Co-existence of religion and science in the school

Co-existence of religion and science in the school

Co-existence of religion and science in the school

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Religion has been a part of the education system long before the theory of evolution was proposed by Charles Darwin. Though Darwin, and his theory, was widely detested by mostly religious fanatics, and his ideas were broadly opposed by some scientists who advocated the fixity-of-species doctrine during his time, religion and science has co-existed in the schools ever since. Although the two has been on separate spheres, and the set up has caused some conflicts and division from among some members of the society, I believe that the arrangement has not caused a major debacle to the people that would totally warrant the exclusion of either religion or science (evolution) from the school system. Many religious schools has incorporated both religion and evolution in their curriculum and that has not caused much of a problem in their school system either, that “in liberal churches, it has been taken for granted for almost a generation that nothing substantial has ever kept them apart.  Even in more traditional churches, thousands of sermons have been preached, all of them undertaking to demonstrate that scientific knowledge and religious faith can be harmonious: that there is no necessary opposition between them” (Davies).

The education system should uphold a philosophy that “critically evaluates the reasons, evidence, and arguments with respect to religion” and evolution “both pro and con” and “encourage you (the students) to reflect on the nature and foundation of your own religious beliefs” and of the views and facts presented by science (PowerPoint lecture). My argument is that religion and science can co-exist in the school that, therefore, religion should remain in the school.

As to how religion and science can co-exist in the school, it is important to establish first the reason why people are divided on this idea. The dispute between religion and science could be seen in two main areas:

“1) Active conflict between science and religion: There have been hundreds of disputes since            the end of the 16th century in which scientists and theologians have taught opposing             beliefs. At any given time, in recent centuries, there has been at least one active, major        battle. Dozens are active at the present time. Probably the most keenly argued are        currently:

–          The nature of homosexual orientation: Is it sinful, chosen, changeable, unnatural and abnormal for everyone?, Or is it morally neutral, not chosen, fixed, natural and normal for a minority of people?

–          Origins of the species, the earth itself and the rest of the universe. Were they created or did they evolve naturally? A second conflict is over the age of the Earth. Is it less than 10,000 years old, or about 4.5 billion years.

–          Environmental concerns like atmospheric degradation and global warming.

2)      Science evaluating religion: This involves the use of the scientific method to evaluate the validity of a religious belief. Three examples are:

–          Can one assess the will of God through prayer, or is God not communicating?

–          Speaking in tongues; is it the language of angels, or meaningless gibberish?

–          Can prayer cure diseases and disorders, or speed people’s recovery?”

                                                          (Science and Religion: Conflicts and Occasional Agreement)

The most common question underlying the conflict between religion and science is “does science (evolution) contradicts religion?” It is true that at some degree science disagrees with religion but my answer is, not at all times. Evolution surely “contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis,” but my position is that “Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did” (VonRoeschlaub).

I believe that there is no disagreement between what the Bible says about God and what science says about the natural world. St. Augustine in A.D. 400 did not find the verses of “Genesis 1 and 2 to suggest a scientific book but a powerful and poetic description of God’s intentions in creating the universe. The mechanism of creation is left unspecified. If God, who is all powerful and who is not limited by space and time, chose to use the mechanism of evolution to create you and me, who are we to say that wasn’t an absolutely elegant plan? And if God has now given us the intelligence and the opportunity to discover his methods, that is something to celebrate” (Collins 2008).

Rather than arguing and persuading for the splitting up of science and religion in schools, I recommend a compromise of the two together, and I believe that the ensuing relationship connecting science and religion will alleviate a great deal of pressures rather than aggravate it.  Though religion is very different from Science since science deals with the study of facts or evidences drawn from the physical world in an endeavor to expand human knowledge, the concern, however, is it disregards some of the essential elements of humanity. But this can be settled by a letter written by the Pope John Paul II in 1996 which underlines how evolution (science) and Christianity (religion) can work together: “Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition into the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again, of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.” A more general approach to grasp the distinction between science and religion is, science gives explanation of the “how” of everything (such as, how did the earth was formed, how did living things arise), but all those questions overlook the reasoning -the “why” of things. That is what is being explained by religion.

