Incorporating theology and philosophy of science into the physics classroom

Abstract

This article is a small empirical study based on two assignments, both involving reading and writing, in two physics courses at a Christian college. Students read theological, philosophical, and scientific arguments and produced research papers. By performing interdisciplinary intellectual work, students considered the compatibility of science and Christian faith through a specific issue: the age of the earth and universe. Students indicated that they both changed and formed beliefs through their completion of the assignments. Furthermore, students became more amenable to the possibility that the principles of Christianity and science are compatible. The authors argue that incorporating theological questions into science classes fosters students' faith as well as their learning and moral development.

Keywords

age of the earth physics classroom science and Christian faith

Introduction

In the past few decades some scientists, particularly those of Christian faith—such as Ian G Barbour, John C Polkinghorne, Hugh Ross, Fazale Rana, Francis Collins, and others—have participated in the contentious work of reconciling faith and science through their scholarship. Atheistic and agnostic scientists are also contributing to this interdisciplinary conversation, including Richard Dawkins, Paul Davies, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Sean Carroll, and others. Publishers ranging from Eerdmans to Harvard and Oxford have produced works on these intersections, and the journals Science and Christian Belief and Theology and Science were founded in 1989 and 2003, respectively.¹ In 2014, the American Association for the Advancement of Science awarded ten “Science for Seminaries” grants to promote the integration of science and theology. Philosophers and theologians have also contributed to far-reaching discussions about faith and science, including Alvin Plantinga and William H Newton-Smith.

Referencing many of the aforementioned scholars, and in conjunction with emerging pedagogical studies on the intersection of faith and learning, a community of professors are currently writing and talking about how to teach science from a Christian perspective. Arlin C Migliazzo's (2002) edited collection Teaching as an Act of Faith, for example, features a section on the natural sciences, with three chapters on mathematics, physics/astronomy, and biology. Miriam R Diamond's (2008) Encountering Faith in the Classroom includes a chapter by Mano Singham titled, “When Science and Faith Collide.” A chapter titled, “A World of Discovery through the Natural Sciences” appears in the collection written by Wheaton College faculty, Liberal Arts for the Christian Life (Davis and Ryken, 2012). Significantly, Samuel Joeckel and Thomas Chesnes's The Christian College Phenomenon, a book that published the results from an extensive survey of institutions within the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), devotes a section to “Evolution and the Science Classroom”—the only disciplinary section in this publication (Joeckel and Chesnes, 2012).²

To continue conversations about science, theology, and teaching among Christian educators, this article presents data on assignments required in two physics courses at a CCCU member institution, Sterling College. Two assignments instructed students to synthesize both scientific and theological questions, focusing on a specific issue, the age of the earth and universe, as well as a more general one, the compatibility of faith and science. Data were taken both before and after the assignment. The data, reported in the Results section, indicate that students significantly changed their thinking and/or formed beliefs about the issues in question following completion of written assignments. These results suggest not only that learning occurs when students synthesize scientific and religious perspectives but also that students become more amenable to the possibility that Christian faith is compatible with science when required to investigate related questions in an assignment.

Many resources on faith, science, and education provide theological justification for integrating science and religion, and some of these resources include discussion of specific classroom strategies, assignments, and lessons. However, the existing literature tends to present comprehensive approaches to science classes with only brief explanations of specific pedagogical strategies. By providing data and a focused explanation of two assignments in two physics classes, this article demonstrates empirically the benefits of requiring students at Christian colleges to engage matters of Christian belief alongside scientific inquiry. This study additionally furthers questions of faith, science, and education by asking students to consider the age of the earth and universe rather than evolutionary theory—two views the authors do not consider inseparable. In what follows, we will survey recent pedagogical articles on faith and science before proceeding to sections on Methods, Results, Analysis, Limitations, and Discussion.

