing. Navigating the often muddy waters of the nature of science lexicon
means appropriately identifying and decoding words and phrases that: (a) can be used
differently in varying contexts (e.g. externalism); (b) sometimes vary dramatically in
definition based upon the author’s perspective; and (c) are not provided in a comprehensive
way for a given context. Positivism in particular, constitutes a poorly understood term. For
example, Phillips’ (2004) descriptions of misrepresentations of positivism (i.e. positivists
believe in an absolute reality and the ability of science to provide objective, absolute Truth)
reflect the alternative (i.e. to the philosophy of science community) perspectives of many.
Despite the complexity of the subject, the literature including standards documents
identifies important ideas about the nature of science that are commonly agreed upon
regardless of philosophical orientation and that contribute to scientific literacy without
diverging into esoteric ideas that have little value or interest for teachers and students. For
example, as described in Driver et al. (1996), Lederman (1992), McComas (1998a), Ak-
erson et al. (2006), and Khishfe and Lederman (2006), science is tentative, empirical,
addresses natural phenomena, involves both subjectivity and reliability, and is a product of
human creativity and culture. These elements are typically addressed in science education
contexts in terms of common misconceptions including: theories turn into laws over time,
there exists only one linear scientific method, science can prove (meaning that answers
provided by scientific methods do not change), and that science is objective (meaning not
influenced by personal or cultural factors).
2.3 The Nature and Role of Evidence
‘Evidence is a concept central to the empirical sciences. Whether to believe, or even take
seriously, a scientific hypothesis or theory depends on the quantity and character of the
evidence in its favour’ (Achinstein 1983, p. 1). The science education community agrees
and subsequently considers instruction regarding evidence important in the development of
a scientifically literate person (National Research Council 1996; Skehan and Nelson 2000).
When discussing the nature and role of scientific evidence, however, several problematic
issues immediately arise. Evidence as used in science varies considerably dependent upon
the particular culture of a given discipline and the epistemological stance of the individual
(Kourany 1998). Furthermore, practicing scientists and philosophers of science describe
evidence differently within the same discipline and operating under the same epistemo-
logical framework (Achinstein 2001). So some have suggested discussing the concept of
scientific evidence in terms of its similarities among the various disciplines of science
(Kuhn et al. 1988). In science education, a scientifically generalized view of evidence
stands as the present paradigm in both curriculum and instruction. For example, the
National Research Council (2000, pp. 25–26) describes the role and nature of scientific
evidence in the following way:
... science distinguishes itself from other ways of knowing through use of empirical
evidence as the basis for explanations about how the natural world works. Scientists
123
concentrate on getting accurate data from observations of phenomena. They obtain

evidence from observations and measurements taken in natural settings.... They use
their senses, instruments such as telescopes to enhance their senses, or instruments
that measure characteristics that humans cannot sense, such as magnetic fields. In
some instances, scientists can control conditions to obtain their evidence; in other
instances they cannot.... The accuracy of the evidence gathered is verified by
checking measurements, repeating the observations, or gathering different kinds of
data related to the same phenomenon. The evidence is subject to questioning and
further investigation.
2.4 The Relationship between Science and Religious Faith
There are a number of ways to approach both science and religious faith. Either can be
considered dogmatic and arrogant to the point where each ignores the value of the other or
permissive and all-inclusive to the point where each loses its integrity. This wide range is
further complicated by teachers’ and students’ lack of understanding regarding the nature
of science and the variation in levels of personal conviction and personal participation and
experiences in the practice of both. The characterization of the atheistic radical empiricist
scientist arguing nose-to-nose with the Bible-waving fundamentalist preacher provides a
mental image for many that encapsulates the essence of the science and religious faith
relationship. The notion of conflict between science and religious faith should be troubling
to science educators. Since many teachers and students acknowledge religious faith as a
way of knowing, perceived conflict between the two makes science education for all
students a difficult proposition without first addressing the relationship between science
and religious faith. When providing instruction regarding these two ways of knowing,
multiple possible relationships must be examined, not just those of conflict because ‘most
major religions in America are on record as supporting teaching of the scientific methods’
and scientific content such as biological evolution and geologic history (Wise 2001, p. 30).
Views regarding the relationship between science and religious faith in Judeo-Christian
and Islamic traditions share a number of similarities across religious and denominational
boundaries. One of the more striking similarities involves fundamentalist approaches to
interpreting religious texts and applying those interpretations in scientific contexts. As
such, a view of science and religious faith as conflicting explanations for phenomenon
commonly occurs in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Often, arguments concerning con-
troversial topics like biological evolution that emerge from these different religious faith
systems possess similar characteristics including ‘motivation’, ‘rhetoric’, and rationales
(Dagher and BouJaoude 1997; Dutch 2002, p. 137). Within the Christian community, the
official language of denominations has contained a range of stances, typically dynamic in
nature, over the course of US history. Today conflict between science and religious faith in
the Christian community is usually most strongly associated with evangelicals, conser-
vatives, and fundamentalists, who are typically associated with denominations such as
Southern Baptists and more orthodox groups (Ammerman 2003). Meanwhile, denomina-
tions such as the United Methodists are typically viewed as more liberal in nature. The
idea, however, that because a person is a member of one of these denominations, that
individual will share the relationship espoused or allowed by their denomination is a
‘highly questionable’ assumption (Banks 2006, p. 136). This is particularly the case for
teachers, who may be aware of their students’ religious affiliations. Making assumptions
123
about students’ science understandings and attitudes based on religious stereotypes would
be no different than making those same assumptions based on a student’s race, sexual
orientation, or any other characteristic of their person or culture.
The notion that any one of the three major Western religions, however, holds a singular,
homogenous view of the relationship between science and religious faith is inaccurate
(McGrath 1999). So to say that there are similarities found among the various Western
religions is to say that there are similarities found among individual denominations or sects
of a particular religion with individual denominations or sects of another religion. A danger
of over-generalization still exists, however, due to the variety of views held by members of
any given denomination or sect (Goldberg 1999). The case of Christianity illustrates this
point well according to McGrath (1999, p. 31):
... the term ‘Christian’ can refer to a wide variety of intellectual positions, requiring
further clarification. Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox forms of
Christianity are, for example, quite distinct.
McGrath (1999, pp. 31–44) argues that rather than examining the views of the relationship
between science and religious faith in the context of denomination it may be more
appropriate to do so according to the current, most prominent schools of thought in
Christianity. Many scholars recognize the fluid nature of various Christian schools of
thought and their ability to flow into and mingle with denominational-specific doctrine, as
well as personal or cultural constructs, resulting in a highly diverse array of amalgamated
theologies. Carlson (2000, p. 11) agrees with the assessment that no one distinct view of
the relationship between science and religious faith should be ascribed to Christianity as a
whole or to any given Christian denomination:
I am convinced that there is no single distinctly Christian viewpoint on matters of the
relationship of natural science and Christian faith. There are, however, distinct
viewpoints held by Christians, and these distinct viewpoints are found in particular
Christian subcultures, subtraditions and groups, but these groupings cut across all
sorts of Christian boundaries.
While broad similarities may be drawn across religions or particular groupings within a
denomination or religion, their usefulness in understanding individuals’ views of the
relationship between science and religious faith may be limited.
There have been a number of typologies developed regarding the relationship between
science and religious faith that are independent of denomination. Colburn and Henriques
(2006) and Anderson (2007) allude to and describe several in their works including those
provided by Barbour (2000), Bube (1995), Drees (1996), Haught (1995), Nord (1999), and
Ratzsch, (2000). Colburn and Henriques (2006) used Nord’s (1999) system because it was
‘slightly simpler and more general than the others’ (p. 433). We agree with this assessment
and will make use of it in this study for the same reason as well as to allow for better
comparisons between the two studies. Nord’s (1999) typology consists of four categories:
Religion Trumps Science, Science Trumps Religion, Independence, and Integration. The
first two represent a state of conflict where the respective domain comes out on top.
Independence describes the notion that the two are wholly separate domains. Integration
describes the idea that ‘science and religion can conflict and can reinforce each other, for
they make claims about the same world’ (Nord 1999, p. 30). The leading scholars in the
field support the latter two. For example, Gould (1997) has publicly supported the Inde-
pendence position, while others like Barbour (2000) have supported Integration.
123
2.5 Rationale for Study and Research Questions
If clergy address scientific issues in the course of their work with their parishioners, then
that work serves as a bona fide example of an informal science education context. From
conversations with pre-service and in-service science teachers, it has been suggested that
some clergy address scientific content in religious settings often in the context of socio-
scientific issues (e.g. stem cell research). If this is the case, the science education com-
munity should be interested in what science understandings and attitudes clergy hold,
because what they teach may or may not support what is being taught in formal science
education settings. In an effort to address this issue, we developed two related research
questions. First, do United Methodist ministers serve as facilitators of free-choice science
education learning? Second, what perspectives exist regarding the relationship between
science and religious faith among United Methodist ministers?
3 Methods
We looked at studies conducted by Colburn and Henriques (2006), Colburn et al. (2002),
Jackson (2002), and Dagher and BouJaoude (1997) to assist us in developing an instrument
to reveal United Methodist ministers’ understandings of the relationship between science
and religious faith. In particular, we modeled our study after the work of Colburn et al.
(2002) but made some significant changes with respect to the structure and content of the
instrument and participant selection in order to more appropriately address our research
questions. The changes included limiting the range of participants’ religious affiliations to
one from at least eight (see Colburn and Henriques 2006) and increasing the sample size of
that denomination from 14 to 63. The reason for this change is that one could argue that the
variation in responses seen in Colburn and Henriques (2006) and Colburn et al. (2002) was
due to the diversity of denominations within Christianity. In order to address this potential
argument and in light of Carlson (2000) and McGrath’s (1999) work described earlier, our
third research question will examine this issue of whether it may be appropriate to discuss
relationships between science and religious faith in terms of denominational ways of
thinking, at least with regard to United Methodists. Comparisons to Colburn and Henriques
(2006) work will be included in the Results and Discussion section.
3.1 The Instrument
We developed an instrument composed of five multiple-choice items, 10 combination

