According to some among the scientific community (Dawkins and Coyne 2005, NABT 2019) religion should not be discussed in a science class. Previous studies have found that teachers do relate to religion when teaching evolution (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022a) or are willing to relate to the issue if they would have had more knowledge and tools (Siani and Yarden 2021). Thus, there is a seemingly gap between the academy (scientists) and the field (teachers) when discussing the issue of relating to students’ religious faith in a science class. In order to examine this gap between scientists′ and teachers’ attitudes, we surveyed Israeli scientists, and asked them whether teachers should relate to religion in a science class. In contrary to most of the teachers that were willing to relate to religion in a science class, mainly because of the importance of connecting to the students’ inner world and preparing for the future (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022a), most of the surveyed scientists are not willing to do so—even if the students are religious, since anything that is not scientific should stay completely outside of the science class. This significant difference between teachers’ and scientists’ attitudes may be explained by two possible explanations: First, studies found differences in religious cultures and religious beliefs between scientists and the public: scientists are more secular, in terms of beliefs and practices, than the general populations (Ecklund et al. 2016). Graffin and Provine (2007) found that evolutionary biologists have the lowest rate of religiosity among any discipline polled. Whereas the public may struggle with how to situate their religious beliefs with claims of evolutionary theory, many biologists are unlikely to experience the same struggles (Alters and Nelson 2002). Thus, the differences between the attitudes may be attributed to a secular/atheistic point of view that scientists tend to hold more than the general public or teachers.
A second possible explanation to the gap between teachers’ and scientists’ attitudes may be that scientists are less aware of the needs that appear in classrooms and the consequences of ignoring the subject, as the teachers are. That is why it is so important to relate to the teachers' point of view in this discussion. Reiss (2013) distinguished science from science education, emphasizing that non-scientific issues such as ethics are being related to in a science class, and offered religion should be related to as well. Further research may examine whether scientists are against relating only to religion or also to ethics in a science class (such as animal testing, eating meat, etc.), in order to examine whether their opposition derive from an attempt to maintain “sterile” science, disconnected from the society and the culture, or an atheistic point of view that may cause to rejection of everything religious.
In the second part of this study, we compared the answers of religious teachers and scientists to the question whether teachers should relate to religion in a science class, and have noticed a few main differences: all the religious teachers said they should relate to the issue in their class. Their justifications were mainly the importance of relating to the students’ inner world, preparing them for the future, and decreasing their opposition to enable meaningful learning. These explanations were also mentioned by teachers in a previous study (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022a). In contrary, religious scientists were more restrained than religious teachers, although most of them agreed the issue should be discussed by the teachers. Their answers contained hesitations, mainly about the teachers’ qualifications, the complexity of the issue, and students’ ability to understand the issue. These results may support the second explanation to the gap between scientists and teachers that was revealed in the first part of the study. Since religious scientists had more hesitations and concerns toward relating to religion in a science class, compared to the religious teachers, the source of the rejection may not be an anti-religious perception of scientists, but a disconnection from the challenges that appear in the field. As some of the participating religious scientists do teach or taught evolution in the academy (as instructors to large classes or practitioners to smaller classes), the difference in their experiences may be attributed to the different characteristics between teaching in the academy to teaching in schools. For example, high school teachers get to teach wider parts of the population than those who eventually attend college/university. Another example may be the difference in educational qualification teachers are required to have (which makes them aware of learning theories, developmental stages, etc.) in contrary to academic instructors which are usually not required to have such qualification (Hébert 2001).
According to the religious scientists′ and teachers’ answers, all of them (except S8) acknowledge that some students may feel a conflict between evolution and their religion. Acknowledging this idea is the first practice of the ReCCEE framework (Barnes and Brownell 2017) as in order to provide a solution, teachers must acknowledge that their students might have a problem. S8 is the only participant that denied the difficulty and was surprised to hear teachers encounter opposition to evolution, as he teaches evolution in a religious university and had never encountered any opposition. Respectively, S8 was the only one among the participants who rejected the idea of relating to religion in a science class, as he didn’t acknowledge there may be a conflict. This emphasizes the importance of informing teachers about the students’ possible conflict, as research has shown that college instructors wrongly estimate, and usually underestimate, the number of students in their class who reject evolution (Barnes and Brownell 2016).
When considering how to relate to religion in class, the participants suggested nine practices. The first educational practice was that the teacher should present the issue but should not try to convince the students—the students will decide if to accept it or not. The teachers may be more aware of their restrictions as educators, they may offer ideas to their students and may try to adapt the ideas to their students’ culture, but eventually, the students have their free choice to decide how to relate to this issue. Barnes et al. (2022) found that when the instructor gave students autonomy over their decision to accept evolution, students agreed with evolution more at the end of the instruction. It is important to note that the first two practices that consider the students’ point of view (students’ free choice and adaptation to the students’ culture) were mentioned mostly by the teachers, while the third practice (defining the borders between science and religion) was mentioned mostly by the scientists. This finding may emphasize the concerns of each group—while the religious teachers are concerned to maintain their students’ free choice and make the learning accessible to them, the religious scientists’ concern is to make sure the students understand the borders between the disciplines. Note that precepting religion as science is one of the main concerns of those who oppose relating to religion in a science class: “…If supernaturalism will be recognized as an authentic part of science… that would be the end of science education in America” (Dawkins and Coyne 2005). Thus, emphasizing the borders and differences between science and religion may answer this concern. It was previously suggested that teachers should make a clear distinction between religious and scientific knowledge, thus promoting the understanding of scientific theories and avoid attempting to change religious beliefs (Teixeira 2019).