Scholarly resources on teaching science alongside the Christian religion tend to follow two trajectories: (i) essays emphasizing general principles that connect the disciplines of theology and science as well as justify their integration, or (ii) essays that include general principles for interdisciplinary perspectives but focus on pedagogical strategies. Two biology essays included in The Reality of Christian Learning (Heie and Wolfe, 1987) fall in the former trajectory, as well as Richard T Wright's (1989) Biology Through the Eyes of Faith.³ Dorothy F Chappell's chapter for Liberal Arts for the Christian Life is organized around general principles, as she expresses an approach to faith and science governed by a particular understanding of the task of Christian students: “to praise and worship the Lord through their study of natural science and to use science as a means of grace to humankind, the earth, and its atmosphere” (Chappell, 2012: 190). John C Polkinghorne's (2006) chapter for an edited collection, Christianity and the Soul of the University, also falls in the former category. He writes in support of interdisciplinary approaches to the sciences, and suggests that creating “unity within a scholarly community” is the work of “a true university” (Polkinghorne, 2006: 50).

The second trajectory, focusing on practical strategies for integrating science and theology, is of greater significance to the present study. Lois Kieffaber's (2002) and Lee Anne Chaney's (2002) chapters for Teaching as an Act of Faith both provide practical suggestions regarding lectures, discussions, activities, and assignments for the physics, astronomy, and biology classrooms. Kieffaber's in-class approaches include discussions/lectures on topics such as the meaning of a worldview, distinct models of thinking regarding faith and science, the definition of a theory, and the history of interactions between Christian faith and science. She also mentions hands-on approaches, such as asking her students to interpret works of medieval art which express congruence between Christianity and science, and using quotations from scientists as a springboard for discussion. One assignment she suggests is a project that requires students to research the cultural context of a scientist to stimulate thinking about the ways in which cultural-religious forces influence scientific inquiry. In her biology classes, Chaney describes a weekly “reaction paper” that provides students with opportunities to integrate faith and learning on their own terms. She states that these papers “let students construct their own connections to what they see and wonder about” (Chaney, 2002: 150). Other practical strategies she describes include the use of cartoons to discuss worldviews and culture, work that requires students to conduct case studies or complete interdisciplinary projects, and writing assignments in response to readings or videos. Mano Singham's (2008) chapter in Encountering Faith in the Classroom, “When Science and Faith Collide,” describes strategies and approaches to a sophomore-level course titled “The Evolution of Scientific Ideas” (Singham, 2008: 147). Singham provides comprehensive information about this course, including discussion questions, reading assignments, and his thought process regarding whether he would reveal his own beliefs to his students.

Research on science and religion, as well as scholarship directed at how to teach these two disciplines alongside one another, has indeed contributed to a growing and flourishing body of resources. However, as the Joeckel and Chesnes (2012) survey discussed in The Christian College Phenomenon reveals, challenges related to the teaching of science and faith “[remain] significant” (Chesnes, 2012: 290). For example, Chesnes explains, “The teaching of evolution is also often framed in the rhetoric or context of holy war, sometimes linking the scientific theory to spiritual battles between angels and demons for the souls and minds of students” (Chesnes, 2012: 290–291). The attention Joeckel and Chesnes give to religion and science in their survey, and their subsequent inclusion of a section focused on these findings, demonstrates the need for continued scholarship on teaching methods integrating these two disciplines at Christian institutions. This study, therefore, attempts to turn a corner in such interdisciplinary and pedagogical scholarship by presenting a focused study with data and by broadening the scope of topics to include the age of the earth and universe.

Methods

The purpose of this study was to examine the quantitative results of incorporating readings from the fields of theology and philosophy of science into introductory physics and physical science classes. In this research, the personal beliefs of the students on the compatibility of science and faith were recorded at the beginning of the course, before the assignment, and at the conclusion of the reading assignment in a qualitative assessment. This research took place at Sterling College, a Christian institution with a focus on weaving faith into academic study.