multiple-choice/short answer items, one fill in the blank item (in the form of a timeline),
and four open-ended items for a total of 20 items (Appendix A). The first three items ask
for participant background information, including their age, number of years as a minister
in the United Methodist Church (UMC), and number of science courses taken beyond
general college science requirements. Item 4 asks participants to rate their own knowledge
of science, while item 5 inquires about the role of seminary/divinity school in shaping their
understandings of science. The remaining items fall in one of four categories: (1) scientific
content understanding, (2) ministers’ role(s) in shaping their congregations’ notions of the
relationship between science and religious faith, (3) ministers’ understandings of elements
of the nature of science, and (4) ministers’ notions regarding the relationship between
science and religious faith. Face validity was established through clergy not included in the
123
participant group and content validity was addressed through the use of think-a-loud
interviews with selected participants (Gall et al. 1996).
3.2 The Participants and Rationales for Selection
Our study focused on 63 United Methodist ministers from one state in the southeastern
United States. The study included participants in each of the age-brackets, with 78% of the
participants younger than 60 years old (Table 1). Additionally, 67% of the participants
served less than 20 years as a minister in the United Methodist Church, however, the study
included participants in each time-bracket (Table 1). All participants were currently or-
dained or in the process of becoming ordained in the United Methodist Church.
One rationale guiding the choice of United Methodist ministers as the participants for
the study was the relative consistency in their educational backgrounds. In an attempt to
decrease the number of variables that might impact the results, we selected a denomination
in which all ordained ministers held undergraduate degrees. This is in contrast to other
Christian denominations where there are no formal educational requirements to be the
leader of a church. As part of ordination, potential ministers must successfully complete a
degree program from a recognized seminary or divinity school. Acceptance to a recognized
seminary or divinity school requires an undergraduate degree from a 4-year post-secondary
institution. We also wanted to include United Methodist ministers because of the church’s
official stance towards science as described, in part, in the Social Creed of the UMC (Watts
1998, p. 65): ‘We affirm the natural world as God’s handiwork and dedicate ourselves to its
preservation, enhancement, and faithful use by humankind’. In this portion of the creed, the
United Methodist Church describes a clear relationship between our natural environment
and God. Dependent upon the understanding held by the developers of the creed con-
cerning the nature of science, this sentence may also consciously articulate a particular
relationship between science and religious faith.
The description of the ‘natural world’ as ‘God’s handiwork’ suggests a perfect crafts-
man/craft relationship between God and nature, since United Methodists hold God to be
‘perfect’ and all He creates as ‘good’ (Watts 1998, p. 65). Additionally, the last part of the
sentence possibly includes the processes of science, as all members of the Church are to
serve as stewards of God’s creation in order to assist in its ‘preservation, enhancement, and
faithful use’ (Watts 1998, p. 65). Science would supply an effective means by which to
attempt to preserve and enhance our natural environment, while faithfully operating
according to God’s will. This is only one possible interpretation. The wording provides
ample room for individual ministers to interpret in a broad number of ways. More
importantly, however, the Social Creed does not prevent clergy or laity from forming any
Table 1 Bakground information topics and responses

Topics Responses
Ages of Participants (n = 62) 20–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–100+

31% 16% 32% 11% 10%
Years of service as a United 0–3 4–9 10–19 20–30 30–40+
Methodist minister (n = 61) 15% 31% 23% 13% 18%
Participant self-reported Very poor Poor Good Very good
knowledge of science (n = 63) 0% 6% 73% 21%
123
particular type of relationship between science and religious faith so long as God is viewed
as the Creator at some point and in some way. This allows for diversity of relationship
between science and religious faith, but does that diversity exist? If so, to what degree does
it exist? The United Methodists have a reputation for being one of the more liberal
denominations of Protestant Christianity. So does that mean that science teachers can
assume that students who are United Methodists will be receptive to evolution and geo-
logic time? By limiting this study to one denomination rather than including many, we will
gain insight that will eventually help address these questions and offer a point of com-
parison to studies that have incorporated multiple denominations.
The United Methodist denomination was selected because it is one of the largest
Christian Churches in terms of membership. The United Methodist Church ranked among
the 10 largest Protestant Churches in the US and Canada in 2005 (Lindner 2006). While we
do not suggest that our results are generalizable, they are potentially transferable
(McMillan and Schumacher 2006). That makes the findings here potentially applicable to a
larger group of people, than if we had selected a marginal denomination. Lastly, we
decided upon the United Methodist Church as a sample of convenience, because we had
access to a large number of ministers at one time through their statewide Annual Con-
ference at a time when data collection could begin.
3.3 Data Collection and Analysis
We distributed the instrument to ministers at a southeastern state Annual Conference of the

United Methodist Church in two ways. We set up a booth at which we maintained a
presence displaying a poster describing the study and handed out the instrument to min-
isters who passed by us. We also placed stacks of the instruments in various locations
throughout the conference center with signs posted on the walls indicating where to place
completed instruments. A collection box located at the booth served as the depository for
all completed instruments. Data collection occurred over the course of 2 days, except in the
case of two participants who completed an electronic version of the instrument we sent to
them via email per their request. With the exception of the emailed instruments, all data
collected were anonymous.
Data analysis involved quantitative and qualitative components. Circled responses from
multiple-choice and combination multiple-choice/short answer items were aggregated and
tallied. We used the tallied choices to calculate percentages of each response for each item.
Comparisons were made across and within items. We coded and aggregated participants’
responses to the open-ended portions of the items to illuminate trends and supported our
assertions with selected responses (Creswell 1998). We developed two broad codes
regarding nature of science described as ‘popular positivism’ and ‘constructivism’. As
such, responses coded as popular positivist in nature reflect alternative understandings of
nature of science in terms of the misconceptions described by Phillips (2004), whereas
responses coded as constructivist in nature represent positions accepted by the current
philosophy of science community (e.g. realist and relativist).
While we do not suggest that the conclusions drawn from this study are generalizable
due to a number of factors including cultural variability (e.g. regional, ethnic, racial), self-
selecting nature of the survey protocol, and initial efforts to validate instrument items,
important insights were gained regarding the research questions. Due to the descriptive and
inductive (Bogdan and Biklen 1998) approach taken in developing the instrument and
analyzing the data, we paid particular attention to the more open-ended responses. While
123
discrete, circled answers provided some information regarding participant thinking, we

used caution in drawing conclusions based on those results for two reasons. First, we made
purposeful use of the broad terms ‘faith’ and ‘religion’ in instrument items in order to
accommodate as much latitude as possible in participants’ responses. We coupled yes/no
components with open-ended components when using these vague terms in order to in-
crease potential to illuminate participants’ thinking. However, not all participants provided
an explanation for their discrete yes/no response, so we focused on responses that included
explanations. As such, the results consist of examples of perspectives held by clergy
without any implied percentage of prevalence of a particular perspective, unless otherwise
noted due to high response percentages.
Second, the responses to multiple-choice items regarding elements of NOS were con-
sidered in light of many researchers’ practices of using open-ended items (e.g. VNOS
series) and/or semi-structured interviews when studying participants’ (typically small
samples) understandings of NOS. Due to the large number of participants, interviews were
not logistically possible, so a combination of open-ended and multiple-choice items were
implemented. In order to increase confidence in our interpretations of the data, we trian-
gulated across instrument items when possible, particularly with regard to the items related
to NOS. While face and content validity were established through pilot testing and think-
alouds and triangulation was conducted across items, limitations still exist regarding the
multiple-choice items, particularly those associated with determining participants’ under-
standings of NOS as no additional validity or reliability studies were conducted.
4 Results and Discussion
We will discuss the results according to each of our research questions.
4.1 Do United Methodist Ministers Serve as Facilitators of Free-choice Science