The fourth practice that was suggested by both teachers and scientists, was to collaborate with an expert in the issue. However, while the teachers take responsibility to deal with the issue in their classes, even when they suggest collaborating with a guest lecturer—they suggested it as an expansion of what they already discussed in class. In contrary to the teachers, the scientists assign the responsibility of dealing with the issue to other experts rather than the teachers themselves, from various reasons they pointed (e.g. teachers are not qualified enough to deal with such philosophical issues, the teachers’ different culture, etc.)—which all lead to the conclusion that the issue should be related to by someone else rather than the biology teacher. Although it may be perceived as if scientists underestimate the qualification of the teachers, many teachers indicated they lack qualifications in this issue (Siani et al. 2022, Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022a).
The fifth practice was to refer to the creation story, as according to many canonic Jewish commentators and rabbis (Pear et al. 2015; Sacks 2011) the simplistic understanding of the creation story is a misunderstanding of the message of the creation story, which may cause the religious based opposition to evolution. This practice is very different from teaching intelligent design or creationism (Pennock 2003), since the creation story is referred to as a religious rather than scientific source, and the participants emphasized that by relating to the creation story, they highlight the differences between science and religion. Moreover, the participants emphasized that this practice may probably fit religious schools, and not secular schools.
Practices 6–9 were previously suggested in the ReCCEE framework (Barnes and Brownell 2017). Interestingly, these practices came up inductively from the participants’ attitudes, which support the idea that the ReCCEE framework may fit also religious Jewish students. Ten of the participants emphasized the importance of presenting various approaches to the conflict, especially compatibility (sixth practice). As the most known viewpoints are atheistic evolution and creationism, the idea to present diverse approaches to the relationship between evolution and religion, especially compatibility, has been shown as an important practice that increases students’ acceptance of evolution (Ferguson and Lensen 2021; Barnes et al. 2022). Moreover, we previously presented that in this study population, participants that used to reject evolution in the past indicated that they eventually accepted it after they were exposed to the sources that discuss the compatibility between science and religion (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022b). A few studies in Israel have presented educational programs in which the Jewish sources are deeply discussed in science classes (Allouch 2010; Pear et al. 2015) or in teacher’s PD programs (Pear et al. 2020; Alkahar et al. 2020). These programs were effective at decreasing students’ opposition to evolution, but were best suited for religious schools, where the students are familiar with the study of religious texts.
As religious people tend to rely on tradition, the participants suggested to mention various Jewish leaders that accept evolution, or religious scientists that can be seen as role models (seventh practice). Ferguson and Jensen (2021) found that one of the factors students mentioned as reasons for a change towards evolution acceptance was the presence of a role model. In another study, once students saw someone who reconciled evolution and religion, the conflict they felt with evolution decreased (Holt et al. 2018). It is important to note the difference between this practice, that suggests mentioning role models, to the previously suggested practice to present different approaches to the conflict. As some religious teachers indicated, once their students see that they are religious and yet accept evolution, the teachers indicated it eases the students’ conflict, so as if the teachers are the role models for the students. As mentioning different religious figures is easy to implement, we encourage teachers to look for role models that may be appropriate for their students’ culture and religion (Zimmerman 2018).
Three teachers suggested to discuss the students’ personal views on evolution and religion (eighth practice). The need to consider students’ prior knowledge is one of the principles of constructivism, and is necessary to enable meaningful learning, which may lead to a deeper understanding (Jones and Brader-Araje 2002). Some researchers claim that relating to evolution education through the lens of constructivism may cause students to accept pseudo-science explanations and deny them a proper science education (Mugaloglu 2014; Taşkın 2020). However, it was found that when instructors did not acknowledge students’ religious beliefs, the religious students in the class felt left out. This may lead to students deciding that biology and their religious value systems are incompatible (Hermann 2012). Sandford (2020), a science communicator, stated that “The key to effective science communication isn’t the science. It’s communication”. Sanford further emphasised three important principles in science communication, that may be very relevant to science teachers: do not argue with beliefs, and listen to, and learn about what people think (Sandford 2020).
Many studies discussed the importance of relating to the NOS when teaching evolution (Lombrozo et al. 2008; Nehm and Schonfeld 2007), while here, two teachers mentioned the importance of relating to the NOS prior to the introduction of evolution (ninth practice), as was also offered by Scharmann (2018). Interestingly, these two teachers hold a PhD in science teaching (T2) and Philosophy of science (T7) (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022b) which may explain the importance they perceive to the teaching and learning of the NOS, generally and especially when teaching evolution.