The participants used in this study were the 20 students who were enrolled in the Physical Science class, a general education science class with a lab, and the 13 students who enrolled in Physics I, an algebra based introductory physics class with a lab. The Physical Science students had a variety of different majors and class years. In the Physics I class, all students were majoring in either math or science, were sophomores or higher, and had taken at least one science class previously at Sterling College. Both classes were taught using the lecture style, the method of instruction for all science classes at Sterling College.

To assess the incoming views of the students in both classes, a reflective paper was assigned on the first day of class. The students were instructed to give their views on the compatibility of faith and science as well as to state their position on the age of the earth and universe. The students were told on the first day of class that all views were welcome. To encourage further the students that this class would be a safe place to ask questions, the college chaplain visited to provide the students with resources should these questions cause discomfort. The chaplain encouraged the students to ask questions, and informed them that the Theology and Ministry department was aware and supportive of the assignment. He also offered to counsel students should they find this assignment to be distressing.

After the initial reflection paper, the students were given a reading assignment to be completed over the course of the semester. The assignment varied based on the difficulty of the course, but the objective was the same: for students to consider the compatibility of science and Christian faith through studying the age of the earth and universe. The students in Physical Science read A Matter of Days: Resolving the Creation Controversy by Hugh Ross (2004).⁴ In this book, Ross, a Christian astrophysicist, argues for congruence between biblical theology and scientific evidence that indicate the earth and universe are billions of years old. This book was chosen for the ease with which it can be read and analyzed as well as the high degree of scientific accuracy in the theories discussed. The students enrolled in Physics I read both God and the New Physics by Paul Davies (1984) and Designed to Evolve by Christopher S Davis (2015). Davies is an agnostic physicist and philosopher of science who discusses the limitations of both theistic and atheistic views on scientific interpretation. Davis's book makes a scientific case for the compatibility of biblical theology with modern scientific findings in the fields of cosmology, quantum mechanics, and evolutionary sciences. Like Ross, Davis also argues that the earth and universe are billions of years old. These books were chosen for their levels of scientific accuracy and diversity of viewpoints. Additionally, they are sufficiently challenging for a more advanced course.

In both courses, students completed a semester-long assignment involving reading and writing, with the intention of having them question the compatibility of science and faith. The assignment consisted of having the students complete the readings, summarize the books, and write a research paper using additional scholarly material. In the research paper, students were asked to give an account of their views on the compatibility of science and faith as well as their updated view on the age of the earth and universe. As both these classes focused on physical science, students were discouraged from discussing evolution, as it is out of the scope of the physical sciences and not indicative of one's views on the age of the earth and universe. The choice to exclude evolution was not made to avoid the controversies associated with this theory, but instead to narrow the focus of the papers to subjects relevant to other course material. Students were given access to several books with views ranging from the atheistic philosophy of scientism (e.g. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, 2006) to young earth theology (e.g. The Created Cosmos: What the Bible Reveals About Astronomy by Answers in Genesis author Danny R Faulkner, 2016). It was emphasized repeatedly through the semester that any thesis presented could obtain an excellent grade, given that the viewpoint could be argued using sound scientific evidence, philosophical arguments, theological arguments, or some combination of the three. The students were instructed to be skeptical of all claims they read, and were encouraged to seek out literature that disagreed with their viewpoints, especially if they agreed with the authors assigned.

Responses regarding the compatibility of science and faith, given in both the initial reflection paper and the research paper, were recorded in the following categories:

Science and faith are compatible: The student holds a belief that an individual can subscribe to the principles of religious faith as well as empirical principles.

Science and faith are not compatible: The student holds a belief that one cannot subscribe to both religious faith and empirical principles. This category could include scientism as well as religious fundamentalism or inverse naturalism.

Undecided: The student is unsure whether empiricism and religious faith can be held in unity.

These views were not categorized by individual student, but simply by the number of students who held each view. The changes observed are in population totals to prevent bias by tracking individual students.