Education Learning?
Items 11 and 12 deal with the degree to which ministers serve in shaping members of their
congregations’ scientific understandings. Almost three-quarters of the participants (72%)
reported addressing scientific issues with church members. Examples of topics covered by
the participants included, ‘human behavior’, ‘astronomy’, ‘cause and effect in sexual
preference’, ‘genetics, abortion, hybrids, food industry’, ‘computers, global warming’,
‘most medically related’, ‘Big Bang’, ‘cloning, end of life issues’, ‘origin of universe,
ethics of science’, ‘stem cell research’, and ‘evolution vs creationism and theistic friendly
aspects of quantum physics’. One participant stated that he/she ‘addresses any questions
raised’. Assuming that parishioners listening to or conversing with ministers regarding
these topics are doing so without coercion, these data provide evidence that some United
Methodists ministers serve as facilitators of free-choice (Falk 2001) science education
learning environments.
Item 3 inquired about participants’ science coursework background. Slightly less than
half of the 63 participants, 49%, indicated that they had taken science courses beyond their
general college science requirements (Table 2). Of those 31 participants, two (6%) did not
respond to the follow-up question of ‘If yes, how many semester courses beyond required’?
Nine (29%) provided verbal responses including the following: ‘minored in Zoology’, ‘MS
Biology’, ‘math major minor in physics’, ‘PhD in chemistry’, ‘BA in chemistry’, ‘many’,
123
‘PhD in physics’, ‘BS’, and ‘PhD in economics’. The rest of the responses were numerical
and ranged from one to 50 with a mean of 6.57, median of 3, and a standard deviation of
10.61. We had anticipated that if a participant had taken a course focused on history or
philosophy of science, it would be included in the numerical response to the item. Cur-
rently, however, there is no way to be sure whether participants included such courses in
their responses. In future versions of the instrument, we will include an item that directly
measures history and philosophy of science completion. All 63 participants responded to
the item concerning their knowledge of science. Almost all of the participants, 94%, rated
their own knowledge of science as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. Only 6% rated their knowledge
as ‘poor’ and no one rated their knowledge as ‘very poor’ (Table 1).
Given the potential for clergy to serve as facilitators of free-choice (Falk 2001) science
learning, more than a quarter (median of three courses above general requirements) of the
participants may be in a reasonably good position to address certain science issues (related
to their coursework). These numbers are placed in the context that many elementary
education programs in the US do not require that many additional science courses for
elementary education majors who teach science in formal education settings. The high
percentage (94%) of those who rated their knowledge as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, however, is
troubling as it may indicate an overconfidence in their understandings, which may be
detrimental to learners guided by an uniformed, highly confident person.
4.2 What Perspectives Exist Regarding the Relationship between Science and
Religious Faith among United Methodist Ministers?
In addition to determining whether or not the participants served as facilitators of free-

choice science learning, we were interested in learning more about the environments in
which they served and how they related to perspectives regarding science and religious
faith relationships. As such, we inquired about whether their congregation thought about
science in the same way they did. A little more than half (51%) of the ministers replied that
their congregation did. One of the more prevalent trends included ministers implying that
they hold better understandings of and more positive attitudes towards science than their
congregations, unless their congregation consists of scientists, in which case their under-
standings were equivalent. For example, participants wrote: (a) ‘yes, I have many Christian
scientists in my church’; (b) ‘no, often they confuse the two’; (c) ‘no, less informed, less
Table 2 NOS items and responses

