Science teachers are often challenged by students, parents, or the public about aspects of what they teach. Examples include scientific theories such as the Big Bang or biological evolution, and contemporary issues such as vaccination or climate change. How can or should a teacher respond to such incidents? The first step is to determine whether the classroom challenge is pedagogically legitimate, or whether dealing with it would constitute an illegitimate use of class time. The next step is for the teacher to decide whether the challenge can best be responded to from a scientific point of view, or whether it would be more appropriately approached from another perspective.

It may be that the classroom challenge is extrascientific in character, stemming from a student’s anxiety that some element of a scientific question or theory seems to challenge his or her worldview. Is a student unwilling to discuss the scientific evidence for climate change because he fears that it will carry political or economic implications at odds with what he has learned in his family? Is the student reluctant to discuss evolution seriously because she is afraid she will be forced to choose between (1) belief in the tenets of her religious tradition, and (2) acceptance of the evolutionary assumptions of modern biology?

The staff of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California have extensive experience assisting teachers negotiate the minefields of science denial. Using examples from cases we have encountered, this presentation will suggest effective ways in which teachers can protect the content of their science courses without discounting student or parental concerns. There are good ways to deal with science denial by leading students to a clear understanding of the philosophical background of an apparent conflict. One can show them, for example, how accepting a compelling argument for climate change need not necessarily entail acceptance of a particular economic policy. Reframing scientific questions in light of a clear understanding of a student’s worldview can go a long way toward defusing potential conflict.

The annual celebration of Charles Darwin’s birthday give us an opportunity to consider the significance of the evolutionary paradigm that permeates most dimensions of postmodern thought. Anyone with the slightest brush with education will recognize that we inhabit an ancient, dynamic, and evolving universe. In recent decades the debate about the relationship between science and religion, and the appropriate place of each in a pluralistic society, has become so acrimonious as at times to erupt in incivility.

This talk will explore the varying reception of evolution by modern religious groups. Some reject evolution completely, insisting upon a young universe, a recent creation, a literal Adam and Eve in a literal Garden of Eden, and a literal Noachian flood that covered the entire planet. Under this broad umbrella of science denial exists a number of subcategories, ranging from so-called “young earth creationism” to self-styled “intelligent design” theory.

Many people in ancient faith traditions now recognize that religion has everything to gain from a bold and incisive engagement with it. What does theology look like if it takes science seriously? What does science and its objects of study look like if we approach them with religious faith? These are hermeneutical questions about the translation of meaning not only across time and space, but between the contrasting cultures of religion and science. The interpretive framework within which a theistic evolutionist reads the Bible, church history, doctrinal theology, and religious ethics will inevitably reflect an unimaginably vast, ancient, dynamic and evolving universe.

This discussion will broach two central questions: (1) is it possible for religious believers both a) to believe in a purposeful God and b) at the same time to accept the evolutionary assumptions of modern cosmology, geology, biology, genetics, and neuroscience? I will contend not only that this is possible, but that it is essential for their coherence that religious traditions integrate the evolutionary world view into their theologies and religious cultures. (2) Second, what are the parameters of free thought in a pluralistic society? Do the interests of science and secularism demand the erasure of all cultural traditions that do not meet the rigorous demands of scientific reductionism? What place is there in our educational system for introducing students to some of the many religious and philosophical traditions developed by human kind over the last 3,500 years?