The students' views on the age of the earth from both the initial reflection paper and the research paper were categorized into the following:

Young earth: The student believes that the earth was divinely created by God in 6 literal days. The age of the earth is thought to be between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

Theistic old earth: The student believes that the earth and universe were divinely created by God over billions of years.

Secular old earth: The student believes the earth and universe have existed for billions of years and are not created.

Undecided: The student is not certain of the age of the earth and/or is undecided as to whether the earth is created.

As with the views on the compatibility of science and faith, individual changes in students were not tracked, merely the number of students whose beliefs fell into the above categories.

Results

The views of the students on the compatibility of science and faith were extracted from their initial reflection papers and their final research papers (see Table 1). At the start of the class, 20 percent of the Physical Science students thought science and faith could be compatible, 35 percent believed science and faith are not compatible, and 45 percent of students were undecided. At the conclusion of the assignment, 95 percent of the students in Physical Science believed science and faith could be compatible, 5 percent of the students did not believe that science and faith could be compatible, and no students were undecided.

Table 1

Views on the compatibility of science and faith before and after the assignment

Class	Before assignment			After assignment
Class	Science and faith are compatible	Science and faith are not compatible	Undecided	Science and faith are compatible	Science and faith are not compatible	Undecided
Physical science n = 20	4	7	9	19	1	0
Physics I n = 13	8	5	0	13	0	0
Combined n = 33	12	12	9	32	1	0

At the beginning of the Physics I class (see Table 1), 62 percent of the students believed science and faith were compatible, 38 percent believed science and faith were not compatible, and no students were undecided. At the conclusion of the assignment in the Physics I class, 100 percent of students expressed that they thought science and faith could be compatible.

The students' views on the age of the earth were also categorized using the initial reflection paper and research paper (see Table 2). These views do not encompass perspectives on biological evolution, but only the age of the earth and universe. At the start of the Physical Science class, 10 percent of the students believed the earth is young, 25 percent of the students believed in a created old earth, 20 percent of the students held secular old earth beliefs, and 45 percent of the students were undecided. At the conclusion of the class, 25 percent of the students believed the earth is young, 70 percent of the students held a created old earth belief, 5 percent of the students had secular old earth beliefs, and no students were undecided.

Table 2

Views on the age of the earth before and after the assignment

	Before assignment				After assignment
Class	Young earth	Theistic old earth	Secular old earth	Undecided	Young earth	Theistic old earth	Secular old earth	Undecided
Physical Science n = 20	2	5	4	9	5	14	1	0
Physics I n = 13	7	2	1	3	3	9	1	0
Total n = 33	9	7	5	12	8	23	2	0

At the beginning of the Physics I class (see Table 2), 54 percent of students held young earth beliefs, 15 percent of the students held theistic old earth beliefs, 8 percent held secular old earth beliefs, and 23 percent were undecided. At the conclusion of the assignment, 23 percent of the students stated they held young earth beliefs, 69 percent of students believed in an old created earth, 8 percent of students held secular old earth beliefs, and no students were undecided.

Analysis

One of the most successful aspects of this assignment was that students were able to form beliefs. At the beginning of class for both groups, a combined 27 percent of students were undecided on the compatibility of science and faith. At the end of the class, no students were undecided. All students had formed an idea on the compatibility of science and faith. Further, a combined 36 percent of students from both class groups were initially undecided regarding the age of the earth, and this percentage also dropped to 0 at the end of the class.

Although the undecided nature of the Physical Science class at the start of the semester is not surprising, as it is a general education course usually taken within the freshman year, it is interesting that 23 percent of the Physics I students were undecided on the age of the universe at the beginning of the course. All of these students were upperclassmen who had previously taken at least one science class at Sterling College. The sample size is too small to draw firm conclusions; however, the unformed views of upperclassmen could indicate that simply presenting creation in Bible class and presenting scientific theory in science class is insufficient for helping students to draw firm conclusions about the integration of the two subjects.