Instrument items Responses (%)
Item #9 True False

Scientific theories are often not very reliable 19 81
If a theory holds up over time, it may become a scientific law 75 25
Most scientists relate their research to existing theories 87 13
Item #10 Theory Law Both
An explanation for a natural phenomenon 46 8 46
Most often related to physics 14 67 19
Can usually be expressed mathematically 13 45 42
Supported by evidence 23 17 60
Useful in predicting 25 15 60
123
reflective, they don’t see much connection between them’; (d) ‘no, I’ve always had a deep
interest in science, which is not shared to the same degree by most of my congregation’;
and (e) ‘no, I don’t know. Ours is a small rural community. Science is low on the list of
important issues. In that way, at least, I see a difference’. Interestingly, b and c appear tied
to some degree to the participants’ views regarding the relationship between science and
religious faith. In a similar trend, participants considered their views of the relationship
between science and religion to be more progressive, less conservative than their con-
gregations’ views. For example, participants described the discrepancy in views as follows:
(a) ‘no, it’s [the congregation is] more conservative and against evolution’; (b) ‘no, my
congregation is highly educated but theologically more conservative than I am, and some
are more suspicious of scientific insights’; and (c) ‘no, they [the congregation] are more
conservative, and I think they probably view science with more suspicion and see it as
often in disagreement with religion. Lastly, one participant summed up the crux of the
issue for science educators by stating, ‘no, school age members conflicted about dualism—
2 ‘truths’’. Many of these responses imply a discrepancy between the ministers’ and their
congregations’ view regarding the relationship between science and religious faith. Even
perhaps implying that they hold views of Integration and Independence (Nord 1999), while
their parishioners hold the view of Religion Trumps Science.
Most participants completed item 13 (Appendix A), which required participants to place
events on a timeline, although fourteen provided an alternative response or choose not to
answer. For example, one participant responded by writing a response that demonstrates an
Independence (Nord 1999) relationship, ‘The physical formation of the universe and the
Genesis stories are not incompatible. They speak at different levels. One seeks the date of
existence, the other its meaning. The Genesis stories were never intended to be a scientific
explanation and we do a disservice to the stories to make them so’. We sorted the
remaining responses into three categories: (1) completed timeline, (2) completed timeline
with times provided by relative spacing, and (3) completed timeline with times provided by
absolute dates. We then sorted each category by appropriate and inappropriate responses,
with an appropriate response being one currently accepted by the scientific community at
large. Appropriate dates were deemed those that fell within the range of dates currently
accepted by the scientific community at large for the beginning and ending of a given
event. Responses in Category 1 included 20 appropriate and eight inappropriate responses.
Three participants in Category 1 provided additional commentary on their timelines. One
participant who provided an inappropriate response placed the ‘creation account’ occurring
at the same time as the events ‘people’ and ‘the first appearance of bacteria on Earth’
(Fig. 1).
Two other participants who provided appropriate responses wrote the following con-
cerning the item and their responses: (1) Dates are not an issue with me; and (2) I believe
the Biblical account of creation, but I’m not convinced it took a literal week. I get
frustrated when scientists dismiss God out of hand.... They (and we) should not pretend to
know more than we do.
Category 2 included six appropriate and one inappropriate response. The one inap-
propriate response provided additional commentary as well, combining all of the events
except the ‘birth of Jesus Christ’ at the beginning of the timeline, and marking the end as
‘Today’ (Fig. 2).
The appropriate responses in Category 2 include those with appropriate relative times
and inappropriate relative times. Two of the six responses were appropriate in both terms
of the sequence and the relative spacing of the events, as in Fig. 3.
123
Fig. 1 Example of Category 1 response
Category 3 included four inappropriate and 10 appropriate responses. The four inap-
propriate responses were labeled as such because the participants left out one of the events
in their timelines. The 10 appropriate responses were further sorted based upon appropriate
sequencing only as opposed to appropriate sequencing and dates. Seven participants pro-
vided responses that were appropriate in terms of sequencing and three provided responses
with appropriate sequencing and dates.
Almost three-quarters, 73%, of the participants that completed item 13 gave an appropriate
sequencing of events, with 20% of that three-quarters providing appropriate sequencing and
appropriate relative/absolute dating of events. One participant pointed out a problem with the
timeline item 13. He/she asked for a definition of the event ‘people’. It is noted that this is a
vague term and should be addressed in subsequent studies involving this instrument, how-
ever, the ambiguity of the term did not determine the sorting of any response.
Unlike, the Colburn and Henriques (2006) study, we identified responses within our
sample that included evidence of young/old earth creationist beliefs that were coded as
Religion Trumps Science (see Figs. 1 and 2). The participant that provided the response in
Fig. 1 was considered to be a young earth creationist, while the participants who provided the
response in Fig. 2 and who provided the written response that he/she believed ‘the Biblical
account of creation, but I’m not convinced it took a literal week’ were considered old earth
creationists (Colburn and Henriques 2006). Interestingly, each one of these participants
represented a different typology. The young earth creationist was coded as an example of
Religion Trumps Science due to statements such as, science and faith ‘agree but faith (Bible)
123
is more reliable’. The other two participants were coded as examples of Integration and
Independence, respectively. For instance the participant that provided the response in Fig. 2
wrote the following example of Integration, the ‘more I understand the amazing intricacy of
creation, the more I appreciate the Creator’. The participant who provided the Independence
example wrote, ‘science describes ‘what’ and ‘how’, faith is concerned with ‘why’’.
The responses varied dramatically among the participants concerning their under-
standings and beliefs about evolution. No participant explicitly described evolution as a
change in gene frequency over time, rather explanations focused on ‘creation’, hominid
evolution, ‘change in living organisms’, and justifications for their responses. For example,
participants described evolution as, (a) ‘a theory of how the universe was created, the earth
was created, and how life came to exist and evolve over time’; (b) ‘true but not a gen-
erative (genesis) theory’; (c) ‘I think if we evolved from apes and monkeys, we would not
still have apes and monkeys’; and (d) ‘a scientific theory, which seeks to explain the
development and diversity of organisms in the world’. As illustrated, the participants held
many levels of understanding regarding evolution. Very few expressed completely naı̈ve or
highly sophisticated views, as compared to those of scientists. Instead, almost all of the
participants demonstrated moderately informed understandings of the scientific concepts.
We characterized responses containing partially appropriate understandings due to the
presence of popular misconceptions as moderately informed.
Participants’ acceptance of evolution ranged from one end of the spectrum to the other as
well. For example, responses included: (a) ‘[I] accept the Genesis account of creation’; (b) ‘I
am open to it [evolution]. I just don’t know very much about it. I do not think that evolution
and the Biblical account of creation are at odds’; and (c) ‘... it seems to be [a] true part of God’s
will’. Most participants accepted evolution as an explanation for their particular, moderately
informed definition of the concept. Only 20% of the 56 participants who responded to item 18
indicated that they considered evolutionary theory to be ‘lacking and unsatisfactory’ and
‘difficult to reconcile with faith in a creating God’. The rest viewed evolution, in one way or
another, as ‘God’s hand at work’. As with the geologic timescale, we could not identify trends
relating acceptance of scientific views and a particular relationship between science and
religious faith. For example, of the 20% who did not accept evolution, only four held Religion
Trumps Science views (e.g. ‘They agree but faith (Bible) is more reliable’), while the other
seven held Independence (e.g. ‘Science describes ‘what’ and ‘how’, faith is concerned with
‘why’) or Integration (e.g. ‘They relate and compliment each other’) views.
Items 9, 10, 17, and 19 identified various ideas represented among the participants
regarding specific aspects of the nature of science including, epistemological constructs,
limitations of science, the nature and role of evidence, and the nature and role of theories
and laws. While the majority of the recent literature in the area of science education
describes arguments in philosophy of science in terms of relativist/realist positions, these
do not accurately depict the participants’ ideas. The primary reason is because even among
the competing arguments of relativism and realism there exists common ground among
various aspects of the nature of science (e.g. limitations of science). This relationship
stands in contrast to the misrepresentations of positivism identified among the participants.
In the context of interpreting the data in this study then, the term popular positivist is
applied to responses indicating the popular misrepresentations of positivism, while con-
structivist is applied to responses that are consistent with currently accepted schools of
thought in the science education and philosophy of science communities. For example, one
participant revealing a more constructivist perspective defined science as, ‘the pursuit to
understand the physical universe through interpretation of physical evidence...(Ref.—
Thomas Kuhn)’. Much more common, however, was the more popular positivist depiction
123
of science as, ‘science is a search for truth. It seeks to give definitive answers...’. These
examples demonstrate the extreme ends of the epistemological spectrum represented in the
data. The popular positivist views expressed were generally much more radical in nature
than any of the consistent views, although a gradation of both positions existed.
Some participants considered science capable of or attempting to provide ‘meaning’ to life
and answering the question of ‘why’. For instance, these participants described science as: (a)
‘A rational system to explain existence and life in all aspects’; (b) ‘the study of the universe to
find answers for all of life’s questions’; (c) ‘the task of integrating, while discovering, the
world around us—explaining, not only to define, but to give meaning to life’; (d) ‘attempting
to understand God and our universe and world better’; (e) ‘the rational search for solid
answers regarding questions of faith’; and (f) ‘science is the study of what, where, how, and
often why’. Each one these participants also provided responses that supported their being
coded as Integration, for example, ‘they need each other—to foil and confirm’.
Many others viewed science differently, limiting it in scope to include only ‘natural
phenomena’. These participants described science as: (a) ‘the observation of natural
things’; (b) ‘study of the physical world’; (c) ‘attempt to explain the natural universe’; and
(d) ‘science is the study of the natural world’. Within this subgroup of participants, no
definitive trend existed regarding the relationship between science and religious faith.
The items concerning the nature and role of scientific evidence revealed ideas about two
specific aspects of the nature of science including: (1) various epistemological constructs and
(2) the temporal nature of scientific evidence. As seen in earlier items, epistemologies ranged
from popular positivism to more constructivist constructs, with most participants indicating
a predilection towards a more popular positivist position. For example, participants holding
to a popular positivist epistemology (a) defined scientific evidence and (b) described its role
in science as: (1) ‘(a) Provable. Knowledge that has certainty. (b) of paramount importance’;
and (2) ‘(a) Scientific evidence is proof in the laboratory under controlled conditions. (b)
Without evidence there would be only theories, no science, no proof’. Both participants’
responses are inconsistent with the notion of scientific evidence promoted by the scientific
and science education communities (NRC 2000). Participant responses representing more
constructivist epistemologies wrote: (1) ‘(a) Biased (b) much’; (2) ‘(a) Attempt to explain
something with so-called factual data (b) is the core’; (3) ‘(a) Scientific evidence is what we
are able to observe through our human senses and understanding about God’s creation. (b) It
helps us understand, in a very imperfect way, God’s incredible creation’; and (4) ‘(a) may be
true today, not tomorrow—example atom (b) guide only’. It is certainly possible that the first
two ‘constructivist’ responses cited above represent an anti-science attitude rather than an
epistemological construct. The last quote remarks on the temporal nature of science, and
served as the only response to explicitly address this aspect of the nature of science. While
none of the responses were as complete as the description provided by the National Research
Council (2000), several contained components that demonstrated an appropriate knowledge
of scientific evidence in a given context. For example, participants wrote: (a) ‘consistent
findings in repeated trials holding constant various controls’; (b) ‘data/results that are public,
reproducible, verifiable’; and ‘results of experiments or studies designed to test theories’. No
discernable trends existed regarding the relationship between science and religious faith and
the nature and role of scientific evidence.
We used two multiple-choice items, items 9 and 10, in conjunction with responses to
open-ended items, to examine participants’ understandings of the nature and roles of
theories and laws. The number of responses for each question in each item ranged from 52
to 54. Almost half or more of the participants selected the appropriate response for each
question in both items, except for one. The second question in item 9 essentially asked
123
whether theories become laws over time. Three-quarters (75%) of the participants believed
that theories become laws over time (Table 2).
As evidenced by responses to items asking for descriptions of science and scientific
evidence, some participants held popular positivist epistemologies. Some of these partici-
pants gave responses that revealed their understandings of the nature of science to include
the purpose and, more surprisingly, the capacity of science to yield absolute truth. Most
participants, however, held views of a science precluding ‘why’ explanations and limited
them to physical phenomena, yet maintained notions consistent with popular positivism. For
example, one participant who defined science as, ‘... the study of the natural world’ described
scientific evidence as ‘proof in the laboratory under controlled conditions. Without evidence
there would be only theories, no science, no proof’. The difficulty in assessing the affects of
the misunderstandings of the nature and roles of theories and laws is due to the pervasiveness
of the belief that theories evolve into laws over time (Table 2). The ubiquitousness of these
misunderstandings made it impossible to identify relationships with any particular partici-
pant characteristic. We experienced further difficulty in establishing relationships due to the
disconnected nature of the participants’ understandings regarding various aspects of the
nature of science. For example, while many of the participants scored well on the items
regarding the nature and roles of theories and laws (with the exception of the relationship
between the two) and provided responses that reflected informed understandings of science
and scientific evidence, not one participant demonstrated an appropriate understanding of all
the aspects of the nature of science assessed in our instrument. While these findings could
indicate problems with item validity, we consider the triangulation across items to provide
sufficient confidence to incorporate the findings into our conclusions. Furthermore, our
findings are consistent with other researchers’ regarding adults’ understandings of NOS (see
for example Lederman 1992; McComas 1998b). Additionally, no apparent trends existed
regarding NOS understandings and orientations and typologies of the relationship between
science and religious faith, with one notable exception. Participants who considered science
capable of or attempting to provide ‘meaning’ to life and answering the question of ‘why’ all
fell into the category of Integration. This is not surprising, however, since this epistemology
position is used to help define Integration.
Items 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, 16, and 20 addressed participants’ ideas about the relationship
between science and faith and the implications of their understandings of that relationship
on their religious faith and the religious faiths of others. Of the 60 participants who
responded to item 14, all but one acknowledged a relationship between science and faith.
Although that participant did not choose to explain their ‘no’ response in item 14, in
another item he/she wrote, ‘science and religion answer different questions’, indicating that
the person may believe there is not a relationship because they are Independent of one
another. The other 98% of the participants explained their ‘yes’ responses in ways char-
acterized by the following categories: (1) science is a way to learn more about God’s
creation (Integration), (2) science provides physical evidence related to religious faith
(Religion Trumps Science and Integration), (3) science is a gift from God (Integration), (4)
science and religious faith answer two separate questions (Independence), (5) science and
religious faith inform one another (Integration), (6) conditional congruence between
science and religious faith (Religion Trumps Science), and (7) faith is inherent in science
(Integration). Table 3 provides examples of responses that illustrate participants’ ideas
concerning the relationship between science and religious faith.
Over half of the participants (53%) responded ‘yes’ to item 15, which asked if they
thought there were any contradictions between science and religion. Most participants
listed events or concepts they thought constituted a contradiction, including: ‘healings
123
Table 3 Categorization of ministers’ ideas about the relationship between science and faith
Category Responses
1 Science is trying to understand what God has put in place, whether all scientists are Christians or
not.
Science offers an opportunity to understand God’s creation more fully.
Science, at its best, is a process of learning more about God and ourselves through the study of
God’s creation.
2 Carbon dating for Bible material, times/dates...
The more science learns, the more proof for God and Biblical truth.
Archeology has played a significant role in helping Biblical scholars understand history and
application.
Science can support creation theories.
3 God is creator of worlds, Prime Mover, and is giver of all wisdom and knowledge.
Scientific knowledge is another tool/gift God has given.
4 Both sources of knowledge and understanding, sometimes compatible, sometimes not—two
different types of knowledge.
Science deals with natural... phenomena, but faith deals with beliefs of the heart, often unseen
with the eyes.
Science explains. Faith also explains but gives reasons.
Science describes ‘what’ and ‘how’. Faith is concerned with ‘why’.
5 Science tells me ‘how’—it informs my faith. Faith tells me who did the creation.
Yes, they inform each other. Faith explains the meaning and the ‘seat’ of power. Science
describes the universe.
While they address two entirely separate fields of reality (one measurable, one not) they can
intersect. There you’ll see science confirm the Bible’s claims. If science doesn’t confirm
initially, it will later reverse position and confirm.
Both inform each other with different aspects of reality.
6 They agree but faith (Bible) is more reliable.
7 Science begins with assumptions about reality—faith is essential for both.
beyond the capability of medical science’, ‘cloning’, ‘creation and evolution’, ‘age of
Earth...’, ‘Noah and the flood’, and ‘Big Bang’. Additionally, several ideas emerged
regarding the contradictory nature of science and religion. Some participants focused on
the literal interpretation of the Bible as the source of tension. For example, two ministers
wrote in response to item 15, ‘Yes, only if you read the Old Testament literally, which I
choose not to do’ and ‘No, the Bible is not a history book...’. Others, because of their views
on the nature of the relationship between science and religious faith, gave the following
responses: (a) ‘No, I think they can be integrated’ (Integration); (b) ‘no, there shouldn’t be
because they pertain to different aspects of reality’ (Independence); and (c) ‘yes, God’s
ways are not our ways. Not to be flippant, but the Resurrection cannot be explained
scientifically’ (Independence). We interpret the implied contradiction in the last response
to be when scientific attempts are made to explain issues of religious faith, in effect, two
‘...different aspects of reality’. It is also important to note that of the 53% that identified
contradictions, all of Nord’s (1999) categories were identified in their collective responses
except Science Trumps Religion.
According to one participant, the contradictory relationship of science to religious faith
can be ascribed to ‘‘science’ seek[ing] to become a religion and when science claims
absolute truth’. He/she placed the blame for any contradiction squarely on the popular
123
positivist, without ascribing any similar blame to religion. Another participant considered
science and religion equally responsible for irreconcilable differences and wrote, ‘ When
science makes overreaching claims and when religion does the same, contradiction re-
sults’. One minister did not circle ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but rather wrote this, ‘There are apparent
contradictions, for example the origin of life, but I think those can be reconciled by a
deeper understanding of both science and faith’. Several other participants echoed the idea
that inadequate understanding and the failure to recognize that inadequacy produces
contradictions, for example, (a) ‘no, only misunderstandings from either side getting too
arrogant about their viewpoint’ and (b) ‘yes, because our knowledge of both God and
science are imperfect, we are not yet able to see how the two fit perfectly together’. Each of
these participants provided other responses that were consistent with Integration.
The overwhelming majority of the participants (89%) considered evidence to be used in
faith. However, with the range in understandings of scientific evidence demonstrated in
item 19, the vernacular use of the term evidence, and the variety of epistemologies rep-
resented by the participants, we were not surprised that the qualitative responses revealed
considerable variation in the definition of evidence as used in faith. Ministers’ definitions
of faith-based evidence spanned physical and metaphysical domains. For example, par-
ticipants viewing the role of evidence in religious faith to hold a more metaphysical nature
wrote: (a) ‘Our human senses and understanding also help us explain our experiences of
God. But through the power of God’s Holy Spirit, we also have spiritual senses and
understanding that take us beyond the evidence of our human senses and understanding to
a deeper, more intimate, understanding of God. Still, our understanding of God is very
imperfect’ and (b) ‘when people pray long enough, spiritual enlightenment often occurs’.
These two participants describe evidence used in religious faith as a metaphysical
‘enlightenment’ imbued by God. Others considered evidence used in religious faith to be
physical artifacts or observable events. These participants described their views as follows:
(a) ‘Archeology continually confirms much of Hebrew scriptures...’; (b) ‘faith healing and
other miracles’; (c) ‘faith is ‘the evidence of things not seen’. God’s answers to prayers
give evidence of God’s reality and God’s caring for humankind’; (d) ‘... in Old Testament
archeology...’; (e) ‘faith is supported by rational evidence, but is not limited to it. For
example, evidence can be collected regarding answered prayer, but the evidence is not the
sole basis for belief’. Embedded within some of these responses (i.e. a, d, and e) are
allusions to the use of scientific processes, including the use of scientific evidence as
described by the NRC (2000).
Some participants stated ‘creation’ to be the evidence they used in religious faith, as one
minister put it, ‘the wonder of creation gives evidence to a creator God’. Others gave
responses that centered on written historical accounts, for example: (a) ‘history’; (b) ‘Holy
Scriptures’; (c) ‘Bible’; (d) ‘... reality of the life of Christ, reality of the death of Christ,
reality of the lack of a dead body of Christ, the historical Biblical account’; and (e) ‘the
empty tomb, the witness of these who have seen’. Personal experiences appeared in
responses more often than any other particular type of evidence. Ministers’ wrote: (a)
‘personal experience—Perception is reality’; (b) ‘testimonies: ‘What God has done for
me...’; (c) ‘... evidence of the value of love—changed lives; evidence of the value of
forgiveness—changed lives’; (d) ‘faith adds to the realm of scientific evidence the
evidence of personal experience with the divine’; (e) ‘changed lives through a relationship
with Jesus’; (f) ‘if one is speaking of scientific evidence, no. A changed heart or a new
perspective is not necessarily quantifiable. Our evidence for faith is subjective’; (g) ‘one of
the interesting things about one’s faith walk is that a scientific approach cannot be used.
Anyone who learns the rules of math can prove 1 + 1 = 2. People of faith experience God
123
individually which cannot be given to another as an equation’; (h) ‘... It is certainly

