Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?

I begin by examining the natures of science and religion before looking at the ways in which they relate to one another. I then look at a number of case studies that centre on the relationships between science and religion, including attempts to find mechanisms for divine action in quantum theory and chaos theory, creationism, genetic engineering and the writings of Richard Dawkins. Finally, I consider some of the pedagogical issues that would need to be considered if the science/religion issue is to be addressed in the classroom. I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue. The principal reason for this is to help students better to learn science. However, such teaching makes greater demands on science educators than has generally been the case. Certain of these demands are identified and some specific suggestions are made as to how a science educator might deal with the science/religion issue. © 2008 Taylor & Francis

The Theos/ComRes survey into public perception of Darwinism in the UK : a recipe for confusion

A survey of the general public in the UK, conducted in 2008, suggested that more than half of the British population are unconvinced by Darwinism. That survey, conducted by the polling company ComRes on behalf of the theological think-tank Theos, reported its full findings in March 2009 and found them to be "complex and confused." This paper argues that the confusion identified may have been partly engendered by the way in which the survey questionnaire was constructed and that the survey itself, not simply its respondents, was confused. A source of the confusion, it is argued, could be found, first, in the definitions used for the four positions of young earth creationism, theistic evolution, atheistic evolution and intelligent design. Second, a failure to define the key terms "evolution" and "science," used in some of the survey questions, resulted in responses that were difficult to interpret. © The Author(s), 2010