At the start of the Physical Science class, only 20 percent of students believed that science and faith could be compatible, and at the conclusion of the class, 95 percent of students held a belief that science and faith were compatible, a 130 percentage difference. A Matter of Days, the required book for this class (Ross, 2004), only presents the view that science and faith can be held in unison. Although the students were encouraged to read literature that disagreed with this viewpoint, this action was voluntary and may have contributed to the 130 percent difference. Should a version of this study be repeated, students could gain access to more perspectives by having a selection of books from which to choose as their primary source. They could also be required to compare A Matter of Days to a book that disagrees with one of its central premises.

In the case of the Physics I class, 62 percent of students believed science and faith could be compatible at the beginning of the semester. This increased to 100 percent at the semester's end, including the student who espoused secular beliefs on creation. In the Physics I class, students were exposed to both secular and theistic views on the compatibility of science and faith, yet there was still a dramatic increase in views of their compatibility. This increase is among students who had previously taken a science class taught from a Christian perspective. Given the students' previous coursework, the dramatic changes in their beliefs could indicate that merely teaching from a Christian perspective is insufficient to aid students in understanding the intricacies involved in reconciling scientific evidence with Christian faith. Rather, they may need direct engagement with specific theological and scientific questions in order to see for themselves what is at stake and how certain disputes between the two disciplines may be resolved.

The resources available to the students in the present study may have also contributed to the high increase in students who believe in the compatibility of faith and science at the course's conclusion. Scientific studies that incorporate religious questions at the Sterling College library espouse that scientific practice using empirical methods presents no threats to the Christian faith. Resources from various scientific perspectives tout this compatibility. For example, both Answers in Genesis, which holds the position that the earth is young and created, and Biologos, which holds that the earth is old and created, espouse that faith and science are compatible. Notably, organizations such as Answers in Genesis tend to affirm congruence between science and faith despite their conflict with mainstream scientific views. Christian scientists' affirmation of both science and faith is unsurprising, as all scientists must use the empirical methods to produce new research. The only readily available reading material that argues against the compatibility of science and faith is written by agnostics and atheists, such as Bill Nye, Sean Carroll, and others. For example, in a blog post titled, “Science and Religion are Not Compatible,” Carroll (2009) writes, “Scientifically speaking, the existence of God is an untenable hypothesis,” an argument he also maintains in his books. To challenge further students in future studies, this assignment could involve a theologian to guide students through theological arguments against the empirical methods.

There were significant changes in the beliefs students held regarding the age and creation of the earth. In the Physical Science class, 20 percent of students espoused secular origins. At the conclusion of the class, 5 percent still held this belief, a 120 percent difference. In the Physics I class, there was no change in those with secular beliefs. Although the sample size is small, exposure to arguments about Christian beliefs based in scientific findings may have contributed to these results. However, without knowing what these students were exposed to in other classes as well as chapel services, more research would need to be done to understand further this relationship.

In the Physics I class, there was an 80 percent difference in the decrease of the number of students who held young earth beliefs at the end of the class compared to the number who held young earth beliefs at the beginning of the class. In the Physical Science class, there was an 85 percent difference in the increase of the number of students who held young earth beliefs at the end of the class compared to the number at the beginning of the class. There are a number of factors that may have contributed to these differences. In the Physics I class, 23 percent of the students were undecided at the start of the class, whereas 45 percent of the students were undecided in the Physical Science class. This difference suggests that the increase in young earth beliefs may come from undecided students instead of students who have changed viewpoints. It is also possible that the undecided students were not forthright on their initial essay and may have stated that they were undecided when they indeed held young earth beliefs. The students in the Physical Science class who espoused young earth beliefs were passionate about their stance and may have had conversations with other students outside of class that impacted the results. The present design did not account for the influence students had on each other, which would need to be addressed in future studies. Students' impact on each other could be better understood with more research and a larger sample size. The smaller percentage of students who were undecided in the Physics I class, as well the percentage of students who held theistic old earth beliefs at the end of the class (69%), compared to the beginning of the class (15%), indicates that students may have changed their beliefs as the result of completing the assignment. This result is likely influenced by the books they read, which espouse that old earth theory is correct. Further, the Physics I class provided a mathematical basis for understanding modern scientific evidence for an old universe, a level of rigor that differs from the less mathematical and more simplistic evidence presented in the Physical Science course.