strengthened by the evidence of experience’; and (i) ‘...experiential—I have seen evidence
of Christ’s action in my life and the life of the Church’. Of the six participants that
responded ‘no’, the primary reason given involved the nature of faith. For instance, two
participants wrote, ‘in my opinion, faith does not require evidence—or it is not faith’ and
‘if there is evidence, it is not faith’. There was no apparent trend regarding evidence as
used in religious faith and a particular relationship between science and religious faith.
Items 6 and 7 dealt with participants’ views regarding the ability of an individual to live
as a Christian while practicing science. All of the participants indicated in both items that
‘yes’ a Christian can practice science and remain faithful and scientists can be Christians.
The purpose of item 7 was an attempt to tease out the view of scientists as ‘secularists’.
None of the ministers appeared to hold a separatist view of scientists including those who
held the Religion Trumps Science view. Instead they provided responses like, ‘why not?’,
‘most definitely’, ‘of course’, ‘I have 2 in my congregation’, ‘absolutely(’, and ‘as long as
they profess Christ as Lord and Savior, believe in the Resurrection, and acknowledge God
as the Creator of the world and universe’. The last statement is consistent with the United
Methodist Church’s doctrine of what it means to be a Christian (Watts 1998), so although
the response is conditional the participant constructed it in the most inclusive way possible.
All but two participants that responded to item 8 indicated that they believed it to be
important for a Christian to be scientifically literate. The only explanation for the ‘no’
response was, ‘All Christians in the early years after Jesus’ resurrection did not have our
understanding of basic, modern science’. This participant held an Independent view of
science and religious faith. The other ‘no’ response was from a Religion Trumps Science
minister. We interpret the Independent minister’s statement to follow the argument that the
only things that are really important are spiritual ones. Others who qualified their ‘yes’
responses further articulated this idea with statements like the following, ‘scientific literacy
is not necessary for being a faithful Christian’. Most participants, however, explained their
‘yes’ responses in ways represented by the following quotes: (a) ‘in a technical/scientific
society, understanding what science can and cannot do is important’; (b) ‘I think it’s
important for everyone to be scientifically literate to some degree’; (c) ‘it informs faith to
expose some inaccurate faith assumptions and scientific assumptions’; (d) ‘it helps one
make ethical decisions...’; and (e) ‘it helps to understand God more fully’.
Of the 55 participants that responded to item 16, a little more than three-quarters (76%)
wrote that their knowledge level of science did affect their religious views in the following
ways: (a) ‘science, in some ways, confirms my views on God. Affirms importance of faith,
not everything can be based on ‘scientific knowledge’’; (b) ‘the more I understand the
amazing intricacy of Creation, the more I appreciate the Creation’; (c) ‘it keeps my religious
views from being arrogant, from trying to explain too much’; (d) ‘I could not be ‘funda-
mentalist’, as I was as a child’; (e) ‘supports it’; (f) ‘I wish I knew more about science. What
I do know gives me an incredible sense of awe for the One who created all this that we study
through science’; and (g) ‘it compliments my faith by offering yet another window into
God’s good creation and providential care’. Statements consistent with Independence and
Integration views were common. It is also important to note that d indicated that increasing
his/her science knowledge potentially served to alter his/her view of science from Religion
Trumps Science to Integration. We say potentially because as discussed earlier, creationist
beliefs (assumed here because of the use of ‘fundamentalist’) does not always equate to a
Religion Trumps Science view. Almost a quarter of the participants (24%) did not think that
their knowledge of science affected their religious views. The only reasons given, with one
notable exception, revolved around the notion that ‘science and religion answer different
123
questions’. This serves as an interesting trend, but not entirely unexpected. The notion that
those who genuinely hold an Independence view are common among those who report that
their knowledge of science does not affect their religious views should be predicted by
Nord’s (1999) typology. One participant, however, introduced the idea that religious views
inform one’s knowledge of science, as illustrated by his/her response, ‘It’s the other way
around’. This person held a Religion Trumps Science view.
All 63 participants responded regarding the role seminary/divinity school played in
changing their views of science. Over 87% indicated that seminary/divinity school did not
change their view of science. One-third of the participants responded to the open-ended
portion of the item yielding three different reasons for the participants’ ‘no’ responses. One
participant suggested that science and religion are two different things, for example,
‘science see facts, religion deals with mystery and faith’. Again, those holding Indepen-
dence views would conceivably be more likely to respond ‘no’. One participant indicated
that his/her views did not change, ‘...because my divinity school training did not delve
deeply into the doctrine of creation’. This statement is interesting especially in light of an
earlier quote that suggested that increased content knowledge may have altered his/her
views regarding the relationship between science and religious faith. Other participants
simply described having already formed their views of science before ever entering
seminary/divinity school, for instance: (a) ‘I had formed my basic views in college’; (b)
‘I’ve always seen God’s hand at work in scientific matters’; (c) ‘my faith already informed
my understanding of science’; (d) ‘I have been a Christian believer all my life and I
approached science differently than most scientists. My views of creation were strength-
ened in seminary’. It is important to note that in all three types of reasons listed above,
participants indicated they had already developed a view of science that did not change
during seminary/divinity school. Although, the first participant cited appears to have been
open to changing his/her beliefs had more instruction been devoted to the topic. Of the
participants who did experience change, one indicated that while he/she experienced a
‘little’ change, his/her views were changed ‘mostly in college’. Other reasons for change
included: (a) ‘tried to see theological implications’; (b) ‘more appreciation for science and
faith and their relationship to each other’; (c) ‘not addressed in seminary, but learned to
think critically—more open minded’. Most participants formed their views of science
before entering seminary/divinity school and then maintained those views until the present.
As previously mentioned, those views are predominantly popular positivist with a range of
views, except Science Trumps Religion. While some participants indicated that their
current views were reinforced (e.g. Religion Trumps Science grew stronger) and other
implied that their views were altered (e.g. Religion Trumps Science changed to Integra-
tion), none indicated that they held a Science Trumps Religion, Independence, or Inte-
gration view and moved toward a Religion Trumps Science view.
5 Summary and Implications
While only about half (49%) of the participants responded that they experienced any
formal science instruction in college beyond any general requirements, almost all (94%)
considered their knowledge of science to be ‘good’ or ‘very good’. For most of the
participants this confidence in their knowledge of science is justified, for some it is misplaced.
Although nearly three-quarters of the participants provided minimally appropriate responses
regarding the historical sequencing of events, there remained about 20% of the participants
who described their knowledge of science as ‘good’ or ‘very good’ who provided inappro-
123
priate responses for item 13. Only 8% or four inappropriate responses showed evidence of
creationist theories in their timelines. Three out of those four also explicitly indicated their
failure to accept evolutionary theory in responding to the question about evolution in item 18.
Additionally, eight others explicitly indicated they did not accept evolutionary theory, as they
understood it. Of those, only four held Religion Trumps Science views. The others explicitly
addressed either Independence or Integration views. The responses addressing participants’
understandings of evolution demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of participants are
moderately informed about the topic and willing to accept evolutionary theory. Considering
the extent of participants’ prior exposure to formal science instruction, we were surprised by
the fairly high percentage of participants who provided appropriate responses, including the
three that provided appropriate dates for all events in item 13. Within the specific context of
this study, our findings demonstrate the inaccuracy in the depiction of clergy as predomi-
nantly uninformed about scientific content. Additionally, our evidence supports the notion
that assigning typology based solely on acceptance of scientific views (i.e. all creationists
must be Religion Trumps Science) may be inappropriate.
In items inquiring about participants’ ideas of the relationship between science and
religion, almost half viewed the two as potentially contradictory. The points of contention
they listed unfortunately contained many science concepts found in most states’ curricu-
lums. The primary reason that participants gave for the contradictions was an individual’s
lack of understanding of both science and religion’s appropriateness in answering a given
question (i.e. ‘how’ and ‘why’), reflecting an Independence view. Among these participants
a pattern emerged concerning the relationship between identifying contradictions between
science and religion, the belief that science answers questions of ‘why’, and thinking
theories become laws over time. ‘Why’ is often used in scientific explanations as seen in the
title of the classic science book series, How and Why Wonder Books (see for example Barr
and Kalmenoff 1961). A problem exists because ‘why’ can imply purpose, whereas ‘how’
implies process. Most Christians consider the Bible to contain descriptions of God’s purpose
for humanity, nature, etc. When science attempts to claim understanding of ‘why’ (a per-
spective held by some popular positivists), it appears as though science is claiming an
authoritative understanding of purpose. We suspect that if a perceived ‘why’ (i.e. implying
purpose) of science conflicts with the ‘why’ of God, then a logical, irreconcilable contra-
diction occurs for most. Such a logical impasse, born of a view of science that is more
capable than what most philosophers of science think possible, can permeate many aspects
of an individuals’ understanding of science. For example, one participant that indicated
contradictions exist between science and religion, defined science as ‘a religion’ and when
asked ‘what is evolution and what do you think about it’ responded, ‘I try not to!’.
Misunderstandings of theories and laws combined with popular positivist views may
potentially play a more subtle role that would lead to conflict regarding any theory perceived
as making claims contrary to their religious beliefs. For example, for some of the partici-
pants various elements of evolutionary theory conflicted with beliefs of a creation account.
If these participants misunderstand the nature of theories and laws and conform to the
popular positivist notions that there exists absolute objective truth and that truth can be
realized through scientific processes, which many indicated they did, they may be led to
believe that scientific law is viewed as the pinnacle of knowledge. Whether the participant
can divorce one ‘way of knowing’ from the other or not (i.e. Independence (Nord 1999)), the
idea that a concept that offers an alternative to or conflicts with their religious beliefs could
potentially earn the lofty stature of a scientific law creates the threatening atmosphere of
competition. Undoubtedly, uninformed science students who hold Christian beliefs could
unnecessarily experience these same feelings of tension between science and religion.
123
Overall, participants applied their content understandings in insightful ways to inform

