Group items tagged

The article addresses the idea of "religious illiteracy" in the United States as of early 2007. The author relates the lack of general religious knowledge among his students at Boston University. He believes that religious illiteracy is more dangerous than cultural illiteracy because religion is the "most volatile" constituent of culture. He notes that some knowledge of the world's religions is essential in processing messages from politicians, the media, and education. He believes that, in the interest of civics, all U.S. undergraduate students should be required to take an academic religious studies course. He also acknowledges that religious literacy in the U.S. requires compromise between the secular left and the religious right. (Abstract from EBSCO.)

Adolescence is a period of great intellectual development that holds a lasting, lifelong influence. The authors examine the degree to which a school's religious affiliation and contextual teaching influence the development of adolescent belief systems and attitudes. The researchers find that the religious tenor of the school is incredibly influential in shaping student worldviews. Because religion and science are often viewed as diametrically opposed, I'd like to take this data a little further and ask, to what degree does this trend impede or facilitate scientific literacy?

This particular survey reviews religious trends that have occurred between the period 1990-2008. This 18-year period provides an excellence examination of recent shifts in religiosity. Moreover, the source will provide a background from which to infer future trends in secularization, in addition to determining its implications on scientific literacy.

This article gives scope to the controversy over teaching evolution, for it pertains to biology education in the United Kingdom. Reiss notes that a recent trend in science education is to teach about doing science, which helps to reinforce and illustrate its universality and practical application. He proposes furthermore that science teachers should examine the connection between science and religion with their students, as this sort of all-encompassing objectivity is in keeping with the philosophy of science. In this manner, students may be more apt to engage science without feeling threatened by it. By teaching more about the nature of science and its methods, students will also come to understand the difference between scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge. Reiss suggestions present an interesting way of "reaching across the aisle" without compromising the integrity of either side.

Kahle commentates on the opening of the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky and its potential impact on the evolution/creationism debate. Despite the legal decisions of the past century, which have largely determined that creationism is religion and therefore has no place in the science classroom, Americans by and large uphold religious assertions over science, a tendency caused primarily by the continual endorsement of pseudoscience. The Kentucky Visitor's Bureau, a department supported by public tax dollars, lends credibility to the Creation Museum as a "walk through history . . . [that] will counter evolutionary natural history museums." Placing science and pseudoscience in the same realm, argues Kahle, is a mistake that may circumvent empirical science as a measure of truth.

Clark turns to philosophy to assess the relationship between naturalism and supernaturalism. In a political sense, all debates must deal with the physical world, for that is all that we know. Religious doctrines are acceptable as moral implicates, but in order to extend universality in the public realm, the language cannot be theological. The issue is essentially linguistic; by using a common language grounded in empiricism, we can better tackle the issues at hand. Clark suggests that the best mode of pacifying these views is to turn toward empiricism, which is grounded in evidence rather than faith. There is no way to "prove" faith. However, it is important to guard against the threat of "totalitarian empiricism" in which uniformity replaces consciousness. We live in a pluralistic society, and so it is to remain. Extending this thinking to the evolution-creation debate can perhaps shed light on a very plausible and practical solution.

This Christian source provides a host of antievolution arguments with references to scripture. The arguments span beyond the scope of biological evolution, including information regarding several branches of science and theology. The ideas are created and supported by scholars and academics. This source is important for examining the creationist side of the argument, and analyzing the ways in which the two views can be reconciled in a way that maintains scientific literacy.