This study demonstrates the need for further research on how to integrate theological questions into science curricula, and should be repeated on a broader scale with a larger population. Ideally, professors would repeat similar studies in additional scientific disciplines to examine the difficult theological issues raised by current research in their specific fields. Biology classes at Christian institutions could have students examine general evolution and human evolution from both scientific and theological perspectives. Chemistry and Biopsychology classes could have students question bio-chemical determinism. A large-scale research project with professors who hold a wide range of personal beliefs would provide more information on the role of professors' views in shaping the students while also indicating how to minimize this impact so that students form their own beliefs from evidence-based arguments.

Limitations

This particular research project is a pilot study that tests an educational method within a Christian classroom. Although some of the findings are significant, further research with a larger sample and a more diverse group of students would provide greater insight regarding the integration of theology and Christian belief into the science classroom.

The sample size of students in this study is not optimal, as it is too small to test for statistical significance. There was also no random assignment. The student populations were determined by enrollment within a class. Given these limitations, a larger study should be conducted to see if the trends observed in the present study would continue with a larger group. Further, the students in this class were all from Sterling College, a Kansas school, and may not accurately represent a larger demographic. Further insight could be acquired by increasing the groups over several colleges and universities in different locations.

As Sterling College is a Christian school, most students (88%) held beliefs based in some level of theism at the start of the semester. It would be interesting to repeat this assignment or a similar one with a more religiously diverse group of students. In doing so, educators could also explore the impact of arguments for scientifically-based Christian views on creation for secular students.

Discussion

The reconciliation of science and faith is an ongoing issue that will need to be continually addressed both within the spheres of Christian and secular education. The results of this study indicate that educators cannot assume students are engaging with these issues outside the classroom even within a Christian college. For example, in his response to the Joeckel/Chesnes survey, Richard G Colling notes that “Biology and religion faculty members at Christian institutions still come under pressure and/or attack if they publicly acknowledge evolution” (Colling, 2012: 322). Affirming Colling's observation, Chesnes's chapter includes “free responses” from students and faculty who express frustrating limitations on both theological questions and scientific inquiry because of negative pressure from parents, administrators, and the wider Christian community (Chesnes, 2012: 293–294). One step that needs to be taken is to engage students directly by asking them to consider if their faith is compatible with the study of science and by providing them with opportunities to explore this question alongside their professors and peers in coursework. The Joeckel/Chesnes survey asked a similar question regarding the compatibility of evolution and Christianity, which indicated that many students begin their studies with an “either/or” view of science and faith (Chesnes, 2012: 290). Furthermore, students are often “surprised to learn that there is an ‘accommodationist’ or complementary view between science and religion” (Chesnes, 2012: 290). The results of the present study, as well as its relation to Colling's and Chesnes's discussion, indicates that science faculty at Christian institutions should not avoid contentious issues, such as evolution or the age of the earth and universe, but use such issues as opportunities to facilitate learning and to foster students’ faith.