their conceptualization of the relationship between science and religious faith. Despite the
relative demographic homogeny and small size of the population, variation in elements of
personal religious faith and the relationships of those faiths to science was large in com-
parison to the sample in Colburn and Henriques (2006). For example, they wrote, ‘none of
the clergy we interviewed or surveyed fell into this category [Religion Trumps Science]’
(p. 433), whereas the only category we did not identify within our sample was Science
Trumps Religion. This supports the argument of McGrath and Carlson suggesting that
stereotypes regarding views of the relationship between science and religious faith that are
based on denomination are inappropriate and that the plurality of relationships is common
within and across Christian denominations, at least in the case with this population. It is
also interesting that Colburn and Henriques (2006) identified one participant who believed
in a literal interpretation of Genesis and failed to accept evolutionary theory, as well as
three others who agreed, ‘that the Earth was 6000 to 20000 years old’ (p. 426). None of
these participants were considered to hold a Religion Trumps Science view, despite
Colburn and Henriques’ interpretation of Nord (1999) that ‘Young earth creationists and
some old earth creationists most clearly fall into this category [Religion Trumps Science].
Biblical literalists, almost by definition, fall into this category’ (p. 433). We experienced a
similar discrepancy, in that some participants in our study held young/old earth creationist
views as well as failure to accept evolutionary theory, but provided responses consistent
with Independence or Integration. While Colburn and Henriques (2006) did not explicitly
address this aspect, we speculate that views of the relationship between science and reli-
gious faith are contextual for some people, particularly if they accept the bulk of scientific
understandings across domains with only one or two exceptions such as hominid evolution,
as opposed to micro- and macroevolution regarding other animals. Of course further re-
search is necessary to determine the merit of this possibility.
None of the participants’ descriptions of scientific evidence were as complete as that
provided by the NRC (2000), however, many contained appropriate responses for a given
context. Another interesting finding included the prevalence of the idea that evidence,
including scientific evidence, is used in religious faith. The ministers’ ideas about the
nature of evidence being open to a variety of interpretations more closely matches all but
the popular positivist’s view of this aspect of the nature of science. No apparent trends
existed regarding views of relationships between science and religious faith and any other
measure in this study, with the exception of those who considered science capable of
addressing questions of how and why. As discussed earlier, we attribute that association to
the fact that the elements of how and why questions are part of what defines Independence.
The idea emerged from participants that mutual respect (a finding consistent with
Colburn and Henriques (2006)) between scientific and religious communities and increased
knowledge of both science and religious faith to be effective ways to address apparent
contradiction and associated conflict. This is an important point. Research is needed to
determine if these suggestions have merit. As such, implications exist for developing
opportunities to build greater understanding across communities, but does the will to listen,
share, and explore alternative views exist?
While data collected in this study are insufficient to answer this question, some of the data
suggest that those within this sample would possibly be open to such dialog. For example,
participants felt that both Christians and scientists had equal access to the others’ domain.
Almost all the participants viewed scientific literacy, defined on the instrument as ‘a basic
understanding of how science works’, as important, because it teaches people what questions
‘science can and cannot’ answer, ‘helps in ethical’ decision making, and impacts their faith in
123
and understanding of God. So ministers view scientific literacy as providing an appropriate

