7/27/2019 Disentangling Science and Ideology

1/1

Mays editorial, titled The Intrusion of

Fundamentalist Religion into Biology Edu-

cation, touched on many important issues

for biology educators that deserve more

attention. In many ways I agree with the

conclusion that we all must be on guard

for the erosion of science and intrusion of

religion into education, although this blan-

ket statement requires more clarification.

Censorship and manipulation of facts to

fit religious dogma definitely erode science

and education, but the discussion of ideo-

logical viewpoints (political, social, religious,economic, etc.) is a vital component of a

well-rounded education that fosters critical

thinking. It is also important to note that the

inappropriate intrusion of ideological dogma

is not limited to fundamentalist religious

beliefs. For example, many prominent athe-

ists are as guilty as religious fundamentalists

in pushing their ideologies into science and

education. Ideology and science are inap-

propriately intertwined in the United States

mainly, I would argue, because most citi-

zens lack a basic understanding of the nature

of science (i.e., its history, philosophy, andpractices). This deficit is evident in both

extremes of the debate about the teaching

of evolution in U.S. schools as described in

the recent editorial.

Science seeks natural explanations for the

physical world and is therefore silent on the

existence of God, questions of morality, and

other typically religious concepts. Unfor-

tunately, this distinction is not well under-

stood by the vast majority of our society. A

proper understanding of the goals and pro-

cess of scientific inquiry is vital for every

citizen. Therefore, identifying the difference

between scientific questions and explana-

tions and those that are fundamentally ideo-

logical, philosophical, or theological must

be emphasized in every science classroom.

Regrettably, many teachers avoid these issues,

out of either ignorance or fear of the reper-

cussions of such a dialogue. It is a tragedy

that our educational system teaches the facts

of science but leaves most students unable

to give an accurate definition of science, let

alone explain the distinction between scien-

tific questions and those that are inherently

nonscientific. This approach sets up a false

dichotomy of science versus religion and

ultimately shifts many discussions away from

the science itself.

As biology educators, it is our duty to

ensure that our students have a proper under-standing of the nature of scientific inquiry.

The new AP Biology curriculum and the

Next Generation Science Standards seem

to be on the right path in emphasizing the

integration of the practices of science with

content knowledge in science teaching; how-

ever, teaching the process of science is not

enough. In order for students to develop a

proper understanding of the nature of sci-

ence, teachers must design learning expe-

riences that help students recognize that

scientific explanations answer certain types

of questions about the natural world andhow these differ from the types of questions

that nonscientific explanations can answer.

Of course, this requires that science teachers

at all levels are well educated in the history

and philosophy of science, which is not the

case at present.

Obviously, developing a proper appre-

ciation and understanding of the nature of

science in every citizen of our society is a

very difficult task that will require changes

in teacher education, pedagogy, and scien-

tific discourse. Because we teach the science

of life itself, I would argue that biology edu-

cators have more opportunity than in any

other discipline to help students develop a

proper understanding of the nature of sci-

ence. The teaching of evolution is a natural

point at which to explicitly discuss scientific

versus nonscientific explanations. I have

found that when students develop a proper

understanding of the difference between sci-

entific and nonscientific explanations in gen-

eral, they are more receptive to the scientific

explanation for the diversity of life, regardless

of their religious beliefs. I highly recommend

the materials developed by the Modeling for

Understanding in Science Education (MUSE)

Project, available at http://ncisla.wceruw.org/

muse/ as well as the Understanding Evolu-

tion website at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/,

for teaching both the nature of science andbiological evolution.

It is important to note that evolution is not

the only issue where science and ideo logy get

confused; climate change, conservation biol-

ogy, and biomedical ethics are also rife with

opportunities to help students understand

the nature of science. Discussion of these top-

ics requires both scientific and ideological

considerations. It is important for teachers

to explicitly address the distinction between

science and ideology without proselytizing

in order to help students develop an under-

standing of the difference between scientificand ideological ideas. Disentangling science

and ideology requires a firm grasp of the

nature of scientific inquiry, including the roles

of observation and inference in science, and

an appreciation for the explanatory power of

scientific theories. Developing these capacities

in our students must be our first priority if

we hope to build a society of critical thinkers

who are prepared to apply scientific knowl-

edge to solve complex problems.

WENDY JOHNSON is a former high schoolbiology teacher in Lansing, MI, and now a

doctoral student at Michigan State University.

E-mail: john3062@msu.edu.

DOI: 10.1525/abt.2013.75.8.2

516 THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY TEACHER VOLUME 75, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2013

W E N D Y J O H N S O N

GUEST DISENTANGLING SCIENCE & IDEOLOGY

EDITORIAL