Abstract
This is a book about two battles, and two accompanying frustrations: first, the attempt to remove the long-ago-debunked ‘conflict thesis’ from our classrooms; and second, the attempt to motivate practicing teachers to read up on educational research and act upon it. It is, therefore, both an optimistic and a wearied work, with contributions from experts who hope for the best but have frequently faced the worst. They know their stuff, all right – but can they actually get the message across to those oh-so-important people – classroom teachers – who face the everyday task of delivering it?
The trio of editors have each given much of their adult lives to thinking about the relationship between Science and Religion, and about how that relationship should be communicated to students. Reiss, of course, found himself mired in controversy over the issue back in 2008 – hounded out of the Royal Society by Fellows who thought that his Religion might negatively affect his Science. Conflict, indeed.
This leads neatly into the book’s first of three sections, ‘Beyond Barbour’. Ian Barbour, in 1998, had offered three further possible relationships other than Conflict: Independence; Dialogue; Integration. Although these relationships undoubtedly serve as a useful launchpad, they are still overly simple, claims our text. We are warned as early as p. 2 that: ‘The relationships between science and religion are complex—and often it seems that talking about those relationships is more complex still.’ Quite.
In ‘Beyond Barbour’, we are treated to some of that complexity. Tuomas Manninen’s imaginative chapter uses Disney’s Inside Out to show why Barbour’s neat division might not be sufficient. In the film, the very young heroine initially experiences her emotions one at a time; in her adolescence, however, her different emotions combine – and produce real richness.
Manninen’s contention is that in real life, Barbour’s headings will blur into one another. Referring to a Catholic student torn on the issue of Adam and Eve, Manninen says: ‘Despite the fact that the Catholic Church has publicly stated that scientific discoveries do not conflict with the Church’s theology, this remains true at a somewhat abstract level. But when the issue is put to an individual member of the Church, the abstractions may fade away’ (p. 25). This is a messy sentence – not in the sense that it is written badly, but that it is describing a bit of a mess. This poor lad saw one thing in the Bible, another in the classroom, another in his emotions, and yet another when taught formal doctrine. It is little wonder that he, and many like him, remain confused.
The second section is ‘Beyond Bare Statistics’. Here, we begin the transition from theory to practice. Christina Easton’s chapter is, to me at least, a joy. I have long felt that anecdotal evidence is dangerously underrated, especially when it comes from teachers, and here it is used to full effect. A former Religious Education teacher, Easton puts it out there really rather simply: the conflict thesis is thriving in modern education.
What makes this chapter luminescent is the character of Easton herself, for she represents hope. The in-classroom discussions she describes are like a bright light in a dark tunnel. What’s more, she finishes up with actual, real, achievable recommendations: teachers should actively ‘provide opportunities for assumptions held by students to be questioned’, and ‘dispel the myth of unanimity’ and of ‘certainty’ in science (p. 135). Amen!
The final section, ‘Beyond Chalk and Talk’, is a sensible progression, and focuses entirely on application. Once again, one chapter stands out: that of Stephanie Bryant, Cara Daneel and Lizzie Henderson. Here, Easton’s hopeful suggestions are being lived out – anecdotes abound, and bad thinking about Science and Religion is emphatically corrected. It seems to me that external intervention in the form of knowledgeable, personable and talented individuals coming in for an ‘event’ – students in smaller groups, critical thinking tasks aimed at specific conflict thesis ideas, extended Q&A times – might be the ultimate solution to the two struggles I mentioned at the start of this review.
The conflict thesis is preached too loudly by too many for us to just wish it away and, realistically, most teachers simply will not read educational research and change their teaching. The likes of Bryant and Henderson, however, can make a difference; anyone wondering how the conflict thesis nut will eventually be cracked might want to pick up this volume to find the answer. Thankfully, this book ends not with frustration – as it threatened to for much of the journey – but with hope.