There is a plethora of wisdoms from prominent personages (past and present) from each side that can be included to support my argument.

Standing by that position, the undertaking that I think would be appropriate is to make religion and science peacefully come together within the school premises. To do this, it is important for the school administration and the teachers of religion and science to have some sort of a guideline to adhere to in order to avoid the conflict between the two sides. For this matter, it would be appropriate to cite the October 18, 1999 Emory Report of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia on which it proposes three methods to avoid conflict between religion and science:

1) Keep the two enterprises totally separate. Each enterprise has its own distinctive domain and should avoid the other’s turf. Science and religion address different questions and use different languages to describe and interpret reality. Science typically asks “how?” questions, and religion asks “why?” questions. There is room for both to coexist in the search for understanding, but never the twain shall meet. All things are relative, some would say–one person’s meat is another person’s poison. Therefore, keep them separate.

2) Mutual respect is not a bad place to start, but true, engaging dialogue does not always seek to avoid conflict. In a world as diverse as ours, conflict is inevitable and need not consume the other. On the contrary, good dialogue sometimes necessitates conflict, in order to pursue knowledge and growth.

3) A third alternative is the “dialogue” approach. But for dialogue to occur, some homework must first be done, lest our guest be consumed by its host. To bring the two to the table we must first do our market research and find out what is pleasing to our dining partners–in this case, science and religion.

In addition, it is, I believe, that the school, whether a religious school or not, in order to keep the two sides together it must maintain a more neutral stand to any form of knowledge or belief, that is, it should aim to educate and inform and not to advocate. Furthermore, as mandated by the fundamental laws, the basic rights of the people should be upheld by recognizing the people’s right to be informed so that they could have the opportunity to exercise their freedom of expression and freedom of choice. The school should function within these basic rights of the people. That means education should present both sides of the coin –religion and science –and it would be for the student to discern and decide about what to believe in and what not to from the two sides. It is my conviction that non-inclusion of religion or science in the curriculum would deprive the students of further knowing and understanding science or about religion and their basic rights.

In summary, religion should remain in the school because religion and science has co-existed in the schools for quite sometime and has not caused major debacle. Religious personalities which include the Pope, Saint Augustine and some scientists can not see any conflict between science and religion since religion answers the “whys” of things and science answers the “hows.”   Rather than aggravating the so-called conflicts by some sectors it would be better to find ways on how not to encourage conflicts between the two such as by keeping them separated and to encourage mutual respect. It is my belief as well, that non-inclusion of religion or science from the school deprives the students from their basic right to be informed. As exemplified from the above arguments religion, should remain in the school.

Works Cited

(Author) “Philosophy of Religion Part I” PowerPoint presentation in Subject, School. Term        2008.

Collins, Francis, “Can You Believe in God and Evolution?” Time, 2005 1 May 2008             ;http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090921,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-            sidebar;
Davies, Powell. “Can Science And Religion Get Together?” A sermon at the All Souls’ Church (Unitarian) Washington, DC, 1947. 1 May, 2008           <http://www.dmuuc.org/Davies/ScienceReligionTogether.html>

“First person: Managing Science vs. religion can be a more moveable feast.” Emory Report.        1999. 1 May 2008.  <http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/October/eroctober.18/10_18            _99winstanley.html>
Pope John Paul II. “Magisterium is Concerned with Question of Evolution for it Involves          Conception of Man.” Catholic Information Network, 1999. May 1, 2008.             <http://www.cin.org/jp2evolu.html>
“Science and Religion: Conflicts and Occasional Agreement.” Religious Tolerance .org. 1 may 2008. <http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm>
VonRoeschlaub, “Warren Kurt. God and Evolution.” The TalkOrigins Archive, 1998. 1 May     2008.  <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html>

 



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*
*
*

x

Hi!
I'm Beba

Would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out