The results of this study affirm current trends in education by demonstrating that interdisciplinary assignments deepen student engagement and enrich their learning experience. As James R Davis writes in support of interdisciplinary teaching, “problems in the ‘real world’ seldom present themselves in tidy, disciplinary packages” (Davis, 1995: ix). For many students, especially those at Christian institutions, significant problems emerge when science appears to contradict the Bible and inherited religious beliefs. Asking students to engage these perceived contradictions through academic study gives them the opportunity to consider such “real world” problems in Christian communities. Accordingly, we suggest that theology specifically needs to be engaged in the science classroom and studied seriously by both students and faculty.⁵ In Restoring the Soul of the University, Perry L Glanzer, Nathan F Alleman, and Todd C Ream argue that “theology should strengthen the soul of the university by helping to nourish every academic discipline” (Glanzer et al., 2017: 230). In particular, our study affirmed the recommendation that theology faculty should be involved with all disciplines and rewarded for service to their colleagues. The chaplain's visit to the Physical Science and Physics I courses may have alleviated students’ fears about transgressing forbidden intellectual boundaries. The professor of these courses, Emily Grace, consulted the Theology and Ministry department at Sterling College about readings. She also facilitated individual meetings between students and faculty so that students could discuss theological issues with an expert. Further arguing for the integration of theology with other disciplines, Glanzer, Alleman, and Ream also state that “Christian professors must read particular canonical works in their discipline that integrate theology and disciplinary insights” (Glanzer et al., 2017: 237). Again, our study affirmed this suggestion, as Grace is conversant with such “canonical works” as well as the Bible and theology, and she encourages her students similarly to integrate their own studies. As Christian institutions attempt to debunk assumptions that science and faith are incompatible by exploring interdisciplinary curricula, it is important that theologians offer their service to science faculty and that science faculty find resources to become theologically educated. Just as critically, Christian theologians must become more scientifically informed.

Our study provides insight into effective ways of engaging students in scientific and theological questions about which they are fearful or defensive. Through the course of the assignment, students in each class were reminded that all perspectives and beliefs are welcome in both the assignment and in class discussion. They were told they would not be graded on the view presented but on the strength of arguments made to support their view. The professor took special care to treat students with respect who sought to defend the young earth perspective. She obtained reading lists from the Theology and Ministry faculty regarding this perspective and challenged these students to defend their positions rigorously with scientific evidence and theological reasoning. Given that Christian students in particular tend to begin science courses with built-in walls against thinking scientifically and theologically, it is very important that they are encouraged to ask questions and find answers without feeling as if they are being pushed in one particular direction. Singham's reflection on his course, “The Evolution of Scientific Ideas,” underscores the importance of creating an environment of respect within the classroom. He writes, “to try and push change on someone who has a strong attachment to a belief is to encourage that person to build a shield around himself or herself and actually avoid the kind of contemplative action required for real growth and development” (Singham, 2008: 157). In particular, we contend that the affirmation of students as they pursued their own questions and answers contributed to the significant changes in students' thinking. As Singham suggests, students need to be free of pressures to hold a certain position so that they can engage in the difficult intellectual work of exploring questions, gathering evidence, articulating arguments, and forming beliefs.

The formation of and significant changes in students' beliefs about the compatibility of faith and science, as well as the age of the earth and universe, indicates that the assignments produced learning and possibly moral development in the students. Richard E Mayer's definition of learning as “a relatively permanent change in someone's knowledge based on the person's experience” applies to our students (Mayer, 1998: 3). For example, in the Physical Science class, the percentage of students who believe science and faith were compatible changed from 20 percent to 95 percent, and in the Physics I course, 62 percent to 100 percent. The only category in our results showing no change was the 8 percent who align with the secular old earth perspective. Additionally, the significant changes in students moving from undecided to holding a belief about the issues in question shows that the assignments may have been effective for helping students to develop morally. Specifically, the move to forming beliefs resembles the final stage in William G Perry, Jr's study of the moral development of students.⁶ Both classes contained students who began the semester undecided on the age of the earth and universe, 45 percent in Physical Science and 23 percent in Physics I. Both of these percentages dropped to 0 at the end of the assignments. Notably, our students demonstrated movement toward “commitment” to a perspective, belief, or idea, which Perry asserts is an indicator of moral growth (Perry, 1999: 61). These assignments were therefore not only successful for producing learning and triggering moral development in the students, but they also demonstrate that fostering conversation and trust between disciplines may be necessary for addressing one of the most contentious issues on Christian campuses.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Carroll S (2009) Science and religion are not compatible. 23 June. Available at: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2009/06/23/science-and-religion-are-not-compatible (accessed 6 January 2018).

