Philosophy in the science classroom: How should biology teachers explain the relationship between science and religion t
- PDF / 526,944 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 83 Downloads / 195 Views
Philosophy in the science classroom: How should biology teachers explain the relationship between science and religion to students? Peter J. Woodford1 Received: 1 July 2020 / Accepted: 17 August 2020 / Published online: 20 November 2020 © The Author(s) 2020
Abstract This review explores Thomas Lessl’s “Demarcation as a classroom response to creationism: A critical examination of the National Academy of Science’s Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008).” Lessl’s work examines philosophical debates about the relationship between science and religion from the perspective of communication dynamics between science teachers and audiences skeptical about evolution. His essay raises a number of important points that might help educators craft statements that are less likely to alienate religious students and to entrench any pre-existing opposition to evolutionary science. However, in this review, I raise a number of criticisms of Lessl’s account of the problems with the approach taken by the National Academy of Science. I argue that many of the criticisms of NAS’s approach to demarcation are not well-supported, and even were they to be strong criticisms, they do not justify skepticism toward evolution or science in general. Ultimately, I argue that addressing Lessl’s concerns means creating space for more intellectually rigorous and satisfying discussions of science and religion, but this is not appropriate in a biology classroom that merely wishes to introduce evolution. Addressing these concerns requires making more space for philosophy in the curriculum. Keywords Evolution · Science and religion · Science teaching · Philosophy teaching · Science skepticism This article is a critical response to Thomas Lessl’s “Demarcation as a classroom response to creationism: A critical examination of the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008).” However, since the issues Lessl raises are both nuanced Lead Editor: M. J. Reiss. This review essay addresses issues raised in Thomas Lessl’s paper entitled: Demarcation as a classroom response to creationism: A critical examination of the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-020-09977-5 * Peter J. Woodford [email protected] 1
Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy, Kingston University, Penrhyn Road, Kingston upon Thames KT1 2EE, UK
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
P. J. Woodford 938
and important—with respect to philosophy, pedagogy, and the wider cultural dialogue about science and religion—I allow myself the liberty to write at some length beyond the normal genre of a “review” of the article. Lessl’s article focuses on the rhetorical and communicative dynamics of teaching about evolution and religion, and his central argument is that philosophical weaknesses in certain attempts to establish demarcation criteria between science and religion invite religious skeptics of evolution to distrust the good intentions of science educators. His core concern is that educator
Data Loading...