understanding of the nature of science and assisting in the understanding of the ‘role of
science in society and personal life’ (National Research Council 1996, p. 21). In addition,
most ministers considered their knowledge level of science to affect their religious views in
positive, supportive ways. For example they saw it as a way to enhance one’s faith in God and/
or be a responsible citizen. The only exception was that a trend emerged regarding those who
held an Independence view and valuing scientific knowledge. We do not interpret this trend to
suggest, however, that those who hold an Independence view consider scientific knowledge
(or answering the how question) to be of little value, but rather that understanding the meaning
of life (or answering the why question) is simply more important. Additionally, there were
examples of participants expressing the view that increased scientific knowledge altered their
view of the relationship between science and faith, even potentially moving them from a view
of conflict (Religion Trumps Science) to one of Independence or Integration. Furthermore,
there was no indication that any participant moved from a view of Independence or Inte-
gration to one of conflict for any reason.
Although some indicated they experienced a change in their views regarding the rela-
tionship between science and religious faith at some point in their life, most indicated that
seminary/divinity school was not where it happened. Participants described reasons why
they felt this formal education environment failed in altering their views. The primary
reason revolved around notions that during seminary/divinity school, the topic of the
relationship between science and religious faith was never dealt with at any depth. The data
collected regarding the role of seminary/divinity school in changing participants’ views of
science also reveals a trend in science teaching and learning that constitutes a serious
indictment against the science education community. For instance, while various sources
contribute to constructing scientific understandings, in terms of scientific concepts and the
nature of science, science educators claim the goal, and consequently the responsibility, of
providing appropriate, meaningful, and affective instruction resulting in scientific literacy.
So, when almost 90% of the participants state that seminary/divinity school did not change
their views of science, whatever understandings they express, at least in part, reflect what
messages ‘school science’ conveyed.
As the data concerning the understandings of scientific concepts and the nature of
science show, in general, participants are moderately informed of some scientific concepts,
while up to three-quarters show little understanding of specific aspects of the nature of
science (e.g. relationship between theories and laws). Such findings echo what we already
know, ‘school science’ delivers on transmitting facts, but often fails when it comes to
assisting students in constructing meaningful and appropriate understandings of the nature
of science. In response, research-based reform efforts suggest the use of instructional
strategies that actively engage students in authentic scientific process, as well as, the use of
explicit, reflective, and possibly integrated instruction regarding the nature of science.
A few participants made the point that some view ‘faith’ as an integral component of
both science and religion. This idea was represented on two different levels. One minister
referred to the inability of science to provide empirical evidence for some of its founding
suppositions, while others made note that some make no distinction between science and
religious faith because they do not know what makes them different. For some students the
question becomes, ‘why should they’? They may experience science and religion the same
way—sitting, listening to an authority figure dispense ‘truth’. Engaging students in the
processes of science provides them experiences they can compare and contrast to processes
involved in their other ways of knowing. Coupling the science experiences with direct
instruction concerning elements of the nature of science provides students the opportunities
123
to build rationales, which allow for reasoned, rather than believed, distinctions to be made
between ways of knowing (McComas 1998b).
We also need to design and implement curricula to assist science teachers in developing
instructional strategies that encourage students to reflect upon their understandings of the
relationships between various ways of knowing and analyze alternative views of those rela-
tionships (Gilbert 2006). Helping students identify the science pieces of varying views that are
consistent with current understandings of the nature of science may assist in the reduction of
anti-science attitudes, providing better understandings of the limitations of science, lead to
valuing different perspectives, and developing and exercising critical thinking. This is of
critical importance considering the role clergy potentially play in science education.
Most participants served as facilitators of free-choice science learning, as evidenced by
the high percentage of those who indicated they address science issues with church mem-
bers. Participants reported addressing a variety of science topics, including socioscientific
issues (e.g. global warming, stem cell research, evolution, etc.) in which they perceived they
possessed ‘good’ to ‘very good’ levels of knowledge. They shared their knowledge with
congregation members using incomplete understandings of the nature of science. They also
possessed collectively a range of views of the relationship between science and religious
faith including Religion Trumps Science, Independence, and Integration (Nord 1999). As
expected, none of the ministers held a Science Trumps Religion view. These understandings
and views probably impacts the views of the congregation members concerning the rela-
tionship between science and religious faith as half of the ministers reported their con-
gregation maintained similar views. Or, those ministers hold an inaccurate assessment of
their parishioners’ views meaning the ministers fail to recognize the diversity in views that
exists within their congregation. Further study is needed to determine what degree of
persuasion clergy have regarding their parishioners’ views about the relationship between
science and religious faith. The other half of the participants considered their own under-
standings to be more informed and less conservative, and specifically identified ‘school age
members’ as conflicted about the relationship. Most of these participants held Independence
or Integration views meaning they consider Religion Trumps Science and/or Science
Trumps Religion as a less informed, more conservative perspective. This also raises a
potential research question, how do ministers treat their congregation’s diversity of views
regarding the relationship between science and religious faith?
Although we need to learn more about how these free-choice (Falk 2001) science
learning environments operate, this study provided insights regarding promising disposi-
tions held by members of the clergy. The participants indicated they valued scientific
literacy and considered it capable of affecting other ways of knowing, a position held by
many science educators. So, it may be possible that we found in the United Methodist
Church a companion in the struggle for a more informed public concerning science and its
relationships to other ways of knowing. Yet, most of the participants reported having
experienced little to no instruction in seminary/divinity school regarding the nature of
science and its relationship to Christianity or any other way of knowing. Curricula
developed to assist pre-service teachers and students in this area of science education
should be included in coursework for perspective United Methodist ministers. The
implications for science teacher educators is that they constitute the group that is perhaps
most capable of developing such curriculum. Implementation of teacher education reforms,
with respect to the relationship between science and other ways of knowing, would place
more informed teachers in science classrooms, facilitating the development of more in-
formed future clergy members. Additionally, religious education materials designed for use
with either ministers or laity possess the potential to serve as an effective means of building
123
these important understandings and would likely best be develop by members of the clergy.
Ideally, however, developing a deeper dialog between the two communities that resulted in
curricula constructed in concert with one another would provide an authentic and informed
context for the integrated component of current, best practice NOS instruction.
Lastly, as science teachers and science teacher educators, we should take the initiative
to provide instruction concerning science and its relationships to other ways of knowing for
these informal science educators, rather than placing the burden solely on the clergy to
self-educate regarding scientific concepts. Just as important as educating others, we also
need to continue to educate ourselves regarding advances and trends in religious faith and
the diverse relationships to science that result.
Appendix A
Beliefs of the Clergy Regarding 4. How would you rate your knowledge
of science? very poor, poor,

the Relationship Between
good, very good
Science and Faith
Instructions: There are no right or wrong

5. Did your view of science change as a
answers to any of the following questions. Do
result of attending Seminary/Divinity
not put any identifying information anywhere on
School? Yes No
the form. Total anonymity is of utmost
Comments/Explanation:
importance. If you need more room than is
provided in the answer spaces, please feel free
to attach additional sheets. Thank you for your
participation with this important study. 6. Do you believe a Christian can be a
scientist and remain faithful? Yes
1. Age: No
20-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-100+ Comments/Explanation:
2. How many years have you been a