Chaney

(2002) A careful convergence: Integrating biology and faith in the church-related college. In: Migliazzo

(ed.) Teaching as an Act of Faith: Theory and Practice in Church-Related Higher Education, New York: Fordham University Press, pp. 140–160.

Chappell

(2012) A world of discovery through the natural sciences. In: Davis

Ryken

(eds) Liberal Arts for the Christian Life, Wheaton: Crossway, pp. 179–190.

Chesnes

(2012) Deconstructing the second pillar of antievolutionism in Christian higher education. In: Joeckel

Chesnes

(eds) The Christian College Phenomenon: Inside America's Fastest Growing Institutions of Higher Learning, Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 289–299.

Colling

(2012) Evolution and Christian faith. In: Joeckel

Chesnes

(eds) The Christian College Phenomenon: Inside America's Fastest Growing Institutions of Higher Learning, Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 313–324.

Davies

(1984) God and the New Physics, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Davis

(2015) Designed to Evolve: Discovering God Through Modern Science, United States: Motif Press.

Davis

Ryken

(2012) Liberal Arts for the Christian Life, Wheaton, IL: Crossway.

Davis

(1995) Interdisciplinary Courses and Team Teaching, Phoenix: American Council on Education Oryx Press.

10.

Dawkins

(2006) The God Delusion, Great Britain: Bantam Press.

11.

Diamond

(2008) Encountering Faith in the Classroom: Turning Difficult Discussions into Constructive Engagement, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

12.

Faulkner

(2016) The Created Cosmos: What the Bible Reveals about Astronomy, Green Forest, AR: Master Books.

13.

Glanzer

Alleman

Ream

(2017) Restoring the Soul of the University: Unifying Christian Higher Education in a Fragmented Age, Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

14.

Hasker

(1987) Brains and persons. In: Heie

Wolfe

(eds) The Reality of Christian Learning: Strategies for Faith-Discipline Integration, Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, pp. 181–203.

15.

Heie

Wolfe

(1987) The Reality of Christian Learning: Strategies for Faith-Discipline Integration, Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

16.

Joeckel Chesnes (2012) The Christian College Phenomenon: Inside America's Fastest-Growing Institutions of Higher Learning, Abilene, TX: Abilene Christian University Press.

17.

Jones

(1987) The human brain and the meaning of humanness. In: Heie

Wolfe

(eds) The Reality of Christian Learning: Strategies for Faith-Discipline Integration, Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, pp. 155–180.

18.

Kieffaber

(2002) Christian theism: Alive and well in the physics and astronomy classroom. In: Migliazzo

(ed.) Teaching as an Act of Faith: Theory and Practice in Church-Related Higher Education, New York: Fordham University Press, pp. 117–139.

19.

Mayer

(1998) The Promise of Educational Psychology: Teaching for Meaningful Learning Vol. 2, Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.

20.

Migliazzo

(2002) Teaching as an Act of Faith: Theory and Practice in Church-Related Higher Education, New York: Fordham University Press.

21.

Perry

(1999) Forms of Intellectual and Ethical Development in the College Years: A Scheme, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

22.

Polkinghorne

(2006) Christian interdisciplinarity. In: Henry

Beaty

(eds) Christianity and the Soul of the University: Faith as a Foundation for Intellectual Community, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, pp. 49–64.

23.

Ross

(2004) A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy, Covina, CA: RTB Press.

24.

Singham

(2008) When faith and science collide. In: Diamond

(ed.) Encountering Faith in the Classroom: Turning Difficult Discussions into Constructive Engagement, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, pp. 147–159.

25.

Van Till

(2012) Inherited beliefs and evolved brains: A CCCU challenge. In: Joeckel

Chesnes

(eds) The Christian College Phenomenon: Inside America's Fastest Growing Institutions of Higher Learning, Abilene: Abilene Christian University Press, pp. 301–311.

26.

Wright

(1989) Biology Through the Eyes of Faith, San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers.