Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Taber, Keith; Billingsley, Berry; Riga, Fran; Newdick, Helen (2011)
Publisher: International Council of Associations for Science Education (ICASE)
Languages: English
Types: Article
Scientists hold a wide range of beliefs on matters of religion, although popular media coverage in the UK commonly suggests that atheism is a core commitment for scientists. Considering the relationship between religion and science is a recommended topic in the English National Curriculum for lower secondary pupils (11-14 year-olds), and it is expected that different perspectives will be considered. However it is well established that many pupils may have difficulty accessing sophisticated ideas about the nature of science, and previous research suggests some may identify science with scientism. To explore pupil impressions of the relationship between science and religion, 13-14 year old pupils were surveyed in one class from each of four English secondary schools, by asking them to rate a set of statements about the relationship between science and religion, and scientific and religious perspectives on the origins of the world, and of life on earth, on the value of prayer and on the status of miracles. The survey revealed diverse views on these issues, reflecting the wider society. However it was found that a considerable proportion of the pupils in the sample considered religious beliefs and scientific perspectives to be opposed. The basis and potential consequences of such views are considered, and the need for more attention to this area of student thinking is highlighted.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Alexander, D. R. (2008). Creation or Evolution: Do we have to choose? Oxford: Monarch Books.
    • Barbour, I. G. (1966). Issues in Science and Religion. London: SCM Press.
    • Barbour, I. G. (1988). Ways of relating science and theology. In R. J. Russell, W. R. Stoeger & G. V. Coyne (Eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Theology: A Common Quest for Understanding (pp. 21-42). Vatican City State: Vatican Observatory.
    • Barbour, I. G. (2002). Nature, Human Nature, and God. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
    • Barrett, J. L. (2000). Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 29-34.
    • Biddle, B. J., & Anderson, D. S. (1986). Theory, methods, knowledge and research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 230-252). New York: Macmillan.
    • Billingsley, B. (2004). Ways of Approaching the Apparent Contradictions between Science and Religion. Hobart: PhD Thesis, University of Tasmania.
    • Black, P. J., & Lucas, A. M. (Eds.). (1993). Children's Informal Ideas in Science. London: Routledge.
    • Bovey, N. (2008). God, the Big Bang and Bunsen-burning issues. Milton Keynes: Authentic.
    • Brickhouse, N. W., Dagher, Z. R., Letts, W. J., & Shipman, H. L. (2000). Diversity of Students‟ Views about Evidence, Theory, and the Interface between Science and Religion in an Astronomy Course. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 340-362.
    • Brooke, J., & Cantor, G. (1998). Reconstructing Nature: The engagement of Science and Religion. Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd.
    • Claxton, G. (1993). Minitheories: a preliminary model for learning science. In P. J. Black & A. M. Lucas (Eds.), Children's Informal Ideas in Science (pp. 45-61). London: Routledge.
    • Cobern, W. W., & Loving, C. C. (2002). An investigation of preservice elementary teachers' thinking about science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(10), 1016-1031.
    • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. London, Routledge-Falmer.
    • Cray, D., Dawkins, R., & Collins, F. (2006, Nov. 05). God vs. Science. Time. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1555132,00.html
    • Driver, R. (1989). Students‟ conceptions and the learning of science. International Journal of Science Education, 11(special issue), 481-490.
    • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young People's Images of Science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
    • Esbenshade, D. H. (1993). Student Perceptions about Science & Religion. The American Biology Teacher, 55(6), 334-338.
    • Fensham, P. J. (2004). Defining an Identity: The evolution of science education as a field of research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
    • Fulljames, P., Gibson, H. M., & Francis, L. J. (1991). Creationism, Scientism, Christianity and Science: a study in adolescent attitudes. British Educational Research Journal, 17(2), 171 - 190.
    • Fulljames, P., & Stolberg, T. (2000). Consonance, Assimilation or Correlation?: Science and Religion Courses in Higher Education. Science & Christian Belief, 12(1), 35-46.
    • Good, R. (2005). Scientific and Religious Habits of Mind: Irreconcilable tensions in the curriculum. New York: Peter Lang.
    • Gould, S. J. (2001). Rocks of Ages: Science and religion in the fullness of life. London: Jonathan Cape.
    • Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding models and their use in science: conceptions of middle and high school students and experts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
    • Hanley, P. (2008). Controversy in school?: Origin of life and the science/religion overlap. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, September.
    • Hansson, L., & Redfors, A. (2007a). Physics and the Possibility of a Religious View of the Universe: Swedish Upper Secondary Students‟ Views Science & Education, 16(3-5), 461-478.
    • Hansson, L., & Redfors, A. (2007b). Upper secondary students in group discussions about physics and our presuppositions of the world Science & Education, 16(3-5), 1007- 1025.
    • HCSTC. (2005). Strategic Science Provision in English Universities. London: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.
    • Justi, R., & Gilbert, J. K. (2000). History and philosophy of science through models: some challenges in the case of „the atom‟. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 993-1009.
    • Kelemen, D. (2004). Are Children "Intuitive Theists"? Psychological Science, 15(5), 295-301.
    • Leach, J., Hind, A., & Ryder, J. (2003). Designing and Evaluating Short Teaching Interventions About the Epistemology of Science in High School Classrooms. Science Education, 87(6), 831 - 848.
    • Loving, C. C., & Foster, A. (2000). The religion-in-the science classroom-issue: Seeking graduate student conceptual change. Science Education, 84(4), 445-468.
    • McCloskey, M. (1983). Intuitive physics. Scientific American, 248(4), 114-122.
    • Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1998). Beyond 2000: Science education for the future. London: King‟s College.
    • National Statistics. (2008, 5 December). Census 2001 - Profiles - England. Retrieved 5th December 2008, from
    • http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/64-A.asp
    • Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: a scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
    • Polkinghorne, J. (2008). Theology in the Context of Science. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.
    • Poole, M. (2008). Creationism, intelligent design and science education. School Science Review, 90(330), 123-129.
    • QCA. (2004). Religious Education: The non-statutory national framework. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
    • QCA. (2007a). Science: Programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment targets. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
    • QCA. (2007b). Science: Programme of study for key stage 4. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
    • Reiss, M. J. (2008). Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue? Studies in Science Education, 44(2), 157-186
    • Rutledge, M. L., & Mitchell, M. A. (2002). High School Biology Teachers‟ Knowledge Structure, Acceptance, and Teaching of Evolution. American Biology Teacher, 64, 21- 28.
    • Rutledge, M. L., & Warden, M. (2000). Evolutionary theory, the nature of science and high school biology teachers: Critical relationships. American Biology Teacher, 62, 23-31.
    • Scott, E. C., & Branch, G. (2003). Evolution: what‟s wrong with „teaching the controversy‟. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18(10), 499-502.
    • Shayer, M., & Adey, P. (1981). Towards a Science of Science Teaching: Cognitive development and curriculum demand. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Books.
    • Smith, M. U. (1994). Counterpoint: Belief, Understanding, and the Teaching of Evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(5), 591-597.
    • Solomon, J. (1992). Getting to Know about Energy - in School and Society. London: Falmer Press.
    • Taber, K. S. (2000). Multiple frameworks?: Evidence of manifold conceptions in individual cognitive structure. International Journal of Science Education, 22(4), 399-417.
    • Taber, K. S. (2006). Exploring pupils‟ understanding of key „nature of science‟ terms though research as part of initial teacher education. School Science Review, 87(321), 51-61.
    • Taber, K. S. (2007). Classroom-based research and evidence-based practice: a guide for teachers. London: SAGE.
    • Taber, K. S. (2008). Blind scientists take a God's-eye view. Physics Education, 43(6), 564- 566.
    • Taber, K. S. (2009). Progressing Science Education: Constructing the scientific research programme into the contingent nature of learning science. Dordrecht: Springer.
    • Tierney, J., Sinkie, E., & Gregory, J. (Eds.). (2005). Education Yearbook 2005/2206. Harlow, England: Pearson Education.
    • Watts, M., & Gilbert, J. K. (1983). Enigmas in school science: students‟ conceptions for scientifically associated words. Research in Science and Technological Education, 1(2), 161-171.
    • Wilkinson, D. (2005). Hawking, Dawkins and The Matrix: science and religion in the media. In D. Alexander (Ed.), Can we be sure about anything? Science, faith and postmodernism (pp. 214-236). Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article