7. Do you believe a scientist can be a
UMC Pastor?
Christian? Yes No
0-3, 4-9, 10-19, 20-30, 30-40+
3. Did you take any science courses 8. Is it important for a Christian to be
beyond your general college science scientifically literate (that is, have a
requirements? Yes No basic understanding of how science
If yes, how many semester courses works)? Yes No
beyond required? _________
123
9. Please mark true or false (T or F) to 10. For the statements below, choose A,
indicate your beliefs: B, or C for the response closest to
a. ______ Scientific theories are what you believe. (A = theory; B =
often law; C = both)
not very reliable. a. ______ An explanation for a
b. ______ If a theory holds up over natural phenomenon
time, it may become a scientific b. ______ Most often related to
law. physics
c. ______ Most scientists relate their c. ______ Can usually be
research to existing theories. expressed mathematically
d. ______ Supported by evidence
e. ______ Useful in predicting
11. Do you address current scientific
issues
with church members? Yes No
If so, give examples:
12. In general, do you think that your congregation thinks about science and religion in
the same way you do? Yes No Comments/Explanation:
13. Please place the following with approximate dates (if possible) on the timeline below:
dinosaurs, formation of the Earth, people, birth of Jesus Christ, formation of the
universe, first appearance of bacteria on Earth
14. Do you see a relationship between science and faith? Yes No If yes, explain:
15. Do you think there any contradictions between science and religion? Yes No
If yes, give examples:
123
16. How does your knowledge level of science affect your religious views?
17. How would you define science?
18. What is evolution and what do you think about it?
19. a. How would you define scientific evidence?
b. What role does it play in science?
20. Is evidence used in faith? Yes No If yes, give examples:
References
Achinstein P (2001) The book of evidence. Oxford University Press, New York
Akerson VL, Morrison JA, McDuffie AR (2006) One course is not enough: preservice elementary teachers’
retention of improved views of nature of science. J Res Sci Teach 43(2):194–213
Ammerman NT (2003) Christian fundamentalism in the US. In: ter Harr G, Busuttil JJ (eds) The freedom to
do god’s will: religious fundamentalism and social change. Routledge, New York
Anderson RD (2007) Teaching the theory of evolution in social, intellectual, and pedagogical context. Sci
Educ 91(4):664–677
Bamberger Y, Tal T (2006) Learning in a personal context: levels of choice in a free choice learning
environment in science and natural history museums. Sci Educ 91(1):75–95
Banks JA (2006) Cultural diversity and education: foundations, curriculum, and teaching. Pearson, Boston
Barbour IG (2000) When science meets religion: enemies, strangers, or partners? Harper Collins, San
Francisco
Barr D, Kalmenoff M (1961) How and why wonder book of primitive man. Grosset & Dunlap, New York
Bogdan RC, Biklen SN (1998) Qualitative research for education: an introduction to theory and methods.
Allyn and Bacon, Boston
Boyer L, Roth WM (2006) Learning and teaching as emergent features of informal settings: an ethnographic
study in an environmental action group. Sci Educ 90(6):1028–1049
123
Bube RH (1995) Putting it all together: seven patterns for relating science and the christian faith. University
Press of America, Lanham, NY
Carlson RF (2000) Science and christianity: four views. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL
Colburn A, Henriques L (2006) Clergy views on evolution, creationism, science, and religion. J Res Sci
Teach 43(4):419–442
Colburn A, Henriques L, Clough M (2002) Science, creationism, and religion: responses from the clergy.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of The National Association for Research in Science Teaching,
New Orleans, LA
Creswell JW (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. SAGE,
Thousand Oaks, California
Dagher ZR, BouJaoude S (1997) Scientific views and religious beliefs of college students: the case of
biological evolution. J Res Sci Teach 34:429–445
Drees W (1996) Religion, science, and naturalism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England
Driver R, Leach J, Millar R, Scott P (1996) Young people’s images of science. Open University Press,
Bristol, PA
Dutch SI (2002) Religion as belief versus religion as fact. J Geosci Educ 50(2):137–144
Falk JH (2001) Free-choice science education: how we learn science outside of school. Teachers College
Press, New York
Gall M, Borg W, Gall J (1996) Educational research: an introduction. Longman Publishers, White Plains,
NY
Gilbert A (2006) ‘‘How can a scientist believe in God?’’ Investigating issues of diversity and religion in an
early elementary science methods classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The Association
of Science Teacher Educators, Portland, OR
Goldberg S (1999) Seduced by science: how American religion has lost its way. New York University Press,
New York
Good R, Shymansky J (2001) Nature-of-science literacy in benchmarks and standards: post-modern/rela-
tivist or modern/realist? In: Bevilacqua F, Giannetto E, Matthews MR (eds) Science education and
culture: the contribution of history and philosophy of science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Gould SJ (1997) Nonoverlapping magisterial. Nat Hist 106:16–22
Haught JF (1995) Science and religion: from conflict to conversation. Paulist Press, Mahwah, NJ
Hofstein A, Rosenfeld S (1996) Bridging the gap between formal and informal science learning. Stud Sci
Educ 28:87–112
Jackson DF (2002) An ordinal, three-dimensional model for the interaction of evolution and religion and its
application to earth and life science teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The National
Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA
Khishfe R, Lederman N (2006) Teaching nature of science within a controversial topic: integrated versus
nonintegrated. J Res Sci Teach 43(4):395–418
Kourany JA (1998) Scientific knowledge: basic issues in the philosophy of science. Wadsworth Publishing
Company, Belmont, CA
Kuhn D, Amsel E, O’Loughlin M (1988) The development of scientific thinking skills. Academic Press, London
Lederman NG (1992) Students and teachers conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. J
Res Sci Teach 29(4):331–359
Lindner EW (2006) The yearbook of American and Canadian churches. Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN
McComas W (1998a) The principal elements of the nature of science. In: McComas WF (ed) The nature of
science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
McComas W (1998b) The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies. Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, Boston
McGrath AE (1999) Science and religion: an introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA
McMillan JH, Schumacher S (2006) Research in education: evidence-based inquiry. Pearson, Boston
National Research Council (1996) National science education standards. National Academy Press, Wash-
ington, DC
National Research Council (2000) Inquiry and the national science education standards: a guide for teaching
and learning. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Nord WA (1999) Science, religion, and education. Phi Delta Kappan 91:28–33
Phillips DC (2004) Two decades after: after the wake: postpositivistic educational thought. Sci & Educ
13:67–84
Ratzsch D (2000) Science and its limits: the natural sciences in christian perspective. InterVarsity Press,
Downers Grove, IL
Skehan JW, Nelson CE (2000) The creation controversy and the science classroom. NSTA Press, Arlington,
VA
123
Watts EG (1998) We are united methodists. Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN

Wise DU (2001) Creationism’s propaganda assault on deep time and evolution. J Geosci Educ 49(1):30–35
Author Biographies
Daniel L. Dickerson is an assistant professor of Science Education at Old Dominion University in Norfolk,
Virginia. He received his BS in Science Education from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and
his MS and PhD in Science Education from North Carolina State University. He is involved in Elementary
and Secondary (K-12) science teacher preparation and supervises masters and doctoral science education
students. His research interests include examining relationships between science and religious faith/spiri-
tuality across cultures and earth/environmental science teaching and learning.
Karen R. Dawkins is Director of the Center for Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education at East
Carolina University. She received a BS in biology/chemistry from Mississippi College, a MS in science
education from the University of Southern Mississippi, and an EdD in Educational Leadership from East
Carolina University. She facilitates programs of professional development for K-12 teachers in science and
mathematics. Her research interests include teachers’ ideas about the nature of science and the effect of
perceived conflicts between religion and science on classroom instruction.
John E. Penick began his teaching career as a biology and chemistry teacher in an inner city high school in
Miami, Florida. Now head of the department of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education at NC
State University, Penick has written extensively about effective teachers and classroom climates. He has
been president of the National Science Teachers Association, The National Association of Biology
Teachers, and the Association for Science Teacher Education. A teacher educator at heart, he has won
numerous awards for teaching and scholarship.
123

Clergy S Views of The Relationship Betwe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clergy S Views of The Relationship Betwe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sci & Educ (2008) 17:359–386

Clergy’s Views of the Relationship between Science and

Daniel L. Dickerson Æ Karen R. Dawkins Æ John E. Penick

Published online: 24 July 2007

2.1 Free-choice Science Education

2.2 The Nature of Science

2.3 The Nature and Role of Evidence

concentrate on getting accurate data from observations of phenomena. They obtain

2.4 The Relationship between Science and Religious Faith

2.5 Rationale for Study and Research Questions

3.1 The Instrument

We developed an instrument composed of five multiple-choice items, 10 combination

3.2 The Participants and Rationales for Selection

Table 1 Bakground information topics and responses

Ages of Participants (n = 62) 20–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 70–100+

3.3 Data Collection and Analysis

We distributed the instrument to ministers at a southeastern state Annual Conference of the

discrete, circled answers provided some information regarding participant thinking, we

4 Results and Discussion

We will discuss the results according to each of our research questions.

4.1 Do United Methodist Ministers Serve as Facilitators of Free-choice Science

In addition to determining whether or not the participants served as facilitators of free-

Table 2 NOS items and responses

Item #9 True False

Fig. 1 Example of Category 1 response

Fig. 2 Example of Category 2 response

Fig. 3 Example of Category 3 response

individually which cannot be given to another as an equation’; (h) ‘... It is certainly

5 Summary and Implications

Overall, participants applied their content understandings in insightful ways to inform

and understanding of God. So ministers view scientific literacy as providing an appropriate

of science? very poor, poor,

Instructions: There are no right or wrong

provided in the answer spaces, please feel free

to attach additional sheets. Thank you for your

participation with this important study. 6. Do you believe a Christian can be a

scientist and remain faithful? Yes

20-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70-100+ Comments/Explanation:

2. How many years have you been a

3. Did you take any science courses 8. Is it important for a Christian to be

requirements? Yes No basic understanding of how science

If yes, how many semester courses works)? Yes No

indicate your beliefs: B, or C for the response closest to

a. ______ Scientific theories are what you believe. (A = theory; B =

often law; C = both)

not very reliable. a. ______ An explanation for a

b. ______ If a theory holds up over natural phenomenon

time, it may become a scientific b. ______ Most often related to

c. ______ Most scientists relate their c. ______ Can usually be

research to existing theories. expressed mathematically

d. ______ Supported by evidence

e. ______ Useful in predicting

11. Do you address current scientific

with church members? Yes No

If so, give examples:

the same way you do? Yes No Comments/Explanation:

universe, first appearance of bacteria on Earth

If yes, give examples:

17. How would you define science?

18. What is evolution and what do you think about it?

19. a. How would you define scientific evidence?

b. What role does it play in science?

20. Is evidence used in faith? Yes No If yes, give examples:

c. Most scientists relate their c. Can usually be