The proper timing in the teaching sequence to relate to religion was mentioned mainly by teachers. While some prefer to relate to religion prior to the teaching of evolution, some after, and some shortly before and deeply after. Thus, the teacher can choose according to her/his personal preference and the students’ needs (for example, if the students’ opposition is too severe that the teacher cannot teach evolution, than an answer should be provided before teaching evolution).
Three participants indicated that the teachers’ own religious sector may influence the students’ acceptance of evolution—and one emphasized that teachers’ secular worldview may be an obstacle toward the acceptance of religious affiliated students. In Israel, the teachers’ sector and students’ sector are not always similar (especially in national state schools with a traditional students population), therefore there must be a solution for that challenge. Studies have suggested that students’ rejection of evolution and their feelings of exclusion in the biology classroom are, in part, the result of cultural differences between mostly secular instructors and mostly religious students (Barnes and Brownell 2016; Hermann 2012; Southerland and Scharmann 2013). This idea is also supported by our finding in which secular teachers in traditional schools tend to experience higher opposition to evolution than religious and traditional teachers (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022a). It was found that Christian instructors perceived that their own religious backgrounds have guided their decisions to teach evolution in a culturally competent way, which according to their perception, led to a safe environment for students, that subsequently led to an increase in students' acceptance of evolution and reduce student conflict between evolution and religion (Barnes and Brownell 2018). Thus, it emphasizes the importance of considering the experiences and perceptions of religious people toward the presumed conflict, as was done here, and the need for PD programs that will expose non-religious teachers to the possible challenges and will offer practices to cope with them in class.
Implications for teachers’ professional development programs
Despite the opposition of scientists described in the first part of the study, religious teachers and scientists agreed that teachers should provide a response to the religious conflict in class, while the challenges that were raised here should not hinder the creation of proper PD programs for teachers, but should be considered when designing such a course. In addition to the important ReCCEE practices that should be introduced to teachers, we offer 5 additional educational practices that a PD program may include. Note that we suggest that the practices will be offered following an explicit discussion with the teachers regarding their educational goals when teaching evolution.
-
1.
Teachers should consider that their students have a free choice and a personal belief system, and by trying to convince students that they should accept evolution teachers may achieve the opposite result and may decrease students’ acceptance of evolution. This practice may also answer the concern of indoctrination that was raised by some scientists, as the teachers will present the students different approaches without trying to convince them.
-
2.
The need to adapt to the students’ culture may be challenging in a multicultural classes, but a PD course should include searching and examining the different solutions to the conflict that each culture has, as the majority of teachers may encounter students from different sectors and cultures.
-
3.
Defining the borders between religion and science is a very important practice, as the perception of religion as part of science is one of the main concerns of those who oppose relating to religion in a science class. This study emphasizes the importance of defining the borders between both. One of the ReCCEE practices is to relate to the nature of science, but in the PD course teachers should also be exposed to the nature of religion, which may enable them to distinguish between the two with their students.
-
4.
As in many classes the students’ religious sector may be different from the teachers’ sector, this study suggests considering a collaboration with experts. One of the goals in a PD course may be to find such experts, thus the course instructors may offer a pool of religious leaders and scientists who will be willing to cooperate with teachers. This suggestion may also answer the ReCCEE important practice of presenting the students with role models.
-
5.
Relating to the creation story in a science class may sound controversial, but as the main source of rejecting evolution is the literal understanding of the creation story, although according to many Jewish rabbis and commentators it should not be understood literally. Thus, teachers should be aware of the possible religious perceptions of the creation story, and they can even discuss it with their students, if they think it is appropriate and helpful in their classes.
In a previous study we tried to implement the practices suggested here in a teacher PD course. In this course a quarter of the total time of the course was dedicated to students’ religious based opposition. Following the course, the participating teachers indicated it made them feel more confident in relating to religion in class (Siani et al. 2022), although it wasn’t enough and a comprehensive course that will fit the Israeli Jewish population is still needed. A lack of proper qualifications was mentioned previously by teachers in Israel (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022a), and teachers are willing to invest time and effort into seminars and teacher PD courses to enrich their knowledge, and obtain tools to deal with the opposition to learning evolution (Siani and Yarden 2021).
To summarize, as it was found that students’ perceived conflict between evolution and religion is a stronger predictor of evolution acceptance than understanding or religiosity (Barnes et al. 2021), we suggest that the conflict should be related to in class. Here we demonstrated the gap between scientists and teachers regarding the question of relating to religion in a science class. We offer the opposing scientists to consider the experience of public school biology teachers, as they are at the front line of the public controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution (Friedrichsen et al. 2018), and as they teach a wider segment of the population than those who teach college students. Therefore, the teachers' perspectives on the issue are very important, and a proper PD program should prepare them to cope with the challenges. Moreover, half of the participants indicated their teachers had influenced their acceptance of evolution (Stahi-Hitin and Yarden 2022b), which emphasizes the important role teachers may have in shaping their students’ approach toward evolution, and the importance of preparing the teachers to deal with this challenge toward better evolution education for all.
